|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Welfarism
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
But lack of a better solution is basically the status quo so nothing has changed.
But what is the status quo? Do we both have the same view of it? You might argue that the demographic of schools in poor areas has nothing to do with the problem. I might disagree with your model of what motivates a student. Then we could launch into an argument about solutions not realising we're trying to fix different problems.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Not all the time, no. It's an odd dynamic, the idea that one can't present a problem in a discussion without presenting a potential solution in the next breath. I notice that you haven't agreed or disagreed with my statements, only challenged me on where the solutions might be. I think that it's probably better to talk through the problem first.
I think the agreed problem is the lack of equality of opportunity. What you are then identifying are possible causes of that. If you believe those to be causes of the problems, I was assuming you want those causes addressed.
To directly answer you - I think the problem is the lack of equality of opportunity. I'm not sure I agree that the causes you identify are fundamental.
However, if you can show that by removing these causes (i.e. a solution) that the problem is resolved then I might be convinced. That is why I asked for your solutions.
[ 18. November 2010, 19:14: Message edited by: ianjmatt ]
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
If you believe those to be causes of the problems, I was assuming you want those causes addressed.
Of course I would, but that doesn't mean I necessarily know how, nor that it's not worthwhile discussing what the causes are in the absence of a solution. It's a discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
However, if you can show that by removing these causes (i.e. a solution) that the problem is resolved then I might be convinced. That is why I asked for your solutions.
One could only show that by real life experience of the solution in action. My theoretical solution would hardly do that would it?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
]One could only show that by real life experience of the solution in action. My theoretical solution would hardly do that would it?
No, but by testing the argument through debate we could see if it stood up.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't see that that works.
Take an example - I think that the demographics of a deprived school are a substantial problem. You don't. We could argue round about the likely effect or desirability of targeted resources based on privation, or of redrawing catchment areas etc. However, we'll have irreconcilable views because at the base of it I think these measures are addressing a real component of the problem and you don't. I don't see how one could resolve that except by discussing the baseline belief itself.
But in a way this is besides the point - because you didn't say "I'm not sure that's the problem - illustrate that by telling me how x will work in practice if you tackle it" - you said "I don't get it. You keep identifying what you see as problems, but don't seem to be offering any solutions. What is your point."
The latter implies that you feel I shouldn't identify problems without solutions as a fundamental position.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, I've always hated that assumption. If you don't have a solution of your own, you have no right to find fault with our solution. Sorry, if your solution makes things worse, or violates basic rights or principles, lack of a better solution is no justification for it.
But lack of a better solution is basically the status quo so nothing has changed.
Better to change nothing than to change for the worse.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The difficulty is that some of these things are circular. It's difficult to make the schools in poor areas as good as the rich when the former have 20% speaking English as a 2nd language, more special needs, more children heading for exclusions, more children being taken out of school during term time or moving into/out of the area etc.
The poor bring their problems with them, and the rich area schools are sometimes helped by not having to deal with them.
And to think I was being roundly criticised for "thinking the problem is the poor themselves" earlier. How do you get away with it when I don't?
If the things you mention are the true causes of the problem, then they are still going to apply no matter what the policy is on school admissions. The kids who have those problems will still have them whether they go to St Poshgit's Public School, Our Lady-in-the-Middle Grammar or Ghetto Comprehensive. It follows that the solution is not to change the school admissions process, which would merely spread the problems out across a wider range of schools, but to actually deal with the problems themselves.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least you managed to state the obvious
Funny how it's obvious when applied to machine guns and body armour, but when applied to education people suddenly start thinking that removing one person's opportunity in order to give it to someone else is a good and desirable thing...
But you were the one who derided 'throwing more money at it' as a solution. If I'd said 'Let's spend more on education', you would have accused me of typical left wing spending plans!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The difficulty is that some of these things are circular. It's difficult to make the schools in poor areas as good as the rich when the former have 20% speaking English as a 2nd language, more special needs, more children heading for exclusions, more children being taken out of school during term time or moving into/out of the area etc.
The poor bring their problems with them, and the rich area schools are sometimes helped by not having to deal with them.
And to think I was being roundly criticised for "thinking the problem is the poor themselves" earlier. How do you get away with it when I don't?
If the things you mention are the true causes of the problem, then they are still going to apply no matter what the policy is on school admissions. The kids who have those problems will still have them whether they go to St Poshgit's Public School, Our Lady-in-the-Middle Grammar or Ghetto Comprehensive. It follows that the solution is not to change the school admissions process, which would merely spread the problems out across a wider range of schools, but to actually deal with the problems themselves.
OK, how's this for a compromise: some of the problems of the poor are inherent, including those identified above. However, there are many children from poorer backgrounds whose main problem is not inherent, but caused by going to schools taking a high proportion of children with inherent problems. Those bright, able children are held back by being at a school struggling to educate a more than averagely difficult bunch of children, and are unlikely to have the capacity to add value to a bright child.
If that child had equal access to the good schools in the neighbouring posher area, it would get a better education and maybe go on to a more fulfilling career (or at least have a wider choice of careers). Meanwhile, the children in 'posher school' are benefitting from not having the children with problems in their school.
What we want is a solution which means that children from all types of homes get an equal crack at a good education. Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The difficulty is that some of these things are circular... poor areas... 20% speaking English as a 2nd language, more special needs, more children heading for exclusions... The poor bring their problems with them
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How do you get away with it when I don't?
The way I put it? Perhaps partly because I don't then say;
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It follows that the solution is not to change the school admissions process, which would merely spread the problems out across a wider range of schools
It doesn't follow that all the children in poor areas have all of the problems I listed. You might have child A in a stable home, reasonably bright, English as a first language, but not making much progress because the teacher struggles for the first term or so with the lack of English in 1/3 of the class and the disruptive behaviour from another 1/4. If that child went to poshgits & co they would do better. If the disruptive 1/4 were instead a disruptive 1 or 2 spread through 4 classes they might not be so disruptive.
I think the problem is the overall atmosphere created in poor area schools rather than the individual children themselves. Although I accept that the overall atmosphere is mainly a product of the group which is made up of individual children - but it doesn't follow that the individual children will still have exactly the same problems in any setting.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
But you were the one who derided 'throwing more money at it' as a solution. If I'd said 'Let's spend more on education', you would have accused me of typical left wing spending plans!
I derided spending more money on welfare, not on education. Indeed, I view improving the education provision for the less-provided-for as being central to the end solution - what else do you think my repeatedly-stated idea of dragging the worst schools up to the level of the best is?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
OK, how's this for a compromise: some of the problems of the poor are inherent, including those identified above. However, there are many children from poorer backgrounds whose main problem is not inherent, but caused by going to schools taking a high proportion of children with inherent problems.
Compromise accepted.
quote:
Those bright, able children are held back by being at a school struggling to educate a more than averagely difficult bunch of children, and are unlikely to have the capacity to add value to a bright child.
If that child had equal access to the good schools in the neighbouring posher area, it would get a better education and maybe go on to a more fulfilling career (or at least have a wider choice of careers).
So what we need is a system whereby bright, able children from whatever background are able to go to schools which are not struggling to educate a more than averagely difficult bunch of children, schools with the capacity to add value to a bright child in order that they might get a better education and go on to more fulfilling careers?
I agree. One.Hundred.Percent.
Maybe we could call the schools that provide that facility for them "grammar schools". That's a good name...
quote:
What we want is a solution which means that children from all types of homes get an equal crack at a good education. Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
Yes. Bring back the grammars!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I derided spending more money on welfare, not on education. Indeed, I view improving the education provision for the less-provided-for as being central to the end solution - what else do you think my repeatedly-stated idea of dragging the worst schools up to the level of the best is?
I think it's very problematic. I think there are enough vested interests with sufficient influence to ensure that a 'rising tide lifts all boats' model of education doesn't have the desired outcome.
There was a huge push from the last government to get Oxford and Cambridge to take smart kids from state schools. Yet I read newspapers like the Telegraph who report the bald facts - that 55% of Oxford admissions were state pupils (but not that 93% of pupils were state educated), and then they twist and squirm over the idea that 'bright kids' are being pushed out of the top universities by council estate oiks.
Because the places at Oxford and Cambridge aren't infinitely expandable, educating more children to achieve their potential, and from there to wrest the top jobs - the barristers, the judges, the politicians, the heads of civil service deparments, the boardrooms and the Senior Common Rooms - from the hands of the already entitled, isn't going to go down at all well.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because the places at Oxford and Cambridge aren't infinitely expandable, educating more children to achieve their potential, and from there to wrest the top jobs - the barristers, the judges, the politicians, the heads of civil service deparments, the boardrooms and the Senior Common Rooms - from the hands of the already entitled, isn't going to go down at all well.
Of course it isn't. Nothing is. But if we're going to try to do it at all, I'd rather try to do it the right way. It might be a little bit slower than outright revolution and sending all the toffs to the gallows, but it has the advantage of being moral.
I don't oppose the concept or ideal of greater equality of opportunity for all, I just oppose some of the methods people suggest using in order to bring it about.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
[QUOTE][qb]What we want is a solution which means that children from all types of homes get an equal crack at a good education. Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
Yes. Bring back the grammars!
And that would mean bring back the Secondary Moderns. If you think Comprehensives are bad, think again: the Sec. Mods. were institutionally, and quite deliberately, second class schools. Many LEAs, of all colours, worked damned hard to keep it that way as for a disproportionate part the councillors kids went to the grammars and they didn't want these centres of excellence ruined by having to accept anyone.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because the places at Oxford and Cambridge aren't infinitely expandable, educating more children to achieve their potential, and from there to wrest the top jobs - the barristers, the judges, the politicians, the heads of civil service deparments, the boardrooms and the Senior Common Rooms - from the hands of the already entitled, isn't going to go down at all well.
Of course it isn't. Nothing is. But if we're going to try to do it at all, I'd rather try to do it the right way. It might be a little bit slower than outright revolution and sending all the toffs to the gallows, but it has the advantage of being moral.
I don't oppose the concept or ideal of greater equality of opportunity for all, I just oppose some of the methods people suggest using in order to bring it about.
What we have now is far from moral, but you're happy with that because you think it advantages you.
Again, no one is suggesting eating the rich. But the idea that the rich will inevitably not be able to buy all the privilege they're used to seems to be a sticking point here.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
[QUOTE][qb]What we want is a solution which means that children from all types of homes get an equal crack at a good education. Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
Yes. Bring back the grammars!
And that would mean bring back the Secondary Moderns. If you think Comprehensives are bad, think again: the Sec. Mods. were institutionally, and quite deliberately, second class schools. Many LEAs, of all colours, worked damned hard to keep it that way as for a disproportionate part the councillors kids went to the grammars and they didn't want these centres of excellence ruined by having to accept anyone.
My mother is as bright as I am, and she missed going to grammar school because she was shy and didn't answer at the interview. She left her secondary modern with no qualifications at all.
I sent one son to grammar school and one to a 'wide ability' school (since it was an area with grammars, very few were in the top 20% ability-wise). The ethos of the two schools was very different - the wide ability school was quite content with 5 grade A-C GCSEs, and taught to a maximum grade B standard. The grammar aimed at all A* grades. A child who failed to get into the grammar at 11 but later blossomed had a very low chance of achieving as well in the other school. By the way - he went 10 miles to go to that school - it was a lot better than the other non-selectives.
When I went to grammar school, no-one was tutored at home to pass the test. When my son went, 10 years ago, 50% were tutored. Now 97% admit to being tutored when asked, or went to a private prep school which tutored for the exam.
I am not anti-selection; in fact I think it could be helpful in some ways. The youth worker at our church, however, has said publicly that she is astonished at the harm it does our children. They tell her how much it hurts them when they 'fail' - no matter that their parents try to hide their disappointment. The tests are a Big Thing in our area - it's how parents judge primary schools and it's the focus of a year or more of preparation of children. The schools pretty much divide into grammar schools - good, other schools - rubbish.
What most parents actually want, when asked, is a good school just up the road that can teach all of their children, whatever their ability, well. Why this should be an impossible dream is very hard to say - other countries seem to manage it!
[ 19. November 2010, 12:16: Message edited by: Moth ]
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
What most parents actually want, when asked, is a good school just up the road that can teach all of their children, whatever their ability, well. Why this should be an impossible dream is very hard to say - other countries seem to manage it!
It seems to me that this is actually a very hard problem. Do you know of any examples of countries that achieve it?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
[QUOTE][qb]What we want is a solution which means that children from all types of homes get an equal crack at a good education. Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
Yes. Bring back the grammars!
And that would mean bring back the Secondary Moderns. If you think Comprehensives are bad, think again: the Sec. Mods. were institutionally, and quite deliberately, second class schools. Many LEAs, of all colours, worked damned hard to keep it that way as for a disproportionate part the councillors kids went to the grammars and they didn't want these centres of excellence ruined by having to accept anyone.
Indeed. I used to be pro-selection: I went to a Grammar School and it was excellent in itself and just right for me. But the Sec Mods that my less academically able- or less fortunate, because the 11 plus was rather rough and ready- schoolmates went to were bloody awful. I'm not anti-Grammar but I am anti Sec Mod, and if the price to pay for getting a reasonably good education for all (not that this necessarily flows from nonselection, mind) is losing an excellent academic education for a few and a dismal experience for the many, IMO it's a price worth paying, especially if you combine it with lots of opportunities for study at your own pace and level later in life.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And that would mean bring back the Secondary Moderns. If you think Comprehensives are bad, think again: the Sec. Mods. were institutionally, and quite deliberately, second class schools. Many LEAs, of all colours, worked damned hard to keep it that way as for a disproportionate part the councillors kids went to the grammars and they didn't want these centres of excellence ruined by having to accept anyone.
Yes, that was bad. So let's keep the good bits of the system and change the bad bits - namely, let's make non-grammar schools places where the kids who aren't suited to grammar-style education get the absolute best possible education that is suited to them. Where specialists at teaching children with the problems identified by Doc Tor and Moth can be concentrated and therefore most effective, rather than having to be spread across all schools thus diluting the benefits they can bring to those who need them.
It means you can teach the way the children in any given class need you to teach, rather than having to be all things to all children at the same time. Everybody gets the education that is best suited to them, enabling them to be the best they can be and get the best results - both in exams and in life - they can get. What's wrong with that?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What we have now is far from moral, but you're happy with that because you think it advantages you.
I've been proposing changes to the education system throughout this thread. That they're not the changes you think are needed is indisputable, but it's a far cry from me saying things are perfect the way they are.
As I've said before: we're both looking for ways to improve the lot of the poorest and least advantaged. We just differ about how best to do it.
quote:
Again, no one is suggesting eating the rich. But the idea that the rich will inevitably not be able to buy all the privilege they're used to seems to be a sticking point here.
Not with me it's not. I favour a true meritocracy, where people can rise to the top based on ability rather than background. Again, we just differ on how best to achieve that goal.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
There would also have to be a lot of movement between schools if we did that, so that kids who blossom later can change.
Why not true comprehensives - schools which teach in sets and really do cater for all abilities well?
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes,why not? That way, too, we might get a bit closer to parity of esteem. It'd be good for primarily academic kids to recognise and respect those with more technical abilities, and vice versa- and, indeed, for all kids to develop both sides of their abilities to some extent.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
The ethos of the two schools was very different - the wide ability school was quite content with 5 grade A-C GCSEs, and taught to a maximum grade B standard. The grammar aimed at all A* grades.
The problem there is with the ethos of the wide-ability school. Every school should be pushing every student to do as well as they possibly can.
quote:
A child who failed to get into the grammar at 11 but later blossomed had a very low chance of achieving as well in the other school.
Yes, this is a problem. My ideal solution would be to allow children to take 12+, 13+, 14+, etc exams and move to schools that would be a better fit for them at those times if appropriate. Also, children who find they aren't suited to grammar education should be free to move to schools where they are better catered for.
Of course, the whole system would hinge on stressing, again and again, and putting policies in place that support the view, that different types of schooling aren't inherently better or worse than others, but merely tailored to the needs of the children they serve. I realise that would be the hardest part of the whole system to get established.
quote:
What most parents actually want, when asked, is a good school just up the road that can teach all of their children, whatever their ability, well. Why this should be an impossible dream is very hard to say - other countries seem to manage it!
The goal of my proposed system is that eventually there would exist enough variety of schools that every child can get the best possible education for them. I think that necessarily involves having different schools for different educational needs, but I think it's better to have such specialisation than to try to make schools all things to all children. It's better for everyone to get 100% of what they need in separate places than for everybody to get 60% of what they need in the same place.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The goal of my proposed system is that eventually there would exist enough variety of schools that every child can get the best possible education for them. I think that necessarily involves having different schools for different educational needs, but I think it's better to have such specialisation than to try to make schools all things to all children.
That sounds very nice in theory but I think it runs into a significant practical problem: How do you select which children go to which school, and how do you ensure that the playing field is level for that selection process?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I favour a true meritocracy, where people can rise to the top based on ability rather than background. Again, we just differ on how best to achieve that goal.
It's not a 'just', though.
You're proposing systems that we've tried, like grammar schools, and have seen fail the majority of children. You want a meritocracy where 97% of the kids who get to grammar have been hothoused by anxious parents or taught specifically to pass the 11+ at prep schools. How are you going to unwind that?
And in your most recent proposal for a sort of 'super grammar' where kids are kicked in and out of different schools based on their end-of-term results? Bloody hell, man, do you know what stress this would impose on mere children? Rather than have one opportunity to fuck their lives up at 11, there'd be multiple opportunities. Lose status, friends, routine, familiarity and teachers who know them and know their name, and do that, year in, year out? Do you have shares in Prozac?
Which is why I'm glad we don't have grammars in my area, and why my kids are at the local comp. There's aggressive streaming, but if they screw up, there's lots of support and always the opportunity to do better - without getting kicked out, losing their mates and any semblance of stability.
Children are not little adults. Especially at 11.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
It wasn't me that first mentioned the problem of bright, able children being held back by being at a school struggling to educate a more than averagely difficult bunch of children. Surely the solution to that problem is putting such children into a situation where they are no longer being held back?
And bear in mind that "being held back" doesn't just happen in the classroom. It happens in the playground, where "nerds" and "geeks" are bullied mercilessly for being smarter than everyone else and where the lowest common denominator rules.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
How about the Finnish solution ?
Very egalitarian and very successful.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
How about the Finnish solution ?
Very egalitarian and very successful.
Yes, that would be fabulous. Though a lot of the changes would have to be sociological, rather than educational.
I also note that they do have academic separation (AKA selection) based on grades, albeit done at 15 rather than 11.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It wasn't me that first mentioned the problem of bright, able children being held back by being at a school struggling to educate a more than averagely difficult bunch of children. Surely the solution to that problem is putting such children into a situation where they are no longer being held back?
And bear in mind that "being held back" doesn't just happen in the classroom. It happens in the playground, where "nerds" and "geeks" are bullied mercilessly for being smarter than everyone else and where the lowest common denominator rules.
Not at my school. Not at my kids' school either. I think you're projecting.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
How about the Finnish solution ?
Very egalitarian and very successful.
Yes, that would be fabulous. Though a lot of the changes would have to be sociological, rather than educational.
I also note that they do have academic separation (AKA selection) based on grades, albeit done at 15 rather than 11.
It's rather a chicken-and-egg situation though - are Finns egalitarian because of their education system, or is their education system egalitarian because they are?
I other words, if we do suddenly mix all our kids up by lotteries or some such mechanism, will we eventually get to a more egalitarian society?
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
It's rather a chicken-and-egg situation though - are Finns egalitarian because of their education system, or is their education system egalitarian because they are?
Indeed.
quote:
I other words, if we do suddenly mix all our kids up by lotteries or some such mechanism, will we eventually get to a more egalitarian society?
And if not, how much damage will be done?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
There is a partial lottery system here in DC, both for regular public schools and for the charter schools. As far as I know, there's not much evidence that this does much more than add stress to the 'motivated' who apply for the better schools and then have to sweat through the random selection procedure.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
There's a fallacy implicit in this statement which suggests that a school which selects its pupils (either by academic ability or by its situation in a middle-class area) will inevitably suffer if it admits lower-ability or working-class pupils.
I attended a selective grammar school which naturally achieved reasonable exam results and university places. But much of the teaching was poor to mediocre and the school should have produced much better results than it did, considering the intake. Similarly, my wife recently taught in a comprehensive with a predominantly middle-class intake, which had real problems and was seriously underachieving. This is because there was little incentive for the staff to do better, as they knew that with their material they were unlikely to 'fail'.
If the student bodies had been more mixed, in terms of ability and background, they would have provided a challenge which in turn would benefit the most able pupils as well as the less able. Conversely, teachers in a school with a predominantly working-class and lower-ability intake need to be that much more determined and visionary in order to succeed. Give them a few potential Oxbridge candidates to leaven the mix and you will encourage the staff and provide role-models to inspire the pupils.
It is also important in a class-ridden society such as the UK, that children should not be brought up in ghettoes and solely mix with or experience their own class and culture.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It is also important in a class-ridden society such as the UK, that children should not be brought up in ghettoes and solely mix with or experience their own class and culture.
On that front I can confidently state that I saw a far greater diversity of colours and creeds at my grammar school than was present in either of the Comps I'd have been eligible for had I failed the 11+. Doesn't apply at all times and in all places of course, but it's certainly true of that particular area.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Good point about the dangers of mediocre teaching with classes made up exclusively of more able pupils. Applies in universities too- there was a letter in the Times Higher a coiuple of weeks back from an academic at Birmingham City University who said the teaching there was much better and, crucially, more transformative than at Oxford, where he'd previously worked and where a lot of the students both arrived and left as reasonably bright 2:1s. That certainly rang a bell with my experience of teaching in HE.
Interesting point from Marvin about diversity. My immediate question is whether this was in an area with a lot of white working class people where members of minorities tended to be either professionals or aspirational business people.
[ 19. November 2010, 17:04: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And bear in mind that "being held back" doesn't just happen in the classroom. It happens in the playground, where "nerds" and "geeks" are bullied mercilessly for being smarter than everyone else and where the lowest common denominator rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not at my school. Not at my kids' school either. I think you're projecting.
While my politics are pretty far from Marvin's I have to say that is exactly what happenned to me and others in my class at school. We were bullied for doing well. In my case I was such an outsider (for racial reasons) that I didn't have the option of fitting in anyway, and had an incredibly supportive family, so it had less effect, but for others it was catastrophic.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And bear in mind that "being held back" doesn't just happen in the classroom. It happens in the playground, where "nerds" and "geeks" are bullied mercilessly for being smarter than everyone else and where the lowest common denominator rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not at my school. Not at my kids' school either. I think you're projecting.
While my politics are pretty far from Marvin's I have to say that is exactly what happenned to me and others in my class at school. We were bullied for doing well. In my case I was such an outsider (for racial reasons) that I didn't have the option of fitting in anyway, and had an incredibly supportive family, so it had less effect, but for others it was catastrophic.
Bullying happens everywhere. I was bullied, not for being bright, but for having really sticky-out teeth.
What's important is how bullying is dealt with. I'm aware of one local academy school, very strong academic values who insist there's no bullying at the school. I know that's not true. I also worked for a couple of years next to the 'best' private boys school in the area. The kids were little shits, to each other and to the local community.
We complained often, but the Master's opinion was that boys would be boys.
There is much, much less toleration of - and indeed active campaigns against - bullying in state schools. In my kids' school, it is rigorously enforced, and indeed, it's one of the things that Ofsted look for. Apart from a bit of argy-bargy in Induction week, there's been nothing at all against both my top-set children.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'm sure all that you say is true, but I don't think it goes against the idea that being bullied for doing well is a strong dynamic in keeping children in certain schools back. I'm told it doesn't occur in quite the same way in independent and public schools. Perhaps there are things the school can do that reduce it's impact, but I doubt that it can be prevented entirely.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes. Bring back the grammars!
I failed the 11+ because my father had died in a tragic way just before the exam. I went to a sec. mod. However, I joined the Grammar School 6th form at the same time as someone else from my former junior school left. He still drives a Pickford's truck while I have a degree and a couple of postgrad qualifications. Bad system.
If you compare exam results in the league tables, you will see that local authorities who retain grammar schools have a lower percentage of GCSE grades A-C across the board than those who have comps. That's because the sec. mod. kids languish while the GS kids do well. In comps., the bright kids pull the less bright ones up. Not the other way round.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In comps., the bright kids pull the less bright ones up. Not the other way round.
In some comps. I think both effects are possible, and which one you get depends on the overall atmosphere, balance of kids, management and teaching.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
I was thinking over the weekend, and it's not only education that leads to social mobility. When my nephew did some research into family history, he discovered that I am far from being the first in my family to be interested in law. It turns out I had great-uncles and great-great uncles who were solicitors. None of them went to university - in their day, you could join as a very junior employee, get your articles later, and work your way to being a solicitor.
Now it's not only a graduate profession - it's virtually restricted in practice to the graduates of 'good' universities, and the Legal Practice Course costs about £12,000 on top of your uni fees. So the kids at Birmingham City university discussed above, however well taught, have less chance of succeeding, and will have to invest huge sums of money if they even want to try.
You can in theory get in via the ILEX route, and one or two of my students have, but it's very, very hard.
I'm not quite sure how we changed to a society where everyone has to be 'job ready' before they are employed, as employers like to put it. We have moved the cost of training for many professions from the employer to the employee. How has this happened?
[ 22. November 2010, 09:39: Message edited by: Moth ]
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, when I was reading law as an undergraduate in the late 80s, you had to pay your own fees for the professional qualifying course. I always thought that you should only be accepted into the professional course once you'd had an offer of articles/ pupillage, and your future firm/chambers, or the profession as a whole, should pay.
But then when I left school in '85 it was still just about possible to go into a firm with A levels and qualify while working- I knew someone who decided to do that, though I don't know whether or not he succeeded.
Though i would agree that we've seen a shift of risk and cost onto the individual: something which the Browne review ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) will only exacerbate.
[ 22. November 2010, 09:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
In 1981, my local council paid my Bar Finals fees. It was a discretionary grant, but was usually paid, and it included an element for living costs - basically, a student grant. I was also able to claim my travel costs.
Obviously, everything changed during the 80s!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Interesting point from Marvin about diversity. My immediate question is whether this was in an area with a lot of white working class people where members of minorities tended to be either professionals or aspirational business people.
The area was Longbridge, Birmingham - it was (and still is) about 85% white and 90% working class, most of whom were, at the time, workers at the Rover factory. The only members of minorities there were shopkeepers or restraunteurs - it's very much not the sort of area professionals or aspirational business people tend to move to. The closest we had to any form of diversity in my primary school class was a couple of Jehovas Witnesses. The local comps weren't much different, as they only got students from the area.
In contrast, my grammar school drew in top students from across the city meaning there was a healthy mix of white, black, asian, east asian, christian, muslim, hindu, sikh, jew and atheist. It was a revelation.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Though i would agree that we've seen a shift of risk and cost onto the individual: something which the Browne review will only exacerbate.
On the contrary, the Browne Review ensures that graduate repayments will be tightly linked to how much they earn, ensuring that no-one is burdened with unsustainable outgoings as a result of their education. The element of risk (to the student) is completely removed - if they graduate but cannot get a high-paying job, they will pay back less of their loan. If they graduate but cannot find a job at all (or only a very low paying one), they will pay back none of their loan. Where's the risk?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
It sounds reasonable, put like that. But imagine student A comes from a wealthy middle-class family, and will inherit a substantial amount of money and/or property from his/her parents; student B comes from a poor family and won't. Despite a large professional salary, student B is much more likely to struggle in future with mortgage repayments and the like. And the prospect of that will put a lot of prospective students off.
However fair the proposals might be for working-class students, they are not going to redress the imbalance of educational opportunity, and could well do the opposite.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
It's the much higher fees I was thinking of. The Browne reapyment proposals will benefit the best off and the worst off: it's the lower end of middling who will feel the pinch.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It sounds reasonable, put like that. But imagine student A comes from a wealthy middle-class family, and will inherit a substantial amount of money and/or property from his/her parents; student B comes from a poor family and won't. Despite a large professional salary, student B is much more likely to struggle in future with mortgage repayments and the like. And the prospect of that will put a lot of prospective students off.
I disagree that student loan repayments will adversely affect people's ability to get and pay a mortgage. I was approved for a mortgage last year, and my student loan repayments are significantly higher per month than a 'new scheme' graduate earning exactly the same salary as me will be paying.
Also, when I had to detail my debts during the application for said mortgage, they explicitly told me that student loan debts don't count.
To put it bluntly, graduates in the new system will be significantly better off each month than those in the existing system. Stop looking at the headline figure and start looking at the actual monthly impact on the graduate - that is the important figure.
Of course, someone having large familial reserves to fall back on will be in a better position than someone without such resources. But that's true in any system, and cannot be used as an example of a problem with any specific one.
quote:
However fair the proposals might be for working-class students, they are not going to redress the imbalance of educational opportunity, and could well do the opposite.
In terms of making higher education available to everyone who wants it, with absolutely no up-front payments required, the plans are a roaring success. Personal wealth is not a limiting factor in whether anyone can go or not. As for other educational imbalances: well no, proposals concerning higher education funding aren't going to do anything about primary and secondary education. How could they?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It's the much higher fees I was thinking of. The Browne reapyment proposals will benefit the best off and the worst off: it's the lower end of middling who will feel the pinch.
As I just said, a 'new system' graduate earning exactly the same as me will be repaying significantly less each month than I currently have to. If that's feeling the pinch, I'd like to feel it!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
