|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Tackling Poverty
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I remember seeing a study in Glasgow which showed that people in Easterhouse (notoriously run-down area) were paying far more for their food than people in the affluent West End of the city.
Because they had less transport options and less choice they were paying more for a far less varied diet.
It isn't purely about economic poverty but a whole range of other issues too. Sure, education comes into it but you could have gone in all goody-two-shoes and shown people in Easterhouse how to cook simple, nutritious meals and so on - but to no avail as the kind of fresh ingredients they'd require weren't available to them locally.
Sure, there are cultural reasons too - a whole range of issues.
But Hatless is right, having more money gives you more power and more choice. The converse is true. Less income, less choice - and often at higher prices.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
On that score, there are also neurochemical issues to do with stress and impulse control that make eating a decent diet much harder if you're on a low income. Poverty is multi-dimensional and each problem makes the others harder to deal with.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Also, those who have specialist dietary needs usually have to spend more - I have IBS and unfortunately cannot have pulses or oats because of that, so that's two cheap staple foods I can't eat. Dairy-free milk alternatives are more expensive than the cheapest dairy milk (and are less easy to find in an area with limited shopping options). Some things like some gluten-free products are available on prescription, but not all specialist dietary products are available on prescription.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
No such dietary prescriptions exist in Canada. It is simply an additional expense. With the disintegration of Medicare at the behest of gov'ts beholden to neo-con and neo-lib economic policies, we no longer have prescription drug coverage, dental for anyone, eye care, and things like plaster casts, crutches are billed to the patient. Elderly who fall call the fire department and call a taxicab versus user pay ambulances which start at $250 plus mileage. Our societies are richer and the rich are richer. The most needy are needier.
The progress for support has been negative.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
My husband and I both grew up in poverty. We are fortunate to no longer be there and we now live on the margins in one of the wealthiest areas in the world so that our children can benefit from the educational and other opportunities. Our siblings and their children still live in poverty despite the fact that they are very hard working people who have faced unexpected job loss in the past few years, lack of mobility due to poor educational opportunities or an unexpected illness that has wrecked finances.
Comparing my childhood to the lives of the affluent children my children go to school with and with my nieces and nephews still in poverty, it is the lack of opportunity for lower class children that angers me most. They attend substandard schools, in aging unsafe facilities, have no access to AP classes, their parents cannot afford enrichment (it costs extra to do school sports, drama, debate...any extracurriculars), they have less chance to develop a gift or pursue a passion (whether it be sports, or music, or art), their schools offer little or no foreign language, the have a disproportionate amount of special needs students but no additional funding, the schools deal with kids facing food insecurity, homelessness and violence and can only offer piecemeal remedies. My nieces and nephews are not prepared to go to college, they have no advisement or encouragement and believe it is out of their reach. They are not even taught basic skills. In the English class my niece had in 9th grade the teacher decided just to show the children movies of books on a reading list instead of having them read the books. I was shocked. I have a nephew who graduated high school but is so illiterate he cannot read the check list required for his construction job. The parents work multiple jobs, are too exhausted to fight it.
If you want to do something about poverty then you have to prepare children to succeed and move out of poverty. You have to educate and support them. You have to give them hope. In this country it's not that the wealthy get more its that the poor don't even get basics; living wage, decent education, basic healthcare, adequate nutrition. I keep hearing how we have "free education" but if it's just warehousing and teaching to a standardized test then it is not education, certainly not what they'll need to contribute to a 21st century society.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
You know something? My parents divorced when I was 8 and plunged me, my mother and sister into homelessness and poverty. We had to move to a seaside town and live in my grandmother's boarding house. 3 years later and still in poverty - though by now we had a tiny terraced house - I went to one of the most prestigious boys' schools in the town. Most of the boys were the sons of lawyers, businessmen, diplomats, military personnel, etc, etc.
I was awarded this most privileged opportunity by the Conservative Government at the time (1973) that ran a direct grant scheme where anyone, regardless of income of class who passed the 11+ could go, free of charge, to this normally fee-paying school.
My years there saw my family remaining in poverty.
Sadly, a labour government took over in the mid 70s and scrapped the direct grant scheme. This meant that my sister who was 5 years younger than me was denied the opportunity and, although she was intelligent enough, was unable to go to my school.
After Mrs Thatcher came to power a similar scheme to give children from poor backgrounds the opportunity to go to public school was reintroduced but it was too late for my sister.
I need to clarify that even those who paid to go to tis school had to pass the entrance exam and so it wasn't a case of poor intelligent kids going to a school where thick rich kids went. The entrance requirement was the same, but the opportunity was given by a Tory government but was stripped away by a Labour government.
Who denies opportunities to the poor?
Who stops people from a lower class getting a good education?
Socialists.
Bring back grammar schools and direct grants and you'll get poor kids given huge opportunities that were always denied under labour.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
So how many kids got that opportunity, Mudfrog? Labour governments abolished the free private school places for the few in favour of increasing funding to give everyone a decent education. As someone who grew up without a lot of money around (not poverty but well below average household income) I'm very glad about that. It meant that I had the same opportunities as pretty much anyone else. I went to an excellent comprehensive school, along with the kids of doctors and army officers, children of single parents, kids who lived on council estates, factory workers. There were 3 good comprehensives in the town and little to choose between them. I got 11 good GCSEs including 3 sciences and a foreign language and went on to FE college to do 4 A-Levels, again choosing between 2 excellent FE colleges and 2 good school 6th forms in nearby towns.
There were no grammar schools, few people bothered with the one local private school (usually it was a last resort for the thuggish children of wealthy parents who thought they could get away with bullying at the state schools).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Anyone who passed the 11+ could go to my school. My friend in 6th form was also poor and from a single family. I had free school dinners we were so poor.
My sister went to the local secondary school which was bad in the 1970s. Last year it was put in special measures. It has been consistently bad for 40 years.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There were no grammar schools, few people bothered with the one local private school (usually it was a last resort for the thuggish children of wealthy parents who thought they could get away with bullying at the state schools).
You see, that is merely a prejudiced comment with no basis in fact. I got to my school, as did others, by passing the 11+. Anyone else who wanted to go there had to pass the entrance exam. You could not go there just because your parents were rich, you had to merit a place - and that was an opportunity given to all classes and all levels of income.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... Bring back grammar schools and direct grants and you'll get poor kids given huge opportunities that were always denied under labour. ...
... My sister went to the local secondary school which was bad in the 1970s. Last year it was put in special measures. It has been consistently bad for 40 years. ...
How does choosing one or two kids from a school that is "consistently bad" help all the other children who have had to go to that school over those 40 years? A goodie for a select few isn't social justice or an educational policy, it's tokenism. Rather than sending a lucky few poor kids to a school for toffs, why not support the "bad" school and give all the kids, rich or poor, the best education possible?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... Bring back grammar schools and direct grants and you'll get poor kids given huge opportunities that were always denied under labour. ...
... My sister went to the local secondary school which was bad in the 1970s. Last year it was put in special measures. It has been consistently bad for 40 years. ...
How does choosing one or two kids from a school that is "consistently bad" help all the other children who have had to go to that school over those 40 years? A goodie for a select few isn't social justice or an educational policy, it's tokenism. Rather than sending a lucky few poor kids to a school for toffs, why not support the "bad" school and give all the kids, rich or poor, the best education possible?
What was lucky about me passing my 11+?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I also passed my 11+ to go to what was the local grammar school, one of 6 from my school year of 24. My primary school kept the Eleven plus for as long as possible because we lived in the feeder area for what had been the local secondary modern (where failed students went) and that was not a good school.
The secondary school I attended was an amalgamation of the secondary modern and grammar school in that town - they happened to be next to each other and meant we had good facilities to teach a range of subjects, with a sixth form and ex-grammar school teachers as well as secondary modern school teachers. It met the needs of children in a wide catchment area reasonably well, and the science and maths teaching was better than that of the girls' public (private) schools in that area. I know because I passed the scholarship to get to them too and was taken around them all to check out facilities.
Now if the money providing direct grant places had been put into improving the once secondary modern, don't you think more students would have benefited, rather than just the handful that took up the direct grant places?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
All children deserve a good education, whether they could pass the 11+ (or a modern equivalent) or not. I went to a normal comprehensive in Coventry between 2000 and 2005 and had an excellent education, and most of my peers went to university. I don't see any evidence that children had less opportunity under Labour. The Tory decision to scrap EMA is certainly evidence that poorer young people matter less to them and it's had a hugely detrimental impact, especially young people who are more likely to drop out of education, eg those in foster care or institutions/hostels.
The solution to giving poorer young people opportunities isn't to send a lucky few to private schools - that takes money out of the state school system and so disadvantages other pupils. The solution is to improve the state system so that private education is no longer necessary and so the money that would be spent there can be put into the state system. Education is the right of all, not the privilege of a few.
Also confusing a Labour government with a socialist one shows a distinct lack of political understanding!
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You see, that is merely a prejudiced comment with no basis in fact. I got to my school, as did others, by passing the 11+. Anyone else who wanted to go there had to pass the entrance exam. You could not go there just because your parents were rich, you had to merit a place - and that was an opportunity given to all classes and all levels of income.
That may have been true of the school you went to, but the private school in my town did not have an entrance exam and I knew people who jumped to it before getting permanently excluded from the state system. It's not prejudice when I've seen it happen. How you feel able to make pronouncements about a school you know nothing about I'm not sure.
The existence of selective schools tends to make other schools around them worse, that's pretty much a given.
In any case, in the example you give, would you deny that places were easier to get if you could pay the fees? They may not only have been available to the wealthy (and, frankly, quite a lot of private schools offer some scholarships) but I'd be extremely surprised if places were offered on a "means blind" basis.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
The period during which grammar schools were everywhere was also a period of high social mobility. Since their abolition in a significant amount of the country, social mobility has dramatically declined.
Coincidence?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The period during which grammar schools were everywhere was also a period of high social mobility. Since their abolition in a significant amount of the country, social mobility has dramatically declined.
Coincidence?
Almost certainly. The fall in wages for manual workers, coupled with reductions in unemployment benefits and soaring pay for the wealthiest, with lower tax rates and deregulation have a lot more to do with it. The clue is that the US never had grammar schools and still experienced the same decline in social mobility. Scandinavian countries didn't lower tax rates and don't have the same social mobility issues.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The fall in wages for manual workers, coupled with reductions in unemployment benefits and soaring pay for the wealthiest, with lower tax rates and deregulation have a lot more to do with it.
How are you defining social mobility? I'm thinking in terms of type of employment, which is the way socio-economic groups are defined in the UK.
Social mobility is when the grandson of a casual farm labourer can become a Higher Education professional. Higher incomes are a result of social mobility, not a driver of it.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How are you defining social mobility? I'm thinking in terms of type of employment, which is the way socio-economic groups are defined in the UK.
Social mobility is when the grandson of a casual farm labourer can become a Higher Education professional. Higher incomes are a result of social mobility, not a driver of it.
We agree on the definition, but actually there is strong evidence that economic equality is closely linked to social mobility - the more unequal a society is the less socially mobile it will be. If memory serves it is theorised that this is partly because in an unequal society the experiences of the wealthy are so far removed from those of the poor that there is a huge cultural difference to be overcome, and wealth disparities make it easier to buy advantage through extra tutoring (including coaching to pass school entrance exams, it's worth mentioning) or extra curricular activities that look good on a UCAS application.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyone who passed the 11+ could go to my school. My friend in 6th form was also poor and from a single family. I had free school dinners we were so poor.
My sister went to the local secondary school which was bad in the 1970s. Last year it was put in special measures. It has been consistently bad for 40 years.
Now there could be something interesting hidden in those paragraphs. That the results of the 11+ were deliberately skewed so that girls who had results equal to those of boys who went to the grammar schools didn't. This was because of two unfortunate circumstances. Girls tended to have higher scores, so more girls would, without the "correction" have passed. Secondly, there could be, in some areas, fewer places for girls than for boys.
It isn't entirely true, therefore, that anyone who passed the 11+ could go to grammar school. Unless you factor in the "correction" that meant that the "pass" mark for girls was higher than for boys.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Follow up - that was in the past, at the introduction of the 11+. I don't know when it was abandoned.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It isn't entirely true, therefore, that anyone who passed the 11+ could go to grammar school. Unless you factor in the "correction" that meant that the "pass" mark for girls was higher than for boys.
You also need to factor in that different local authorities had different numbers of places in Grammar schools.
Welsh authorites tended to have 25% of kids go to grammars.
Some English LEAs only 15%.
Where more passed the 11+ than there were places, interviews were held to do a final selection.
Re- social mobility, standards were improved when selection were abolished. only 75% of the creamed off 20% got 5 or more O' levels.
In comps. 66% from the whole ability range are expected to get the equivalent of 5 O' levels - or you fail your OFSTED.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I don't think it's helpful to get into the GCSEs vs O-Levels debate, leo. They're not directly equivalent.
What is interesting is to consider whether the impact of the GCSE has been to bring about the expectation that everyone should have qualifications. Someone leaving school at 16 with nothing on paper will be looked at by employers far less favourably than they would 30-40 years ago. The decisions you make about how to approach your education have far greater impact now than they did in the past. There aren't the same well paid manual jobs that people can move into. There aren't the same opportunities for evening classes that there once were (I worked in FE a couple of years ago and there were people in work who wanted to take A-Levels but we didn't have the funding to put on evening classes in most circumstances - it stopped at GCSE). If I had to generalise, I'd say that more people have more of an opportunity to succeed academically first time around, but far less room to fail at school and pick up the pieces later. I don't think we'll see many Prescotts, Majors or Bransons in public life in 20-30 years time.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
And the OU's got more expensive of late. I was thinking of adding to my existing degree until I saw the cost.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Re- social mobility, standards were improved when selection were abolished.
Social mobility is about employment, not qualifications.
--------------------
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 Penny S:
And the OU's got more expensive of late.
Of course it has. Government funding has reduced to ALL universities, meaning they have to make up the difference through fees.
--------------------
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:
The period during which grammar schools were everywhere was also a period of high social mobility. Since their abolition in a significant amount of the country, social mobility has dramatically declined.
[citation needed]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The period during which grammar schools were everywhere was also a period of high social mobility. Since their abolition in a significant amount of the country, social mobility has dramatically declined.
[citation needed]
It was also a period of (much) higher direct taxation, the introduction of the welfare state and NHS, tightly controlled mortgage availability and extensively available social housing. Moreover grammar schools benefitted c 10% of the 11+ cohort, so where did the improved social mobility for the remaining 90% come from?
Correlation is not, necessarily, causation.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And the OU's got more expensive of late.
Of course it has. Government funding has reduced to ALL universities, meaning they have to make up the difference through fees.
Well it wasn't free first time round.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyone who passed the 11+ could go to my school. My friend in 6th form was also poor and from a single family. I had free school dinners we were so poor.
My sister went to the local secondary school which was bad in the 1970s. Last year it was put in special measures. It has been consistently bad for 40 years.
Now there could be something interesting hidden in those paragraphs. That the results of the 11+ were deliberately skewed so that girls who had results equal to those of boys who went to the grammar schools didn't. This was because of two unfortunate circumstances. Girls tended to have higher scores, so more girls would, without the "correction" have passed. Secondly, there could be, in some areas, fewer places for girls than for boys.
It isn't entirely true, therefore, that anyone who passed the 11+ could go to grammar school. Unless you factor in the "correction" that meant that the "pass" mark for girls was higher than for boys.
No no no. My sister went to the other school simply because the direct grant scheme had been abolished.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
There is an interesting situation in the public schools in Washington, D. C.
They are all charter schools, which means that each school can develop its own curriculum. (I assume that all schools are required to teach basic literacy, etc.) No entrance exams are permitted for any of these schools. If there are more applicants than places, there is a lottery.
My grandson attends a school which is bilingual--Mandarin and English. One day all the classes are in Mandarin; the next day they are all in English.
He is receiving a far better education than most children in the District, but the city pays no more for his education than for that of any other child. I have somewhat ambivalent feelings about this. I am delighted that he is receiving such an excellent education, but I wonder if it will give him an unfair advantage. On the other hand, many children in the District would not benefit from this type of education.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... How does choosing one or two kids from a school that is "consistently bad" help all the other children who have had to go to that school over those 40 years? A goodie for a select few isn't social justice or an educational policy, it's tokenism. Rather than sending a lucky few poor kids to a school for toffs, why not support the "bad" school and give all the kids, rich or poor, the best education possible?
What was lucky about me passing my 11+? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Did every single kid who passed the exam go to the fancy school? Would there have been space if they had all wanted to go? No? Then you were lucky.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Besides, you were indeed lucky to be born with the necessary type of brain to pass the 11+. Not everyone is that lucky.
In a parallel universe somewhere, there's a Mudfrog who is complaining that whilst he benefitted from the 11+, his sister, a little less academic, was branded a failure at 11 and sent to the local secondary modern. Then he'd be cursing the elitist 11+ rather than the wicked socialists.
Interestingly, everyone I know who lauds the grammar school system was one of the small percentage who were lucky enough to be able to meet the requirements. I meet far fewer fans who went to the secondary modern. And I laugh when I hear talk of "choosing a grammar school education for my children." Sorry - grammar schools chose you. Or more often, didn't.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think it's helpful to get into the GCSEs vs O-Levels debate, leo. They're not directly equivalent.
Except that when comps started, GCE and CSE were run alongside each other and the improvement in numbers getting 5 + O'levels increased.
If grammar schools lifted SOME out of their social mileu, comps lifted ALL to some extent.
[ 06. January 2014, 14:44: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Seems to me that unless you live on less than a dollar a day you ain't poor. The starving Africans are really poor.
Westeners are not poor. Sorry. You might have less material goods than some other western people and have services of a lower quality, but you are NOT poor.
Also, some kids are just thicker than others. Some kids bully kids who are cleverer than they are. Some kids are much brighter and really need to be separated out to give them the best opportunity to do the best they can.
The ones who are remaining should be given the best opportunity we can afford to get better results, or to learn non-academic subjects. Some will still reject this and not want to work.
The ones who don't want to work and reject schooling can compete with immigrant Rumanians for work in hand-car washes.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think it's helpful to get into the GCSEs vs O-Levels debate, leo. They're not directly equivalent.
Except that when comps started, GCE and CSE were run alongside each other and the improvement in numbers getting 5 + O'levels increased.
If grammar schools lifted SOME out of their social mileu, comps lifted ALL to some extent.
What? Where? The comps took the children of the working classes and churned out the underclass!
Some lucky ones (like me) managed to get away from it, and there ain't no way my kids are going to be subject to that meat-grinder. I am a sharp-elbowed parent and wear that as a badge of pride.
Also, Karl, no, not everyone is clever, but those who are should be pushed as far as they can get.
We'll always have low-brained kids to fill up the bulk of hot, heavy or boring jobs, but we need clever people to be the future doctors, scientists and engineers. The Chinese are knocking on the door and we need to keep up.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Do nip down to the foodbank some time and tell the people with bare cupboards who've had to go there how they're not poor. I'm sure they'll understand.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Seems to me that unless you live on less than a dollar a day you ain't poor. The starving Africans are really poor.
Westeners are not poor. Sorry. You might have less material goods than some other western people and have services of a lower quality, but you are NOT poor.
If you can't afford a roof over your head, put food on the table or heat your living space, you're poor. The dollar a day thing isn't even a measure of absolute poverty: pretending that 75p a day would get you anything in the west is kind of dumb.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Grrr ...
I went to a comprehensive school, Deano. I went on to university and I got a first class honours degree.
So I'm part of the underclass, am I?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Of course we can push the cleverer ones Deano, but there's no reason on earth we have to do that by telling the other 90% they're thick and hiving them off to a crappy school so we can concentrate on the clever ones - aka the 11+/grammar/secondary modern system.
Besides anything else, it's too blunt an instrument. I was very good at maths and science but severely challenged - shall we say - in languages and humanities. Being stuck in a top stream because of my maths and science abilities meant I really fell behind in language classes where I couldn't keep up. Grammar/Secondary Modern selection is that very problem writ large. By all means set, but do it in an environment where all children have access to classes at their level in a given subject.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do nip down to the foodbank some time and tell the people with bare cupboards who've had to go there how they're not poor. I'm sure they'll understand.
Oh I'm sure there are parts of Africa where a foodbank would be most welcome.
Oh, and I know all about Pathways Karl, being as how they were in my Chruch's parish until last year. I supported it as much as possible, but...
Question Karl, if I may, how far do those friends of yours at the foodbank have to walk to get water? Is it clean? Are their children able to fetch it and carry back the heavy canister to their home?
[ 06. January 2014, 15:28: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do nip down to the foodbank some time and tell the people with bare cupboards who've had to go there how they're not poor. I'm sure they'll understand.
Oh I'm sure there are parts of Africa where a foodbank would be most welcome.
Question Karl, if I may, how far do those friends of yours at the foodbank have to walk to get water? Is it clean? Are their children able to fetch it and carry back the heavy canister to their home?
What is this? An "I know poorer people than you" competion? They're poor; some people in Africa are even poorer.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Grrr ...
I went to a comprehensive school, Deano. I went on to university and I got a first class honours degree.
So I'm part of the underclass, am I?
Like I said, if you had read properly, some of us were lucky to get out of it. I also went to a comprehensive and managed to go to university where I got an upper second.
But you and I and a few others were the exceptions not the rule.
Most kids who went to secondaries and comps didn't do anything like that.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do nip down to the foodbank some time and tell the people with bare cupboards who've had to go there how they're not poor. I'm sure they'll understand.
Oh I'm sure there are parts of Africa where a foodbank would be most welcome.
Question Karl, if I may, how far do those friends of yours at the foodbank have to walk to get water? Is it clean? Are their children able to fetch it and carry back the heavy canister to their home?
What is this? An "I know poorer people than you" competion? They're poor; some people in Africa are even poorer.
Because the majority of the debate seems to focus on "Western Poor" which masks real poverty. That's the true tragedy, and neither left nor right has the will to fix that.
On this subject, both wings of politics are bankrupt. But there is only one way to fix it if the will is there, and that is how we have rich "poor" poeple in the west. Trade, education, peace and stable, non-corruptable governments.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I sent my kids to comprehensive school too, Deano.
So what is it I 'got out of' exactly?
I'll concede that where I live now is 'posher' than where I grew up ... but it wasn't that rough. It's probably rougher now than it was then, mind.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Like I said, if you had read properly, some of us were lucky to get out of it. I also went to a comprehensive and managed to go to university where I got an upper second.
But you and I and a few others were the exceptions not the rule.
Most kids who went to secondaries and comps didn't do anything like that.
I went to a comp. I ended up with a doctorate. My brother went to the same comp. So did he. The majority of the people I shared a sixth form with went to university.
My kids go to the local comp. They're both intending to go to university. My daughter is thinking seriously of Cambridge. Pretty much all of the Y11 top set (and that's three separate classes) are already choosing their A level subjects.
How many 'lucky ones' do you have to hear about to realise that getting a decent bunch of O's and A's and going on to higher education from a comprehensive isn't like looking for hen's teeth?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Grrr ...
I went to a comprehensive school, Deano. I went on to university and I got a first class honours degree.
So I'm part of the underclass, am I?
Like I said, if you had read properly, some of us were lucky to get out of it. I also went to a comprehensive and managed to go to university where I got an upper second.
But you and I and a few others were the exceptions not the rule.
Most kids who went to secondaries and comps didn't do anything like that.
I went to a comprehensive and most of my peers went to university. The biggest obstacle to those who went to comprehensives getting into university has been the classism of universities, not the inherent stupidity of comprehensive school students.
In any case, not going to university doesn't equal a lack of intelligence and plenty of wealthy people who went to private schools are stupid. Vocational study and work that doesn't require a degree requires as much intelligence as 'professional' jobs.
--------------------
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
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Hmmm... seems like the Ship has more than its fair share of people who went to comprehensives or secondaries and then went on to universities.
Great, wonderful. Did any of you study statistics at uni, because I believe the Ship doesn't represent a true unbiased population of comprehensive school attendee's.
I think that because we are on a forum that is for discussing religion, most of us will be educated to a better standard than most.
Shall we go to a betting site forum and do a similar poll there?
But in the end what matters is that children who are very bright should be pushed to do as well as they can and if that means they get more resources and better teachers than those less bright then so be it.
Why should the brightest be held back? Why should they be made to remain down at the level of the average?
We need the brightest. There will always be plenty of the rest.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Hmmm... seems like the Ship has more than its fair share of people who went to comprehensives or secondaries and then went on to universities.
Great, wonderful. Did any of you study statistics at uni, because I believe the Ship doesn't represent a true unbiased population of comprehensive school attendee's.
I think that because we are on a forum that is for discussing religion, most of us will be educated to a better standard than most.
Shall we go to a betting site forum and do a similar poll there?
But in the end what matters is that children who are very bright should be pushed to do as well as they can and if that means they get more resources and better teachers than those less bright then so be it.
Why should the brightest be held back? Why should they be made to remain down at the level of the average?
We need the brightest. There will always be plenty of the rest.
We need *everyone*. Surely that is a rather more Christian attitude than elitism?
Also, less well-educated people can be religious too....
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do nip down to the foodbank some time and tell the people with bare cupboards who've had to go there how they're not poor. I'm sure they'll understand.
Oh I'm sure there are parts of Africa where a foodbank would be most welcome.
Question Karl, if I may, how far do those friends of yours at the foodbank have to walk to get water? Is it clean? Are their children able to fetch it and carry back the heavy canister to their home?
What is this? An "I know poorer people than you" competion? They're poor; some people in Africa are even poorer.
Because the majority of the debate seems to focus on "Western Poor" which masks real poverty. That's the true tragedy, and neither left nor right has the will to fix that.
On this subject, both wings of politics are bankrupt. But there is only one way to fix it if the will is there, and that is how we have rich "poor" poeple in the west. Trade, education, peace and stable, non-corruptable governments.
fwiw, I have worked with the poor in West Africa, and I have worked with the poor here in Southern California. Rather than saying one is poor and the other is "wealthy poor" I would say rather the face of poverty is different in the two places-- both in the causes and the implications.
In both cases, the causes are complex as is the solutions (as noted in Sach's research cited above). But speaking quite generally, in Africa, poverty is is about lack of resources. In America (can't really speak for the UK) it is about a lack of community. Homelessness in the US looks quite different from homelessness in Africa. But, on an individual level, it plays out in very similar ways. There are people starving in Africa, there are also people starving a few blocks from my house. There are parents giving up their children just to be sure they'll be fed in Africa, and there are parents doing the same here in the US. I am called to care for both. I cannot walk over the 3000 to 10000 (according to last census) homeless that are literally on my doorstep because there are millions in Africa. I must care for both.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Hmmm... seems like the Ship has more than its fair share of people who went to comprehensives or secondaries and then went on to universities.
Great, wonderful. Did any of you study statistics at uni, because I believe the Ship doesn't represent a true unbiased population of comprehensive school attendee's.
We're perilously close to a "one true Scotsman" fallacy here.
Sure, lots of people who went to comprehensives didn't go to university. But given that the majority of those who did, did so in places where there was no grammar school alternative, got a perfectly decent education that enabled them to move on in life - and still do - accepting that comprehensives give far more children access to higher education than grammars ever did would be a prudent step.
[ 06. January 2014, 17:23: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
