Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sledgehead

For Those Whose Names Were Never Called When Choosing Sides For Basketball

Recommended Posts

Excellent speech today from our new PM, espousing the logic and merits of selective schools, aka grammar schools.

IMHO she has made the first long awaited step to redressing the injustice of attempts to ban selection, a policy very much favoured by Labour / Blunket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really.

Seems an elaborate way to get round not being able to sack teachers.

Ditto Universal Technical colleges.

Until someone is capable of standing up and saying Mr/Ms XYZ is sh1t and sacking them I fail to see how schools/teaching can improve.

The only way is to create overcapacity and let parents not choose crap schools. which will be shut down. But then the teachers cr.p teachers will surface elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure one way or t'other about selection per school. Don't trust either side of the debate. About the only really sensible thing anyone is suggesting is that 11 is far too old for the school system to be remedying a bad start in life.

But the current situation, where schools can select for sports, arts, indeed more-or-less any criteria they choose so long as it's not academic, is just stark raving bonkers by any standard. And far-and-away the most damaging thing is the downright evil of so-called "faith schools", bringing up kids in an us-and-them environment to feed suspicion and hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the current school system in England favours no-one. The idea of educating all equally to give those with a poorer background an equal chance of going to university is a fallacy. It will continue to be a fallacy until all kids are born with the same raw material (IQ ?).

We're letting the country down by concentrating on those at the bottom of the scale and letting the brighter ones find their own way. We should be stimulating the bright ones to go on and do bigger and better things. That's why I'm for the Grammar school system. Bright kids from poorer backgrounds can be helped to do well there. Thus we will be pushing the brightest to do the best they can, resulting in better educated university fodder who will graduate and be useful members of society.

Why is it such a taboo to align poverty with low IQ?

Now I've pulled the pin and flung the grenade. <<retreats to find tfh>>?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really.

Seems an elaborate way to get round not being able to sack teachers.

Ditto Universal Technical colleges.

Until someone is capable of standing up and saying Mr/Ms XYZ is sh1t and sacking them I fail to see how schools/teaching can improve.

The only way is to create overcapacity and let parents not choose crap schools. which will be shut down. But then the teachers cr.p teachers will surface elsewhere.

Bad teachers only become apparent when good teachers are present.

The question you need to ask is, does the current system attract good teachers?

To answer this, I suggest you ditch common ideas about education and instead look to elite sports coaching (a form of education after all). Yes, money is an issue, but only after a sport has demonstrated success. How is that initial success achieved? Simply by allowing enthusiasts (coaches) to select those who have ability. For the best coaches, the promise of bringing their charges great success is sufficient motivation.

Now imagine forcing those coaches to train anyone who wanted coaching, or indeed anyone whose parents required they have such coaching (even when they themselves couldn't give a monkeys). Imagine where on the medal table we'd be then. Imagine how rubbish our coaches would be in that situation. You have just imagined Team-Comprehensive-GB. Now maybe you have an idea why we have rubbish teachers in our state system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the current school system in England favours no-one. The idea of educating all equally to give those with a poorer background an equal chance of going to university is a fallacy. It will continue to be a fallacy until all kids are born with the same raw material (IQ ?).

We're letting the country down by concentrating on those at the bottom of the scale and letting the brighter ones find their own way. We should be stimulating the bright ones to go on and do bigger and better things. That's why I'm for the Grammar school system. Bright kids from poorer backgrounds can be helped to do well there. Thus we will be pushing the brightest to do the best they can, resulting in better educated university fodder who will graduate and be useful members of society.

Why is it such a taboo to align poverty with low IQ?

Now I've pulled the pin and flung the grenade. <<retreats to find tfh>>

Ok, I'll bite.

There is a relationship between educational attainment, wealth and social class. It does not take an expert to identify this and a couple of examples are firstly, lower achieving schools tend to be found in poor areas whereas, schools in middle class areas tend to do relatively better. Second example is that those kids who go to fee paying schools tend to do better academically than kids in the local comp.

The real question is why this is. Avoiding IQ, is it that being poor makes people thick? Or is it something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it such a taboo to align poverty with low IQ?

As with the vast majority of social justice, it's because people fail to grasp the difference between anecdotes and statistics. Same story as why there are imbalances between the sexes.

Ramanujan was a genius, Ramanujan was from a very poor background. Thus at an individual level, I can disprove your hypothesis with a counterexample. Statistically I think it's very probably true, but also simplistic.

What should we do? We should do our best to improve Timothy Winters' life chances. But we shouldn't get too upset, or condemn "the system", if he fails to rise to the top of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the current school system in England favours no-one. The idea of educating all equally to give those with a poorer background an equal chance of going to university is a fallacy. It will continue to be a fallacy until all kids are born with the same raw material (IQ ?).

We're letting the country down by concentrating on those at the bottom of the scale and letting the brighter ones find their own way. We should be stimulating the bright ones to go on and do bigger and better things. That's why I'm for the Grammar school system. Bright kids from poorer backgrounds can be helped to do well there. Thus we will be pushing the brightest to do the best they can, resulting in better educated university fodder who will graduate and be useful members of society.

Why is it such a taboo to align poverty with low IQ?

Now I've pulled the pin and flung the grenade. <<retreats to find tfh>>

Ok, I'll bite.

There is a relationship between educational attainment, wealth and social class. It does not take an expert to identify this and a couple of examples are firstly, lower achieving schools tend to be found in poor areas whereas, schools in middle class areas tend to do relatively better. Second example is that those kids who go to fee paying schools tend to do better academically than kids in the local comp.

The real question is why this is. Avoiding IQ, is it that being poor makes people thick? Or is it something else?

For some reason, differentiation by IQ is a contentious subject, by sporting prowess is not.

I have given classes in some of the poorest inner city primary schools and in some of the wealthiest shire counties, and have found similarly great intelligence among the pupils everywhere. Unfortunately, for many children in the poorer areas it will not be realised because of the poverty they are borne into; low IQ for many is now institutionalised within families. The early years are so crucial.

I'm not a teacher, but am a scientist with a road show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is why this is. Avoiding IQ, is it that being poor makes people thick? Or is it something else?

No and no. Next question.

Asking simplistic either/or questions leads to simplistic misleading answers. Have you stopped beating your wife?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No and no. Next question.

Asking simplistic either/or questions leads to simplistic misleading answers. Have you stopped beating your wife?

The answer is no and yes. Think about what I said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll bite.

There is a relationship between educational attainment, wealth and social class. It does not take an expert to identify this ...

The real question is why this is. Avoiding IQ, is it that being poor makes people thick? Or is it something else?

There's a relationship between football success, poverty and social class. It does not take an expert to identify this ...

The real question is why this is. Avoiding skill, is it that being rich makes people uncoordinated? Or is it something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a relationship between football success, poverty and social class. It does not take an expert to identify this ...

The real question is why this is. Avoiding skill, is it that being rich makes people uncoordinated? Or is it something else?

Avoiding skill, why are there so few female football players, does an extra X make you more uncoordinated, or is it something else?

I would hazard a guess that richer families focus more, or at least as much, on the three 'Rs' at an early age as they do upon kicking a ball around.

and football players are quite rich

(I assume you were answering your own question btw)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avoiding skill, why are there so few female football players, does an extra X make you more uncoordinated, or is it something else?

I would hazard a guess that richer families focus more, or at least as much, on the three 'Rs' at an early age as they do upon kicking a ball around.

and football players are quite rich

(I assume you were answering your own question btw)

It was a rhetorical question posed to an identical question, albeit one that refered to academic success rather than footballing success. My point being that the original question was silly.

People form groups. Those groups for social groupings. those groupings develop traditions. Those traditions become prevailing attitudes amongst the individuals. But individuals need not follow the group. Bright kids are born in areas where saturdays are for watching the team rather than doing homework. But selective schools can and should identify these kids. Because without that help, they will be the kids whose names were never called when choosing sides for basktball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll bite.

There is a relationship between educational attainment, wealth and social class. It does not take an expert to identify this and a couple of examples are firstly, lower achieving schools tend to be found in poor areas whereas, schools in middle class areas tend to do relatively better. Second example is that those kids who go to fee paying schools tend to do better academically than kids in the local comp.

The real question is why this is. Avoiding IQ, is it that being poor makes people thick? Or is it something else?

I was not expecting to need FT education much.

I was planning on coasting til 16 then leaving for work.

Worked for my cousins, who were 10 years older.

Just needed GCSE English and Maths and I be sorted for a job and/or apprenticeship.

I was up for going to night school/day release.

Unfortunately, my plan A (and B and C) for local jobs went up the sh1tter between the ages of 11 and 16.

Then I had to pivot and catch up a year, entering the work forfe at the grand old age of 22 rather than 16, as planned.

The education system (and a lot of parents) are still set up for a half-ar5ed try at education.

Well, if it does not work out they can job as apprencie. Let a company pick up the cost of state education failing.

There's also a lot of families where no has worked for a couple of generations. My Dad is unemployable in the modern sense.

He managed to find work when they were desperate for anyone. As soon as the early 80s rejig happened he was out on his ar5, never to work again.

I used to get lectures on 'work' which were about how my Grandparents got jobs! These people entered the work force in the 30s!

I had s one similar chat with a school job finder. 80% of the jobs he listed no longer existed.

Whats the point of the post?

Its a lo more competitive out there are the mo. Been so since 1980ish.

What about my kids?

When the demographic changes will be in full swing by the time their in their 20s.

Going by the attempts to import 'skilled-workers' from aboard, I think they are pretty safe.

The UK education system may be lacking but compared to employing a rapey North African who's had the equivalent of 2 years schooling, my kids will do fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is why this is. Avoiding IQ, is it that being poor makes people thick? Or is it something else?

Clever people can get richer, manage their money better, make better decisions for their children. It's not necessarily that poor people are stupid, but poor people's kids don't get the chances cos their parents are stupid.

Maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, differentiation by IQ is a contentious subject, by sporting prowess is not.

I have given classes in some of the poorest inner city primary schools and in some of the wealthiest shire counties, and have found similarly great intelligence among the pupils everywhere. Unfortunately, for many children in the poorer areas it will not be realised because of the poverty they are borne into; low IQ for many is now institutionalised within families. The early years are so crucial.

I'm not a teacher, but am a scientist with a road show.

IQ is nothing more than being good at IQ tests.

Sporting prowess is an innate ability.

Some people are born with it and waste it - Rooney, Gazza.

Some people are born with little but work very hard - Keegan.

Some people are born with AND work hard - Ronaldo, Messi.

Some people may fall into one of those categories and get their leg broke at 15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clever people can get richer, manage their money better, make better decisions for their children. It's not necessarily that poor people are stupid, but poor people's kids don't get the chances cos their parents are stupid.

Maybe.

Indeed.

State schools dont lift poor kids prospects.

Thats a failure of both the parents and the schools.

Cant really blame most kids as they know no better.

In fact, I surprised at the number of kids who turn up for shcool everyday where they have to sit a listen an idiot teacher just make stuff up. God, reading a homework task for one of my kids was an eye opener.

The percentage of lousy teachers still seems to be around the 30% mark. Same as when I was a kid.

Grammars used to offer a chance to a few, shining kids but fail the rest who, with a bit of effort, would have made it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.

State schools dont lift poor kids prospects.

Thats a failure of both the parents and the schools.

Cant really blame most kids as they know no better.

In fact, I surprised at the number of kids who turn up for shcool everyday where they have to sit a listen an idiot teacher just make stuff up. God, reading a homework task for one of my kids was an eye opener.

The percentage of lousy teachers still seems to be around the 30% mark. Same as when I was a kid.

Grammars used to offer a chance to a few, shining kids but fail the rest who, with a bit of effort, would have made it.

So grammars for everyone, just like degrees for everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So grammars for everyone, just like degrees for everyone?

Maybe the 11+ will change to detecting a pulse?

Problem with the 11+ is there needs to be a 12+, 13+, 14+ and 16+ too.

Maybe schools schools should keep back kids til they achieve a specific pass mark.

It used to amaze me that there were a handful of kids at my school who manged to leave without being able to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is why this is. Avoiding IQ, is it that being poor makes people thick? Or is it something else?

Genetically, perhaps 2 x thick parents = higher chance of a thick child (whatever 'thick' means)

Many more factors to consider though.

Parenting in itself (lack of interest in childs schooling/development etc)

A poor diet must also be a massive factor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazingly, Governments never stop fiddling with education, and it is not new. I joined one school, which I liked. Soon after it was amalgamated with another, and became completely different. They didn't do A levels any more. Hands off Government! It pisses kids off, and some get old enough to vote. :wacko: I can't imagine parents were happy either. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the 11+ will change to detecting a pulse?

Problem with the 11+ is there needs to be a 12+, 13+, 14+ and 16+ too.

Maybe schools schools should keep back kids til they achieve a specific pass mark.

It used to amaze me that there were a handful of kids at my school who manged to leave without being able to leave.

I do believe you should reach a set standard before leaving primary school.

We might end up with 50 year olds in year 6 as it seems re-sitting exams isn't a particular skill in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parenting in itself (lack of interest in childs schooling/development etc)

A poor diet must also be a massive factor

The poor diet has been tested in real life, using the Dutch famine of 1944-45 to provide samples of otherwise-similar populations.

Researchers were surprised to find the famine childrens intellects were unaffected.

Later, it was found that their general health was affected in many ways. Physically/medically - but NOT intellectually - they have done worse through life than non-famine children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, those of us born in the summer months couldn't hope to excel in physical activities. Had to make do with coming top in everything intellectual instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   96 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.