|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Perceptions of welfare
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
...for the multitude of different SEN and G&T needs that exist in the class...
'SEN' as I understand it, stands for 'Special Educational Needs' (which used to be Special Needs when I were a lad). But what's 'G&T'? In my book that's gin and tonic, which I'm sure all teachers need after a day at the coalface but I'm not sure whether they're on the national curriculum for children yet.
Gifted & Talented - by the last governments reckoning the top 10% of students though itis arbitary and inflexible a guide for determining those that are genuinely gifted and talented in their respective disciplines.
Although it does stand for gin & tonic at the end of my lesson plans! lol.
[ 17. January 2013, 12:50: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
I take it that you are not, and never have been, anywhere near the teaching profession. This is utter b*ll*cks and is the mad, and unrealistic belief of people wedded t a system that does not work... No number of good children in a class will act as a model to badly behaved kids - all badly behaved kids do is disrupt... what they need is personal attention and seperation to actually get to know them and work on their issues, but you can get lost if I am doing it for every child I teach who requires this level of attention whilst I plan my lessons, try to support 30 other kids in the class in their work, differentiate one lesson into 12 different things for the multitude of different SEN and G&T needs that exist in the class... and I could go on, I dont not make this up but talk about his from real experience as a teacher having to do all these things!
But disruptive children have their own assistants with them in class to give them that extra attention (at least they were in my school) - and obviously they should have extra SEN help if necessary, but it still doesn't mean the disruptive child should be shoved off to the side to make the teacher's life easier. I empathise with the enormous workload teachers have, but then that's an issue with not having enough properly qualified teaching assistants and too-large class sizes, not a lack of separation due to ability.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But disruptive children have their own assistants with them in class to give them that extra attention (at least they were in my school) - and obviously they should have extra SEN help if necessary.
This may be one for the concurrent political correctness thread, but I always thought special needs referred to children who were slow (e.g. the dyslexic) and therefore needed extra help, rather than those who were badly behaved. What does 'SEN' cover exactly these days?
[ 17. January 2013, 13:09: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But disruptive children have their own assistants with them in class to give them that extra attention (at least they were in my school) - and obviously they should have extra SEN help if necessary.
This may be one for the concurrent political correctness thread, but I always thought special needs referred to children who were slow (e.g. the dyslexic) and therefore needed extra help, rather than those who were badly behaved. What does 'SEN' cover exactly these days?
In terms of disruption, I was thinking of children with ADHD, autism and other conditions that impair concentration. SM or another teacher can probably answer more comprehensively, but SEN certainly covers more than those who struggle academically (although dyslexia has no impact on intelligence and being dyslexic does not in any way make a person 'slow').
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But disruptive children have their own assistants with them in class to give them that extra attention (at least they were in my school) - and obviously they should have extra SEN help if necessary.
This may be one for the concurrent political correctness thread, but I always thought special needs referred to children who were slow (e.g. the dyslexic) and therefore needed extra help, rather than those who were badly behaved. What does 'SEN' cover exactly these days?
Since the advent and widespread use of medically accepted behavioural problems, those who are disruptive due to their medical problems are calssed as SEN.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
But why should the rest of the class by penalised by their behaviour?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But disruptive children have their own assistants with them in class to give them that extra attention (at least they were in my school) - and obviously they should have extra SEN help if necessary.
This may be one for the concurrent political correctness thread, but I always thought special needs referred to children who were slow (e.g. the dyslexic) and therefore needed extra help, rather than those who were badly behaved. What does 'SEN' cover exactly these days?
In terms of disruption, I was thinking of children with ADHD, autism and other conditions that impair concentration. SM or another teacher can probably answer more comprehensively, but SEN certainly covers more than those who struggle academically (although dyslexia has no impact on intelligence and being dyslexic does not in any way make a person 'slow').
Yes, and once upon a time it was ok to have seperate schoosl for those who traditionally fall under the SEN category (although that is now much larger!)
It is still common practice to have seperate spaces for learners with D.S., M.D., etc. etc. to provide them with specialised attention.
Yes a problem with schools is a lack of learning support asssitants and teaching assistants, as well as too large a class size, but than in itself is a symptom of the problems that the comprehensive system poses. To adequately address all the needs of learners inthe calssroom would require every child, or certainly at least every two kids, to have an LSA/TA to suppor tthem nd that is not financially or logistically possible.
If we were to stream/set/have seperate schools then we would be somwhere closer to actually being able to provide the levels of support, encouragement, personalisation and challenge that individual learners require in a suitable environment and pedagogy.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
You are aware that setting in most subjects is already quite a normal thing, I trust?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
But why should the rest of the class by penalised by their behaviour?
The child (assuming it is one child out of a class of 30 here) suffers more from separation than the rest of the class does. But I'm not suggesting the disruptive child should just be left to disrupt the class! Just not taken out and taught alone, the child should have extra help within the classroom. Of course the classroom should have some kind of 'quiet room' to help with this, and to help children who work best in short bursts. The problem isn't with the comprehensive system but with funding.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
oh and saying the state needs children because they will be the ones paying for the pensions/taking care of *our* generation of elderly - hmm - I kind of doubt that the illiterate, innumerate offspring of welfare single-by-choice mothers are going to amount to anything other than another giro.
If you want an answer to that piece of ignorant bullshit, repeat it in Hell you arrogant bastard.
Excuse me! This is Purgatory, and you know perfectly well that personal attacks are not appropriate here! Take it to hell, buddy.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
But why should the rest of the class by penalised by their behaviour?
The child (assuming it is one child out of a class of 30 here) suffers more from separation than the rest of the class does. But I'm not suggesting the disruptive child should just be left to disrupt the class! Just not taken out and taught alone, the child should have extra help within the classroom. Of course the classroom should have some kind of 'quiet room' to help with this, and to help children who work best in short bursts. The problem isn't with the comprehensive system but with funding.
No, the child will continue to be disruptive. Any teacher will inform you of this well known fact. What needs to happen is that he child needs strong discipline and punishment (that old idea of carrot and stick fits in here somewhere, but punishment seemed to fall by the way side under the last government in adoration of the carrot only approach.) It is amazing that hte goal posts have somehow moved here to disruptive kids, which do need seperating, and the actual needs of learners in the education system.
I challenge you to teach in a mixed ability (non-set or streamed) school in a socio-economically mixed part fo the country for a couple fo years and see if your political utopia survives... If I were a betting man I would bet hansomely that it wouldn't and the realities of the failed comprehensive system would come to the for and you would have to rethink this line of defense you are advocating. The lines you put forwards are all lines I have heard before from SM, politicians (interesting to note you are a politics student) union officials and others who have either had no real life experience of the teaching profession, or have been so long removed thath tey have forgotten what it iwas actually like. Into that I add to the mix these people will have tended to have had a non-comprehensive education or if they did it was in an area which was socio-economically homogenous and the ability, SEN and G&T levels were not so wide as tehy tend to be in many schools today.
karl, I appreciate that many schools do at least set some lesson these days, Jade did not, and I will advance that it is a realisation that different abilities need different attention and is infact at least some way towards recognising and affirming this fact of education and life and is a perfectly justifiable step into the creation of specialised schools for those different needs.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
But why should the rest of the class by penalised by their behaviour?
The child (assuming it is one child out of a class of 30 here) suffers more from separation than the rest of the class does. But I'm not suggesting the disruptive child should just be left to disrupt the class! Just not taken out and taught alone, the child should have extra help within the classroom. Of course the classroom should have some kind of 'quiet room' to help with this, and to help children who work best in short bursts. The problem isn't with the comprehensive system but with funding.
No, the child will continue to be disruptive. Any teacher will inform you of this well known fact. What needs to happen is that he child needs strong discipline and punishment (that old idea of carrot and stick fits in here somewhere, but punishment seemed to fall by the way side under the last government in adoration of the carrot only approach.) It is amazing that hte goal posts have somehow moved here to disruptive kids, which do need seperating, and the actual needs of learners in the education system.
I challenge you to teach in a mixed ability (non-set or streamed) school in a socio-economically mixed part fo the country for a couple fo years and see if your political utopia survives... If I were a betting man I would bet hansomely that it wouldn't and the realities of the failed comprehensive system would come to the for and you would have to rethink this line of defense you are advocating. The lines you put forwards are all lines I have heard before from SM, politicians (interesting to note you are a politics student) union officials and others who have either had no real life experience of the teaching profession, or have been so long removed thath tey have forgotten what it iwas actually like. Into that I add to the mix these people will have tended to have had a non-comprehensive education or if they did it was in an area which was socio-economically homogenous and the ability, SEN and G&T levels were not so wide as tehy tend to be in many schools today.
karl, I appreciate that many schools do at least set some lesson these days, Jade did not, and I will advance that it is a realisation that different abilities need different attention and is infact at least some way towards recognising and affirming this fact of education and life and is a perfectly justifiable step into the creation of specialised schools for those different needs.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'm well aware of what Karl said, I agree with him. As for not knowing anything about modern schools....I attended a comprehensive in inner-city Coventry from 2000-2005. Not socio-economically homogenous in the least, with a lot of G&T and SEN students. A child being disruptive because of whatever issue doesn't need punishment but help. Discipline is of course important but it should be approached creatively and in a way that will actually work - old methods simply made children hate school. And of course the disruptive children should be the focus! They are the ones who are disadvantaged by their own disruptive nature, and their disruption doesn't happen in a vacuum - it happens because of a poor-quality home life, mental illness, medical conditions or even just malnutrition. These are things that disadvantage the child in general, not just in school. They are certainly not things that can be solved with punishment. When I was at school, no one who was truly disruptive had a happy home life, proper food etc. Poverty was the problem, not a lack of discipline. Obviously schools can't fix poverty, but it does connect to perceptions that people who are poor/on benefits/unable to function in the classroom just do it for the fun of it.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
As someone who was educated in a comprehensive school (there weren't any non-comps where I grew up) and whose husband is likewise a product of the comprehensive system, and whose children are / were educated in a comprehensive, I'm astonished to learn that the system is a "failure." I hadn't noticed.
The system probably works best in areas where it really is a "comprehensive" - the only non-comprehensive in Aberdeenshire is the Montessori school, so pretty much everyone goes to a comprehensive, or commutes into Aberdeen.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As for not knowing anything about modern schools....
And of course the disruptive children should be the focus! They are the ones who are disadvantaged by their own disruptive nature...
...and their disruption doesn't happen in a vacuum - it happens because of a poor-quality home life, mental illness, medical conditions or even just malnutrition...
To which I say: What. A. Load. Of. Bull.
My your own admission the 'comprehensive' school you atteneded was an all-girls school - which really does radically alter the meaning of comprehensive in terms of the UK education system. Your school was not representative of schools up and down the country, and thank you so much for joining that long list of people who have no idea about teaching but feel completely qualified and experienced to pontificate and dictate to teachers and those in the know what school is actually like and what needs to happen to fix it.
You were on much safer ground before you moved this whole debate onto disruptive kids. Your argument at least stood a chance when you were trying to argue the merits of the comprehensive system. But anyway.
The disruptive child should not be the focus, the other 29 kids should be the focus in that classroom - those kids from whatever background (and being from a single-parent, working class, council estate background myself I know the situation that many people come from) and it is the duty of the school and society to ensure that those who wish to be educated and learn are allowed to achieve those goals safetly and without disruption and without seeing the inherent unfairness of someone who does not have that attitude have extra resources piled onto them in the same school when the G&T have to use out-dated, crumbling resources and are not able to go on the extra trips that they actually require because the money is spent on rewarding those kids with behaviour issues with all the extra attention that can be poured upon them.
And to the list of problems you give, a decent education would sort that out. Teaching people real life skills about how to care for themselves and others, about making informed decisions about what to do with their bodies and whether they actually can support having a child and provide it with the care and attention it deserves. but I already know your response to this - the state can deal with it, the state should pay for this, that and the other.
Sorry for having got a little hellish but I have no idea of how to put what needs to be said when confronted with ... well less said the better, I got even more hellish when I tried to apologise.
[ 17. January 2013, 14:59: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
As someone who was educated in a comprehensive school (there weren't any non-comps where I grew up) and whose husband is likewise a product of the comprehensive system, and whose children are / were educated in a comprehensive, I'm astonished to learn that the system is a "failure." I hadn't noticed.
The system probably works best in areas where it really is a "comprehensive" - the only non-comprehensive in Aberdeenshire is the Montessori school, so pretty much everyone goes to a comprehensive, or commutes into Aberdeen.
No, the comprehensive system does not fail everybody, it just fails the majority.
, and then it is dependent on the school as well.
I, likewise was educated in the comprehensive system and I got a good education from it, but that is more to do with the school itself rather than the comprehensive structure that it did not keep to.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
How does not having penis-owning classmates mean my school wasn't representative of comprehensive schools generally? My school ticked all the boxes you laid out, but nope not good enough apparently.
And of course the government should be the ones tackling poverty! Education cannot solve poverty if the resources to improve one's own life aren't there to start with. What's the use of being taught how to take care of yourself when you can't afford the means to do that? Expecting the government to keep kids out of poverty is pretty much essential to having a civilised country.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
As someone who was educated in a comprehensive school (there weren't any non-comps where I grew up) and whose husband is likewise a product of the comprehensive system, and whose children are / were educated in a comprehensive, I'm astonished to learn that the system is a "failure." I hadn't noticed.
The system probably works best in areas where it really is a "comprehensive" - the only non-comprehensive in Aberdeenshire is the Montessori school, so pretty much everyone goes to a comprehensive, or commutes into Aberdeen.
No, the comprehensive system does not fail everybody, it just fails the majority.
, and then it is dependent on the school as well.
I, likewise was educated in the comprehensive system and I got a good education from it, but that is more to do with the school itself rather than the comprehensive structure that it did not keep to.
Almost everybody I know is the product of the comprehensive system, so I know people from a fair number of schools. I'm not getting the impression the system is failing many people here. There are 17 state comprehensives in Aberdeenshire, plus a small fee-paying Montesorri school. There are a few - perhaps 1% - who commute to a fee-paying school in Aberdeen. I'm guessing if the system wasn't working, someone would try to set up a non- comprehensive.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
(missed edit button)
Aberdeen itself has 12 state comprehensives and 3 fee-paying schools. I deduce, therefore, that in the north-east of Scotland, a total of 29 comprehensives and 3 non-comprehensives means that most people are happy to have their children educated within a comprehensive.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm guessing if the system wasn't working, someone would try to set up a non- comprehensive.
That would be a matter of economics and primary legislation (such as free-schools in England) which would allow for such a thing to occur. It maywell be nobody has done it because in the Public School system it would not be viable as your indication of 1% commuting seems to indicate.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
(missed edit button)
Aberdeen itself has 12 state comprehensives and 3 fee-paying schools. I deduce, therefore, that in the north-east of Scotland, a total of 29 comprehensives and 3 non-comprehensives means that most people are happy to have their children educated within a comprehensive.
Sorry to double post but your other post got in before mine.
As is evident then, there is no economic viability for the Public Sector to expand, but I am not talking about expanding the Public Sector model which is based on othe rconsiderations.
Everyone else has to attend the Comprehensive system and make the best of it, and as far as social interaction goes, we tend to hang around people of a similar experience and outcome so we tend to find that our social interactions affirm our own perceptions of things...
What I want to see is a system which is actually geared towards the needs of individuals in a much better format rather than the MOTR comprehensive system that exists at present.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
But if people felt that the comprehensive system "failed" the majority of children, more than 1% would be commuting and the number of children in Aberdeen itself opting-out of state education would be increasing, resulting in the private sector growing. AFAIK, it isn't - any expansion in population has resulted in an expansion in the comprehensive sector.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
But if people felt that the comprehensive system "failed" the majority of children, more than 1% would be commuting and the number of children in Aberdeen itself opting-out of state education would be increasing, resulting in the private sector growing. AFAIK, it isn't - any expansion in population has resulted in an expansion in the comprehensive sector.
Only if they have the economic ability to do so...
If you do not have the ability to move your child out of the system then it is no indication that the system is working, only that you have too few choices for your childs education.
It falls under the same category as buying a car:
I know that a new Toyota is better than a two year old Toyota which is better than a four year old Toyota, but I do not have the ability to buy a new Toyota, and the only choice I have is a four year old Toyota - I am stuck buying the four year old car because ican't afford the new one and the two year old one is non-existant in my area.
[ 17. January 2013, 15:56: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
But if people felt that the comprehensive system "failed" the majority of children, more than 1% would be commuting and the number of children in Aberdeen itself opting-out of state education would be increasing, resulting in the private sector growing. AFAIK, it isn't - any expansion in population has resulted in an expansion in the comprehensive sector.
Only if they have the economic ability to do so...
If you do not have the ability to move your child out of the system then it is no indication that the system is working, only that you have too few choices for your childs education.
It falls under the same category as buying a car:
I know that a new Toyota is better than a two year old Toyota which is better than a four year old Toyota, but I do not have the ability to buy a new Toyota, and the only choice I have is a four year old Toyota - I am stuck buying the four year old car because ican't afford the new one and the two year old one is non-existant in my area.
Indeed. But Aberdeen has a healthy economy. There are plenty of people who buy expensive houses and cars, but still have their children state-educated.
[ 17. January 2013, 16:16: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
If comprehensive schools are failing some or even most children (which I would dispute) I don't think this should be laid at the system itself but at two things:
a) governments of all stripes constantly interfering in education inappropriately, especially trying to define the purpose of education very narrowly as being about jobs at the end of it
b) inadequate resourcing
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
What Jonahman said. If any government interfered with the armed forces or police the way they interfere with education we wouldn't have any generals, air marshals, admirals or chief constables.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
But why should the rest of the class by penalised by their behaviour?
The child (assuming it is one child out of a class of 30 here) suffers more from separation than the rest of the class does. But I'm not suggesting the disruptive child should just be left to disrupt the class! Just not taken out and taught alone, the child should have extra help within the classroom. Of course the classroom should have some kind of 'quiet room' to help with this, and to help children who work best in short bursts. The problem isn't with the comprehensive system but with funding.
No, the child will continue to be disruptive. Any teacher will inform you of this well known fact. What needs to happen is that he child needs strong discipline and punishment (that old idea of carrot and stick fits in here somewhere, but punishment seemed to fall by the way side under the last government in adoration of the carrot only approach.)
There are decades of research and evidence that demonstrate punishment is not a very effective strategy for behaviour change (well over half century's worth in fact). But that said, the way people use the terms 'reward' and 'punishment' in in everyday speech is often somewhat different from what they mean technically. I suspect the way that the way that the research has been translated into a policy for classroom provision may also reflect that confusion.
After all, much research on basic learning is also ignored. I literally sat in lectures at university, about how lectures are not an effective teaching/learning process.
[ 18. January 2013, 07:08: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It occurs to me we are wandering some way from the OP topic - perhaps education needs its own thread ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
Thank you for so many thoughtful comments and experiences (such as the 'course' that Eigon experienced) - much food for thought. I'm sorry for not contributing to the debate. Real life took over.
I share the view of ToujoursDan, Jade Constable, HelsBells, Hawk (and, I think, others) that people tend to refuse to change their minds about social security in the light of evidence like that presented in the OP. Still, at least we can be watchful for (as ken nicely put it) 'anti-welfare propaganda.' (Like Penny S, I notice the similarities between how people sometimes talk about people on benefits and how people sometimes talk about asylum seekers/refugees.)
If there's any scope for agreement between left and right on this, I guess that it would be around the ideas such as: (a) people who can seek work should do so, (b) employers should pay people a living wage; employees shouldn't need benefits to top up their pay, (c) rents should not be excessive (welfare should enable poor people to meet their basic needs, not enrich landlords) and (d) education should (among others things) be effective in helping people to earn a decent living. Obviously, there's a lot of disagreement around these issues.
How could we move closer to a living wage for everyone? As a leftie, I instinctively think of raising the minimum wage. But would that be the most effective approach? Would consumer choice and moral pressure be more effective than legal compulsion? Perhaps the law, consumder choice and moral pressure can work together? Suppose the law required every employer to disclose the pay rates for their lowest-paid, median-paid and highest-paid employees - would that help?
Housing benefit has been much-discussed. I liked churchgeek's reminder of Paul Krugman's argument that the governments can help economies recover by finding ways to put people to work. Maybe governments could encourage social landlords to employ more people to make more social housing available? As Sioni Sais said, this doesn't have to involve lots of new buildings; it can mean, e.g. making empty properties available and renovating homes in poor condition.
I can see where Marvin the Martian and Matt Black are 'coming from' about housing benefit as part of people's income (while recognising the arguments of Ricardus, ken and others about the purposes and effects of housing benefit). Perhaps, if there was more social housing available, rents would be lower which would reduce government spending on housing benefit? Of course, this would cost the government money; I agree with Matt Black, about the need to go after corporate tax cheats, which would presumably help a bit with paying for this.
Statements along the lines of 'comprehensive education has failed' seem a bit sweeping to me ... but this post is too long already!
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
John Harris, writing in The Guardian makes some very good points.
quote:
from the article:
Funny, too, that such high-ups as George Osborne bemoans "taxing people on low incomes to pay for the child benefit of those earning so much more" when, as he must know, a progressive taxation system ensures that this has never actually happened. Strange, also, that so much noise is being made about the supposed iniquity of millionaires getting relatively trifling universal benefits when the government has just given them such a big tax cut.
Of course, this is a very Leftie perspective, but it's so nice to hear the argument articulated for a change.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I've been told that I do not qualify for a maintenance grant for uni (and therefore cannot afford to stay in uni as my rent wipes out my maintenance loan) since I did not earn enough to support myself to qualify as a self-supporting student (this is only an issue because I am under 25 by the way, otherwise it would have been assumed). The amount that I 'earned' was in fact my Income Support and JSA - so by the government's own admission, JSA is not enough to live on (and it is the government's rule that £7500 is the minimum one has to earn to be self-supporting, JSA is about £3500 a year).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The amount that I 'earned' was in fact my Income Support and JSA
Talking of rent etc. - Housing and Council Tax Benefits?
If you were enrolling full-time then you would not have been able to claim JSA anyhow so you would not be able to be self-supporting...
And on the basis that JSA works out at £3500 pa, when I was JSA adding in CT & H benefits I was receiving benefits in excess of £8,000 pa.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
from the article:
Funny, too, that such high-ups as George Osborne bemoans "taxing people on low incomes to pay for the child benefit of those earning so much more" when, as he must know, a progressive taxation system ensures that this has never actually happened. Strange, also, that so much noise is being made about the supposed iniquity of millionaires getting relatively trifling universal benefits when the government has just given them such a big tax cut.
Of course, this is a very Leftie perspective, but it's so nice to hear the argument articulated for a change.
The arguments are heard often, they just aren't very sound arguments, nor heard in the full context of the debate.
Any tax system, whether progressive or not, can be viewed in such a way as to say that those at the bottom who pay tax contribute towards the cost of universal benefits for those at the top who really could live without them. Since all tax revenues go into one big pot nobody can say that so-and-so's taxes have gone to education etc.
- As we must know, if that argument is to be considered ridiculous and null-and-void then the tax take that goes onto the universal benefit for those at the top is the tax taken from those at the top in the first place - seems a bit like shuffling deck chairs and paying a beaurocrate to do it - so the argument is either, those at the bottom do contribute to those at the top, or those at the top might as well see their tax take reduced and the benefit not paid to them, which would then save even just a small amount of beaurocratic cost.
To reduce the upper rate of tax from 50p to 45p still leaves it higher than at any point under the last Labour government except in the closing few months, and was based on an economic argument. If a rate of tax does not increase the take sufficiently there is not an economic, nor business, argument to keep it...
The tax situation needs to consider the increases in personal allowance which affects those on the lowest incomes more than those in the upper-middle to top.
Just to indicate some of the other things that need to be kept in mind when considering...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The amount that I 'earned' was in fact my Income Support and JSA
Talking of rent etc. - Housing and Council Tax Benefits?
If you were enrolling full-time then you would not have been able to claim JSA anyhow so you would not be able to be self-supporting...
And on the basis that JSA works out at £3500 pa, when I was JSA adding in CT & H benefits I was receiving benefits in excess of £8,000 pa.
I didn't receive any Housing or Council Tax benefits because I was living with my parents/other homeowners before I lived with my parents, and I believe that they do not take Housing or Council Tax benefits into account anyway (this is what Student Finance England have told me).
Also I wasn't on JSA when I enrolled?? I was on it before I enrolled. They needed me to prove I was self-supporting for three or more years up to that point, and I was on JSA/Income Support for that time.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The arguments are heard often, they just aren't very sound arguments, nor heard in the full context of the debate.
That is simply not true. As OP the indicated there is a drowning out of the argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
so the argument is either, those at the bottom do contribute to those at the top, or those at the top might as well see their tax take reduced and the benefit not paid to them, which would then save even just a small amount of beaurocratic cost.
The thing is, this is just wrong. As you rightly point out hypothocating of taxes is something we basically don't do. But the thing is, as the recent Child benefit nonsense has shown, it can be (and I stress the 'can' because context is all) staggeringly more efficient to have universal benefits and then tax accordingly to pay for them. And remember Child benefit was introduced because of an effective national statement that raising children is important and something the nation values. Never mind the important arguments around how we view the welfare state being hugely influenced by universality.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
To reduce the upper rate of tax from 50p to 45p still leaves it higher than at any point under the last Labour government except in the closing few months, and was based on an economic argument. If a rate of tax does not increase the take sufficiently there is not an economic, nor business, argument to keep it...
Yeah, except George Osborne deliberately misrepresented the figures, and it is impossible to say whether this was true or not, but probably it wasn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The tax situation needs to consider the increases in personal allowance which affects those on the lowest incomes more than those in the upper-middle to top.
No they don't. Anyone earning more than the personal allowance benefits in full, many of the lowest earners only just breach into paying incometax and hence it has little effect for them. IIRC to benefit the lowest earners by £1bn costs around £11bn. It's hard to imagine any less efficient way to try to help the poor.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
It's hard to imagine any less efficient way to try to help the poor.
I was just pointing out that all discussion in this area fails to account for the entirety of the situation, not making a case either way or the other.
All sides are quite capable, and happy, to distort figures, manipulate data, and fail to reveal a full picture...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Indeed.
However, I reiterate that the arguments for universality are not heard, they are drowned out. Moreover, as far as I can see, you have failed to demonstrate a lack of soundness.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Have there been any calculations done at the cost of means-testing universal benefits versus the savings thus generated?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Have there been any calculations done at the cost of means-testing universal benefits versus the savings thus generated?
Good question.
Yes. And moreover, this report by the National Audit Office* looked at the wider impacts as well. I've only just skimmed it but it looks like a really good analysis:
quote:
p21 of the report
While means testing can reduce public spending through targeting of support, 2.11 the costs per claim of delivering means-tested benefits tend to be higher than for contributory or universal benefits even where benefits have similar target groups. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that maintaining existing claims for Pension Credit cost £47 per claim in 2010-11, compared to £14 per claim for the non-means-tested State Pension
For me the argument about Child Benefit goes as follows:
- Raising Children is important
- Raising Children costs money
- All other things being equal, someone with children will have higher costs than someone without.
- As a society, we should invest in children
Now, if you give Family Allowance directly to mothers (as was originally done) then the evidence was that this money was spent on the children. Society has changed since then, and I'm not saying we should still do it that way, simply that it's useful to remember how we got to where we are.
Of course, this does cause some anomalies whereby single people on lower incomes don't get a benefit that couples on higher incomes do. For me such anomalies can and should be more than compensated for by the tax system. This is the argument for universality.
You may say as a single person why should you subsidise other people's children? Well, there are several answers to that one, but let's go with the selfish one. Investment in children saves money in the long term - makes them more productive adults paying more tax and less likely to be criminals. And hence their taxes will pay for your pension, healthcare costs etc. etc. [FWIW, I have no children and am a higher rate tax-payer...]
Of course, one must approach these things carefully; as to balance the books with universal benefits, progressive taxation is necessary. Whilst I think that the Laffer curve is horrendously misrepresented and the evidence for where is actually sits is quite weak, the effect is real, and we should not have disincentivising taxation. (Is that a word?) However, and this is vital, as that report highlights, for many, the horrendous complications of means-testing often makes the poorest disincentivised to work. That doesn't change the fact that most work, if they can.
If we are going to have this debate, then perhaps it's time for some to admit that the poor are not incentivised by making them poorer any more than the rich are. Besides, unless, you are very very rich, the NHS is a very good deal. Universal healthcare for ~£1800/person/year. If you don't believe that's cheap, ask an American how much they pay (oh and add on how much they pay in federal taxes for Medicare and Medicaid, which is more than the cost of the NHS alone). Similarly, the German and French systems, which do have many good points, cost 2-3x more than the NHS.
AFZ
*Please forgive my side-swipe, but this kind of excellent, informative report was provided by the National Audit Office... what's happening to that again?
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
You may say as a single person why should you subsidise other people's children? Well, there are several answers to that one, but let's go with the selfish one. Investment in children saves money in the long term - makes them more productive adults paying more tax and less likely to be criminals. And hence their taxes will pay for your pension, healthcare costs etc. etc.
However, unfortunately, those children do not come into the world without their parents and because there are many children of benefit claimants whose parents have never worked (and possibly whose grandparents have never worked either), it is not simply a case of 'investing in the children'.
As a single person with no children and a low salary I do resent paying my taxes for the state to raise the children of those adults who have never worked; who continue to have children - often by multiple fathers - without any apparent intention of working. Unfortunately, children of those parents often go on to have lives which cost the tax payer huge amounts of money and bring about little if no return (to continue with your 'selfish' theme). That isn't always the case, of course, but it is very often the case. Universal benefits as they stand today - ie no longer a safety net but more like a comfort blanket - is unfair on the tax payer and not right. There needs to be a way of ensuring children are safeguarded without allowing those irresponsible parents to which I refer to take the tax payer for a ride.
And I would like it noted here that my own argument is not with adults who find themselves in awful situations having otherwise lived a productive life (insofar as contributing to the national pot is concerned). Losing your job, finding yourself having to be a fulltime carer, becoming disabled (or being so from birth), becoming so ill you cannot work, becoming old - these things are what the welfare state was created to support. It was not created to support those who produce children without any sense of responsibility or accountability to the people who are paying for those children to be brought up or who find life on the dole so comfortable (usually due to the extras they receive by producing children) that they don't seek work.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
However, unfortunately, those children do not come into the world without their parents and because there are many children of benefit claimants whose parents have never worked (and possibly whose grandparents have never worked either), it is not simply a case of 'investing in the children'.
Oh dear.
Please read the second half of this post and come back to me.
Thank you.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Oh dear.
Please read the second half of this post and come back to me.
Thank you.
AFZ
And ...?
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
You may say as a single person why should you subsidise other people's children? Well, there are several answers to that one, but let's go with the selfish one. Investment in children saves money in the long term - makes them more productive adults paying more tax and less likely to be criminals. And hence their taxes will pay for your pension, healthcare costs etc. etc.
However, unfortunately, those children do not come into the world without their parents and because there are many children of benefit claimants whose parents have never worked (and possibly whose grandparents have never worked either), it is not simply a case of 'investing in the children'.
As a single person with no children and a low salary I do resent paying my taxes for the state to raise the children of those adults who have never worked; who continue to have children - often by multiple fathers - without any apparent intention of working. Unfortunately, children of those parents often go on to have lives which cost the tax payer huge amounts of money and bring about little if no return (to continue with your 'selfish' theme). That isn't always the case, of course, but it is very often the case. Universal benefits as they stand today - ie no longer a safety net but more like a comfort blanket - is unfair on the tax payer and not right. There needs to be a way of ensuring children are safeguarded without allowing those irresponsible parents to which I refer to take the tax payer for a ride.
And I would like it noted here that my own argument is not with adults who find themselves in awful situations having otherwise lived a productive life (insofar as contributing to the national pot is concerned). Losing your job, finding yourself having to be a fulltime carer, becoming disabled (or being so from birth), becoming so ill you cannot work, becoming old - these things are what the welfare state was created to support. It was not created to support those who produce children without any sense of responsibility or accountability to the people who are paying for those children to be brought up or who find life on the dole so comfortable (usually due to the extras they receive by producing children) that they don't seek work.
The dole is not comfortable and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Been there, done that, known enough young single mothers to know the actual truth - that many young women are very vulnerable when it comes to pleasing their boyfriends who provide a kind of family for them. Therefore they agree to not use contraception because their boyfriends don't like it. And then, because abortion is a taboo amongst many working class women even today (speaking from experience here), they have the baby and live in poverty, often as they are at college and on Income Support. And when they have a new boyfriend, they think it will be different but the cycle continues.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
However, unfortunately, those children do not come into the world without their parents and because there are many children of benefit claimants whose parents have never worked (and possibly whose grandparents have never worked either), it is not simply a case of 'investing in the children'.
The percentage of households where 2 generations have NEVER worked is less than 0.1%. There is no evidence at all of three-generation worklessness. There just isn't.
It's a minister/media myth that there are multi-generation workless families. When researches went looking they couldn't find any.
And as Jade has pointed out, the rest of your post is myth-filled also.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Just wanted to add some important statistics about single parents in the UK:
- Less than 2 per cent of single parents are teenagers (1)
- The median age of single parents is 38.1 (2)
- Around half of single parents had their children within marriage – 49 per cent are separated from marriage, divorced or widowed (2)
- 59.2 per cent of single parents are in work, up 14.5 percentage points since 1997 (3)
- The employment rate for single parents varies depending on the age of their youngest child. Once their children are 12 or over, single parents’ employment rate is similar to, or higher than, the employment rate for mothers in couples (71 per cent of single parents whose child is 11-15 are in work) (4)
- Only 6.5 per cent of all births are registered alone, and 10 per cent are registered to two parents who live apart (5)
- Paid work is not a guaranteed route out of poverty for single parents; the poverty rate for single parent families where the parent works part time is 23 per cent, and 18 per cent where the parent works full time (6)
- Where single parents are not working, this is often because there are health issues that make work difficult: 33 per cent of unemployed single parents have a disability or longstanding illness (7) and 34 per cent have a child with a disability (8)
- Over half of single parents are in work (59.2 per cent), up 14.5 percentage points since 1997. In the same period, the employment rate of mothers in couples has risen three percentage points to 71 per cent (9)
1. Figure produced for Gingerbread by the Fertility and Family Analysis Unit, Office of National Statistic and derived from the Annual Population Survey (APS), (Labour Force Survey plus boost), 2009 data
2. Lone parents with dependent children, January 2012, Office for National Statistics
3. Working and Workless Households, 2012, Table P. ONS Statistical Bulletin, August 2012
4. Families with children in Britain: Findings from the 2008 Families and children study (FACS), Table 3.2. Department for Work and Pensions, 2010
5. Derived from Households and Families, Social Trends 41, Table 6 & 7. ONS, 2011. Data from 2009
6. Households Below Average Income, An analysis of the income distribution 1994/95 – 2009/10, Table 4.11ts. Department for Work and Pensions, 2011
7. Family and Children Survey 2008, Table 3.2. DWP, 2010
8. Family and Children Survey 2008, Table 12.5. DWP, 2010
9. Working and Workless Households, 2012, Table P. ONS Statistical Bulletin, August 2012
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Thank you - that was very informative.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
There is no evidence at all of three-generation worklessness. There just isn't.
I'm afraid you are very wrong there. You need to visit my town and look at our records. There most certainly is evidence of three generation worklessness!
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
many young women are very vulnerable when it comes to pleasing their boyfriends who provide a kind of family for them. Therefore they agree to not use contraception because their boyfriends don't like it. And then, because abortion is a taboo amongst many working class women even today (speaking from experience here), they have the baby and live in poverty, often as they are at college and on Income Support. And when they have a new boyfriend, they think it will be different but the cycle continues. [/QUOTE]
wow - there is just so much wrong with the seemingly-acceptable attitudes and behaviours exhibited in this post, it's hard to know where to start. It's like Women's Lib never happened.
For those unfortunate enough never to have encountered the thinking of Dr Germaine Greer et al, let me make a stab:
The "boyfriend" (I put this in inverted commas, scare quotes, if you like, because a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship should be one of mutual love and respect, not one that of enslavement/submission of one to the other) doesn't *like* contraception?
Awww diddums! Guess he didn't like weaning and potty-training either. Point is, if the B/F can't take any responsibility, can only grab at his immediate self-gratification then he is NOT FUCKING MATURE ENOUGH TO FUCK!
Secondly, assuming the form of contraception that the infantile boyfriend doesn't like is a condom, guess what? There are other forms of contraception! The Pill and Depo implants spring to mind and well as the springy Coil! Infantile B/F need know nothing about them (assuming he has enough IQ to understand them.)
Working class women have a taboo against abortion? Ever seen Vera Drake? Up The Junction? Alfie?
The cycle starts again. Exactly!
Young people (and, believe me, this phrase is always used) are being totally failed by the educational system which has been meddled with by politicians for ever since I can remember. One could say ALL of us have been failed by the state system since around 1970 or thereabouts.
I am not that far off that generation and I am really not "having a go" at you in particular, Jade Constable, but I am amazed that young women today have been inculcated to have so little self-knowledge, self-respect that they think having kids with 2 or 3 here-today-gone-tomorrow blokes in order to get housing and an income is the best you can get out of life. The immediate figures I have to hand: (£71 pw personal allowance, child benefit £20.30 (£13.40 for additionals), child tax credit - family element £545 pa + £2690 pa per child (= £62.21 pw for one chid). If you can get them recognized as disabled then you get not only DLA (minimum £20.55 pw) but also another £2950 disabled chid tax credit). So - single parent with one (non disabled) child = income £6382 - housing costs and council tax paid (let us assume 92 pw - £11166 pa or £214.73 pw - on minimum wage you'd have to work 34.68 hours to get that gross (and then you'd have tax and NI taken off).Yeah, you can live on that - esp if there's a bit of *black economy* going on - and, believe it or not, I care less about that - basic benefit for a single person ISN'T enough to provide a "decent", if basic, life. But surely, for goodness sake, we want people to make a better life than that? To respect themselves, to grow into the complete humanity illustrated (for Christians) by Jesus?
What utterly appals me is the way that governments from, well, to pick a date , say c. 1970 have consistently downgraded the educational possibilities available to the *proles* and subsequent administrations have just accepted that "the poor* are always with you" - instead of trying to raise them up!
* yes, yes, I know, very Jesuanical but I really don't think he meant those that were kept poor and continually downgraded and degraded because of oppression by self-serving, snouty-trough governments.
Thank you.
Thank you.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
There is no evidence at all of three-generation worklessness. There just isn't.
I'm afraid you are very wrong there. You need to visit my town and look at our records. There most certainly is evidence of three generation worklessness!
Did you miss the part where AFZ said 'the percentage of households where 2 generations have NEVER worked is less than 0.1%'??
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
many young women are very vulnerable when it comes to pleasing their boyfriends who provide a kind of family for them. Therefore they agree to not use contraception because their boyfriends don't like it. And then, because abortion is a taboo amongst many working class women even today (speaking from experience here), they have the baby and live in poverty, often as they are at college and on Income Support. And when they have a new boyfriend, they think it will be different but the cycle continues.
wow - there is just so much wrong with the seemingly-acceptable attitudes and behaviours exhibited in this post, it's hard to know where to start. It's like Women's Lib never happened.
For those unfortunate enough never to have encountered the thinking of Dr Germaine Greer et al, let me make a stab:
The "boyfriend" (I put this in inverted commas, scare quotes, if you like, because a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship should be one of mutual love and respect, not one that of enslavement/submission of one to the other) doesn't *like* contraception?
Awww diddums! Guess he didn't like weaning and potty-training either. Point is, if the B/F can't take any responsibility, can only grab at his immediate self-gratification then he is NOT FUCKING MATURE ENOUGH TO FUCK!
Secondly, assuming the form of contraception that the infantile boyfriend doesn't like is a condom, guess what? There are other forms of contraception! The Pill and Depo implants spring to mind and well as the springy Coil! Infantile B/F need know nothing about them (assuming he has enough IQ to understand them.)
Working class women have a taboo against abortion? Ever seen Vera Drake? Up The Junction? Alfie?
The cycle starts again. Exactly!
Young people (and, believe me, this phrase is always used) are being totally failed by the educational system which has been meddled with by politicians for ever since I can remember. One could say ALL of us have been failed by the state system since around 1970 or thereabouts.
I am not that far off that generation and I am really not "having a go" at you in particular, Jade Constable, but I am amazed that young women today have been inculcated to have so little self-knowledge, self-respect that they think having kids with 2 or 3 here-today-gone-tomorrow blokes in order to get housing and an income is the best you can get out of life. The immediate figures I have to hand: (£71 pw personal allowance, child benefit £20.30 (£13.40 for additionals), child tax credit - family element £545 pa + £2690 pa per child (= £62.21 pw for one chid). If you can get them recognized as disabled then you get not only DLA (minimum £20.55 pw) but also another £2950 disabled chid tax credit). So - single parent with one (non disabled) child = income £6382 - housing costs and council tax paid (let us assume 92 pw - £11166 pa or £214.73 pw - on minimum wage you'd have to work 34.68 hours to get that gross (and then you'd have tax and NI taken off).Yeah, you can live on that - esp if there's a bit of *black economy* going on - and, believe it or not, I care less about that - basic benefit for a single person ISN'T enough to provide a "decent", if basic, life. But surely, for goodness sake, we want people to make a better life than that? To respect themselves, to grow into the complete humanity illustrated (for Christians) by Jesus?
What utterly appals me is the way that governments from, well, to pick a date , say c. 1970 have consistently downgraded the educational possibilities available to the *proles* and subsequent administrations have just accepted that "the poor* are always with you" - instead of trying to raise them up!
* yes, yes, I know, very Jesuanical but I really don't think he meant those that were kept poor and continually downgraded and degraded because of oppression by self-serving, snouty-trough governments.
Thank you.
Thank you. [/QUOTE]
First off, where did I say that all of that was acceptable? I said that this is what happens (from experience), not that it was right to happen. Reading comprehension, learn it.
Next, although I know Germaine Greer's work I would never recommend it because she is transphobic, cissexist, classist and a whole load of other stuff. OF COURSE it isn't right for a woman to give into sex with a partner without contraception just on the man's say-so! I'm not saying it is, just that this is what happens. Because these women are ground down by life and cling onto their boyfriends because their boyfriends provide a sense of security and family for them. Somehow you missed that part. Also hormonal contraception does not suit everyone for medical reasons and since they often smoke, can't be on the Pill.
These women aren't having babies for housing - how many times do I have to point this out? Most of the time the babies aren't intentional, but if they are they're for someone to love and care for. The young women are often living with their parents, not in social housing anyway.
Your evidence for there not being a taboo against abortion amongst working class women is from Hollywood films? Really?? Because I lived for years in hostels with other working class women and there is definitely a huge taboo against 'killing your baby' as they would put it. In all my life I have only known one teenager who got an abortion, who was castigated by her peers for it. I also was in a YMCA hostel who hosted a Christian group for girls who taught against abortion.
I won't deny that these women have been failed but it's by society in general, not by the education system - many of them have actually done very well at school and quite a few have been privately-educated. It's definitely not as simple as comprehensive education = babies on welfare. Totally not, from experience. They are failed by a society that sees them and their experiences as worthless, so no wonder they turn to having babies to find worth.
And uh, when Jesus said the poor are always with us, he meant ALL the poor, not just the ones you think are deserving of help.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
If you can get them recognized as disabled then you get not only DLA (minimum £20.55 pw) but also another £2950 disabled chid tax credit).
That is so fucking offensive.
Why the hell do you think there is a Disability Living allowance for disabled children or an additional tax credit for disability? You don't think it might be because there are extra costs caused by a child having a disability?
Maybe?
And if you don't realise that, then you don't know anyone with a disabled child.
But, no, everyone who is claiming DLA for their child is playing the system and basically gets them 'recognised' disabled so they can have a little more money to be more comfortable...
Care to provide any evidence to support that?
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
