[Archived] The School that went on Strike

[joey_big_nose]

However the problem is complicated as if you reintroduced grammars the places would be dominated by kids from wealthy stable families while the majority from poorer unstable families would be ghettoised into the poorer schools. With the wealth gap increasing to worrying levels I'm not sure this is a desirable a course of action.

Joey

1. How so? The 11 Plus didn't involve a means test.

2. two wrongs do not make a right. Entire classes should not be held back by a few disruptive elements. That is the initial and most pressing priority.

1. Kids from stable families (which in turn tend to be wealthier) tend to act up less and apply themselves to school work better than those from unstable homes. Success at these exams are not so much about intelligence but getting through the work. Application is the key.

Plus with the resources available to wealthier parents also - tuition etc - these will be employed to improve their children passing the exam. Doubtless wealthier kids will dominate the places. I'd bet my house on it.

The big issue comes with those kids in the middle of the spectrum who are heavily influenced by their peers. Stick them in a school with well behaved students and they will do fine. Put them in a bad class and they get dragged down. If they fall the wrong side of the 11 plus they are put in a difficult situation. And it will often be the case that a less intelligent kid from a wealthier background - aided by tuition and a better working environment - will beat a more intelligent poorer kid to a place at the grammer.

The point about the wealth gap is this will be yet another factor which accelerates the gap between rich and poor as access to quality education will be skewed to the rich (albeit not with any Machiavellian intent) further.

2. I agree with this. But it is important to try and develop a solution which improves the lot for everyone, which is extremely difficult.

Gumboots - totally agree about the contempt for education. It is so damaging and in its own way totally baffling as education is by far the main means to achievement of any sort.

[Hannah]

I know I am talking from a primary point of view but I still think it is relevant. I have worked in two schools which are at the opposite end of the spectrum to each other but what I would say is that the majority of the children in my current school work much harder than the children in my old school and consequently will achieve much more. My old school was full of kids from a wealthy background whereas I work in an area with high social deprivation now.

Having dealt with challenging behaviour in both schools I would say that the disruptive behaviour is much easier to deal with now as the parents are so much more supportive. At my old school it never used to be their kids fault that they misbehaved. There was always an excuse and nothing that buying them a computer game wouldn't fix!

I think disruptive children should be taken out of classes but I also think that reintegration and support should be put in place to try and keep them in main stream. I am all for inclusion but not at the detriment of the other children in the class. I am currently developing a curriculum in our school to ensure a high level of engagement and enjoyment particularly focused on boys. Where this works well the children are motivated and engaged where it doesn't you end up with behaviour issues!

I

[roversmum]

As far as disruptive children go, it took until she was fifteen to get my granddaughter diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum (she had already been diagnosed as having learning difficulties which we did not achieve until she was thirteen), after suspensions and threats of exclusion - this from a school that prided itself on its pastoral care.

The other kids at the mainstream schools she went to picked up on her problems and wound her up incessantly. It even took a couple of years at a special school before she was finally diagnosed. I can now easily tell whether a child is autistic - and there are wide variations - but many of these children fall through the net and are undiagnosed, causing endless disruption for themselves, their families and their school communities and a lot of them get into trouble with the law.

My granddaughter was in hospital recently, and upon being told she was autistic, the nurse said that could not be the case as only boys were autistic. A nurse!!!

I am not saying that all children who are disruptive have autism, but there is a chance that they may, as Joey suggests, have other psychological problems. Unless they have such problems, all children need to be taught discipline (for without it they will not get very far); respect, and that with rights come responsibilities.

As far as Grammar schools go, the one I went to had a healthy mix of children from all backgrounds and very few failed to do well. My friends who went to secondary schools, all thrived too, and I personally feel that this system was a good one.

[Rover Down Under]

1. Kids from stable families (which in turn tend to be wealthier) tend to act up less and apply themselves to school work better than those from unstable homes. Success at these exams are not so much about intelligence but getting through the work. Application is the key.

Family stability is not dependent on income. There are plenty of well-off unstable families out there. Likewise, income does not determine whether a kid will "act up less".

Plus with the resources available to wealthier parents also - tuition etc - these will be employed to improve their children passing the exam. Doubtless wealthier kids will dominate the places. I'd bet my house on it.

So successful parents shouldn't be allowed to try and give their kids a head start? Again, plenty of well-off families don't necessarily spend money on extra tuition.

And it will often be the case that a less intelligent kid from a wealthier background - aided by tuition and a better working environment - will beat a more intelligent poorer kid to a place at the grammer.

How so?

2. I agree with this. But it is important to try and develop a solution which improves the lot for everyone, which is extremely difficult.

I reckon we had one, not perfect but certainly better than now, then someone decided to take it away.

I think there are some sweeping generalisations about poorer kids and behaviour. I got to see the inside of the majority of Blackburn schools, sat inside classrooms watching my Mum sub teaching. Behaviour, motivation and application were never major issues, infact in some cases I reckon the state kids were better behaved than at the private schools. Of course, that was then, when the teachers had the rights and the kids had the responsibilities, then someone decided to reverse that.

However, then education was a thing to aspire to whereas now it's treated with contempt by large sections of society.

Hammer, nail, head, in one sentence Gumboots.

[Paul]

1. How so? The 11 Plus didn't involve a means test.

True it didn't involve a means test but it was a ticket to a better and subsidised education in the area where I grew up. Passing the 11+ opened secondary school doors for me which my parents could not afford. Fees paid by the state plus all travel. I attended a private Catholic school, though it wasn't a "private school" in the usually accepted sense, which I only entered because of achieving the 11+. I'm not sure how that school was categorised, but it wasn't a grammar school.

[JAL]

Lets get it right guys and gals our kids dont have a future, well at least a million of them dont and thats rising.

[JAL]

Lets get it right guys and gals our kids dont have a future, well at least a million of them dont and thats rising.

Just hope you guys are not ignoring this.

[joey_big_nose]

Family stability is not dependent on income. There are plenty of well-off unstable families out there. Likewise, income does not determine whether a kid will "act up less".

It's not dependent but it is highly related. Look at the proportion of expelled students from school and their income background. It is heavily skewed towards kids from low income backgrounds.

So successful parents shouldn't be allowed to try and give their kids a head start? Again, plenty of well-off families don't necessarily spend money on extra tuition.

I have sympathy for this - it should be the right of any parent to provide for their kids as they see fit. But the other side of the coin is we have a society where the division between the poorest and richest is ever expanding and this is greatly due to wealthier parents employing better resources to advance their children.

You don't want to penalise anybody, but it is a serious issue. We are going the way of America where the top 20% of society owns 80% of the wealth. Do we want that? If we don't we need better equality of opportunity and that starts with education.

How so?

What's confusing about the notion that a child who has access to better teaching resources will perform better than a child who has poorer ones?

I reckon we had one, not perfect but certainly better than now, then someone decided to take it away.

I can see the argument in this, but then I also think that the case that education has got worse is massively overstated. Wealth in the UK has vastly increased in the last thirty years, as has individual income (although to a much lesser degree), unemployment has gone down, and the UK continues to be seen as one of the leading educational systems in the world. In no way has the UK been outstripped by other better educated economies. So how is it so bad? Is everyone getting stupider all round the world (including Australia)?

I think there are some sweeping generalisations about poorer kids and behaviour. I got to see the inside of the majority of Blackburn schools, sat inside classrooms watching my Mum sub teaching. Behaviour, motivation and application were never major issues, infact in some cases I reckon the state kids were better behaved than at the private schools. Of course, that was then, when the teachers had the rights and the kids had the responsibilities, then someone decided to reverse that.

My only point is not that all kids from poorer backgrounds misbehave, of course the majority don't, only that the likelihood of it is greater due to sociological factors.

[thenodrog]

All this stuff about 'kids from a low income background' is just another load of old rubbish that has been repeated until we believe it. Just like the the old potato much favoured by an emotional public that all nurses are desperately poorly paid.

There are very many examples of kids whose difficult upbringing has either given them the drive to succeed or whose cosseted childhood and adolescence has driven any desire to succeed right out of them. As long as they are all given an equal chance is as far as this country need go. To ensure that depends primarily on a. discipline being maintained in class and b. teacher quality. Both in this country and compared to 40 years ago I'd rate at B- or lower.

[joey_big_nose]

# As long as they are all given an equal chance is as far as this country need go. To ensure that depends primarily on a. discipline being maintained in class and b. teacher quality.

We totally agree on the first part - society has a responsibility to equal opportunity, nothing more than that. But unfortunately there are far more things at play in what constitutes equal opportunity than just those two factors sadly.

[thenodrog]

But unfortunately there are far more things at play in what constitutes equal opportunity than just those two factors sadly.

Whoever said life was fair? Not worth beating yourself up over jbn.

[jim mk2]

Unfortunately the education service is still bearing the scars of what happened during 18 years of Conservative government. The serious decline in standards of behaviour in schools started in that period when Thatcher's 'I'm all right Jack' attitude left a legacy of selfishness and indiscipline and her "values" did more harm to the society in which we live than anyone else in modern times.

Thatcher's children - now in their late 20s or 30s - hold different attitudes to teachers and schools from those of previous generations and have little respect for anyone in authority. In the 1980s we were told that "there was no such thing as society" and that it was everyone for themselves, when anything with monetary value was sold and anything with no monetary value was therefore of no value.

Teachers, who were viewed with disdain by Thatcher and therefore poorly paid, in contrast to the police, were continually undermined by politicians and the media. It's little wonder that the children of the day grew up with the attitudes that have now manifested themselves in their own children, and the consequent misbehaviour in the classrooms and on the streets.

[roversmum]

Indeed she did. She said "There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

It would be better if people had fixated on the bit about taking responsibility.

More of the speech is quoted here I don't suppose you have ever read it, you might find it interesting

[joey_big_nose]

Whoever said life was fair? Not worth beating yourself up over jbn.

I would say the whole notion of civilisation is built upon the notion of life being 'fair'. Every single laudable achievement of society is stated in a context of approaching fairness. Justice, education, health, technological innovation, democracy. You name it.

And this is quite logical even for the most selfishly inclined. We are social animals. Does anyone want to live in a world where there is enormous division and social tension between the haves and have nots? The costs are massive for all concerned in social instability and factional politics quite aside from the moral repugnance of it. You only need to glance at China or India where there is a minority of extreme wealth and extreme opportunity compared to a majority of poverty and little opportunity, and feel the disgust at that situation.

When you look at these countries and think of what it is that you value in comparison at home the quality - I imagine - you will find most appealing about our own system is, within whatever context, its fairness.

We all want life to be more fair, fundamentally. Some deny it, perhaps some can even make themselves believe that it is a pipe dream, but look at your own most cherished values and see if they are not based on higher concepts of fairness. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have yet to meet anyone who completely subscribes to the law of the jungle. And thank god for that as we would have none of the things we do have.

[colin]

Just like the the old potato much favoured by an emotional public that all nurses are desperately poorly paid.

How much are nurses paid? You seem to know. I've no idea, I'd be glad for your input. Thanks & please don't not reply.

Cheers