[alexs2602]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-the-poor.html

The Deputy Prime Minister will announce a sweeping “social mobility strategy” intended to break the grip of affluent middle-class families on the best-paid jobs and the most highly regarded university courses.

In his most strident intervention on education reform to date, he will tell universities to recruit students “on the basis of an ability to excel, not purely on previous attainment”.

Ministers will aim to ensure that children born into working-class homes can find better jobs than their fathers held, amid evidence that "a large number of professions remain dominated by a small section of society".

Mr Clegg will declare that British society is “too closed” as he announces that the coalition’s social progress index will be rated against 17 indicators, ranging from babies’ birth weight to adults’ job opportunities.

Opening the best colleges to working class students is essential to create a country “where what matters most is the person you become, not the person you were born”, he will say.

For the first time, ministers will stipulate that more state-educated teenagers must achieve at least two A-grades and a B in the most academic A-level subjects, such as mathematics and science.

A higher proportion of state sixth-formers should then be admitted to the top third of academic universities, such as the Oxford, Cambridge and the research-intensive Russell Group, under the plan.

In a speech to the Sutton Trust conference in London, Mr Clegg will deny that his plan represents the “dumbing down” of academic standards in universities.

“Social mobility is all about creating a truly level playing field, and a fair race,” he will say.

“That is why, for example, the Coalition Government is encouraging universities to recruit on the basis of objective potential, on the basis of an ability to excel, not purely on previous attainment

He will claim there is “compelling evidence” that students’ social and school backgrounds can influence the degree grades they achieve at university.

“A study at the University of Bristol showed that state school educated children with top A-levels were 50% more likely to get first-class degrees than privately educated children with the same grades,” he said.

I must admit I'm quite skeptical. Even as someone who is working class/state schooled I think he'd be better off concentrating on improving state schooling rather than making it easier for people to get into better unis. I'd rather universities became more competitive and made progress. Instead perhaps it would make more sense to increase the grade requirements of middle class/privately schooled students so it's harder for them to get in and they might then actually be just as likely to achieve a first as students from a 'poor' background.

Progress is something to be proud of so why only affect university standards and participation? When you could make it so the whole of the education sector is improved?


Edit: It should be mentioned that I'm just criticising the idea here, not whether it will be implemented or not. Mainly because I don't think it's that great an idea in the first place.

For those who don't want to read the whole article the main points are quoted.

[biffyclyro27]

considering the whole tuition fees fiasco, I'm pretty sure all his credibility is out the window. Doubt anybody will trust him as far as they can throw him...

[zaliack]

I fail to see how this will work at all. Universities already look at peoples ability to excel, previous attainment is just an example of that. If he wants to combat social mobility, he should focus at the earliest possible stages of education, to encourage poorer children to excel from the start.

What's more, I find it bloody annoying that he's suggesting that to combat social mobility, everyone needs to achieve AAB in academic subjects, and then get into a Russel Group Uni. It just seems like he's ****ting on us who didn't do traditional subjects and are going to 2/3rds of the other universities.

[AvocatInTraining]

Yeah, when pigs fly.

[evening sunrise]

"he will tell universities to recruit students “on the basis of an ability to excel, not purely on previous attainment"

How does one achieve the above?

Bring back the 11 plus concept,even if at a later age?
Introduce similar for creativity?
Ditto for tenacity?
Ditto for emotional resilience?
and
Switch the exam system back to one that does not educate particularly well but filters and selects very well. That said this two tier GCSE with the lower tier having a maximum grade of C sounds very familiar, like GCE and CSE, how many millions have they spent running on the spot with that one? At least Michael Jackson made money from doing a backwards moonwalk.

Oh yes and provide "teacher" training days for admissions tutors on the reading of tealeaves, use of the crystal ball, and special sets of tarot cards specifically tuned to future success or demise at university level study. I am sure all students will welcome the greater degree of subjectivity in the offer process.

A load of sound bites and nebulous crap. The only thing more astonishing than how stupid these people think we are, is how clever they believe themselves to be.

If he really believes in the select on potential to excel rather than recent past performance then he should mandate it for the selection of team GB for London 2012.

Now most folks apply to Uni prior to sitting their A levels. hence A levels are not an indicator of recent past performance. Therefore his suggestion can at most be to ignore GCSE, and AS attainment and offer places on projected A level grade only, which is the closest thing one has as a prediction of potential to excel, unless the various tests I mention above are introduced and university applications are based upon at least in part on a kind of hybrid "IQ+" rating thingy.

The statement is such a gem it must be repeated.


"he will tell universities to recruit students “on the basis of an ability to excel, not purely on previous attainment"

Which at best means absolutely nothing. (my money is on this one.)

or at worst states that the current education and exam system is unfit for purpose and failing in totality, which in my experience is a refreshing level of candor from a politician.

[the bear]

yeah but no but it's like so unfair if you're a bit of a div then yoony is well diffickult it's discrimination against us so yeah and that cow Chantelle got into Leeds cos her Mum did a fing wiv a chooter yeah but we saw Chantelle and Wayne throw her calculator at some gypsies and she told the Maths teacher Mandy took it so Mandy was suspended and died

[Slosh]

Re OP

Does this mean he won't?

[Craghyrax]

(Original post by alexs2602)
Progress is something to be proud of so why only affect university standards and participation? When you could make it so the whole of the education sector is improved?

I completely agree that you ought to focus on improving the whole education system, and more importantly... the social issues that cause kids from deprived backgrounds to struggle from the get go (overburdening schools with issues they're not equipped to deal with). And I'm certainly not supporting this rather pathetic policy idea by Clegg.

I don't agree that 'progress is something to be proud of' if we're talking about attainment of grades. Having researched education myself, the data is pretty scary. Your social class, race and postcode basically determine what grades you get, which suggests that what people attain is really not to do with their personal abilities and merit but completely to do with the environment they were exposed to. So it would not make sense for a low attaining working class individual to feel ashamed about their underperformance any more than a privately educated student can feel proud about getting A*s in a setting where all his peers were doing so and expected to all along.

[Joinedup]

Somewhat shying away from the fairly obvious implication that boosting upward mobility for those at the bottom means an increase of downward mobility for those who are now at the top... And the people now at the top are rather pushy and good at getting their own way... (also the tend to turn out and vote frequently)

setting alevel targets gives me the creeps too Though I think he might be on to something with the number of non academic A levels...

[llys]

(Original post by Craghyrax)
I completely agree that you ought to focus on improving the whole education system, and more importantly... the social issues that cause kids from deprived backgrounds to struggle from the get go (overburdening schools with issues they're not equipped to deal with). And I'm certainly not supporting this rather pathetic policy idea by Clegg.

I don't agree that 'progress is something to be proud of' if we're talking about attainment of grades. Having researched education myself, the data is pretty scary. Your social class, race and postcode basically determine what grades you get, which suggests that what people attain is really not to do with their personal abilities and merit but completely to do with the environment they were exposed to.

Yes. And most universities already consider contextual data anyway.

So it would not make sense for a low attaining working class individual to feel ashamed about their underperformance.

I think that's the wrong attitude. You are in danger of not expecting individuals to do well because of their environment, thereby reinforcing their environment.

This is especially bad attitude for teachers. If a teacher does not expect a pupil to do well, they won't try to improve the pupil's performance if the pupil doesn't do well. Vicious circle.

For example, I read a blog by a parent who went to a parents' evening because she was concerned that her son had done badly in a maths exam. The teacher was very surprised at her concern and told her that her son had done really well - for a black boy!

Teachers must have high expectations for all pupils. If they don't they should not teach.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by the bear)
yeah but no but it's like so unfair if you're a bit of a div then yoony is well diffickult it's discrimination against us so yeah and that cow Chantelle got into Leeds cos her Mum did a fing wiv a chooter yeah but we saw Chantelle and Wayne throw her calculator at some gypsies and she told the Maths teacher Mandy took it so Mandy was suspended and died

i love you

[Craghyrax]

(Original post by llys)
Yes. And most universities already consider contextual data anyway.



I think that's the wrong attitude. You are in danger of not expecting individuals to do well because of their environment, thereby reinforcing their environment.

This is especially bad attitude for teachers. If a teacher does not expect a pupil to do well, they won't try to improve the pupil's performance if the pupil doesn't do well. Vicious circle.

For example, I read a blog by a parent who went to a parents' evening because she was concerned that her son had done badly in a maths exam. The teacher was very surprised at her concern and told her that her son had done really well - for a black boy!

Teachers must have high expectations for all pupils. If they don't they should not teach.

I know what you mean, but my conclusion about performance is meant to be a post-hoc analysis of the problem, rather than an attitude that I would advise anybody acting on before the student in question has actually tried.
I agree with you that stereotypical assumptions are very dangerous and lead to harmful effects and policies such as setting and streaming that has been shown to exacerbate underachievement. There are many threads in the Universities forums begun by users who ended up getting good grades but went to mediocre Universities because of the pessimistic grade predictions and application advice of their schools.

[Smack]

More meaningless nonsense from a politician who is perhaps least in Britain to be trusted in matters regarding education.

Until someone fixes state education by for example allowing schools to remove unruly students and stop them from actively disrupting others' education, nothing can be changed without dumbing down standards.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by evening sunrise)
"he will tell universities to recruit students “on the basis of an ability to excel, not purely on previous attainment"

How does one achieve the above?

One starts by putting resources into university selection procedures.

The per capita investment in selecting students has declined dramatically across all universities except Oxbridge and most subjects except medicine, nursing, teaching, music and art.

How does one spot potential from a series of exam result percentages, some statistics about the applicant's school, some social information about his postcode, a PS which may have been written by Mummy and Daddy and a reference which says he like everyone else in the school is a genius?

[Craghyrax]

(Original post by Smack)
Until someone fixes state education by for example allowing schools to remove unruly students and stop them from actively disrupting others' education, nothing can be changed without dumbing down standards.

They already do remove them by the truckloads The exclusion rates in low performing schools are very extreme. And from there they either go to Pupil Referral Units or end up left to join gangs their own devices for the remainder of their dependent years.
Removing them doesn't help anything. It just means a higher number of unemployed people living in poverty.
Since poverty is the underlying factor behind all the issues schools struggle to contend with, I don't agree that making it worse will help schools.

[Smack]

(Original post by Craghyrax)
They already do remove them by the truckloads The exclusion rates in low performing schools are very extreme.

Not when I was at school they didn't. My education was disrupted for years because the school didn't/couldn't remove problem pupils. Sometimes there was exclusions, but what's the point when they just return a few days later to do the same thing again?

And I'm not just talking about exclusions. Unruly and disruptive pupils could have easily been removed from class almost immediately after they kicked off without excluding them.

And from there they either go to Pupil Referral Units or end up left to join gangs their own devices for the remainder of their dependent years.

So? My immediate concern was the quality of my education, and when I have kids it'll be the quality of their education. It isn't whether the people who ruin everyone else's education end up at a PRU or in a gang.

Removing them doesn't help anything.

Yes it does actually: it helps the education of everyone else who is not disruptive, and it also removes bad influences from pupils who perform - or have the potential to - well but are vulnerable to negative influence. It will reduce class sizes and the workloads on teachers (considerably in some schools!) allowing more time to be spent on individual pupils who do want to learn and do well. There will be no threats against pupils who do perform well, and the money saved on cleaning up after vandalism could even be used to fund some sports teams.

So it'd help basically everything.

It just means a higher number of unemployed people living in poverty.
Since poverty is the underlying factor behind all the issues schools struggle to contend with, I don't agree that making it worse will help schools.

Given that unemployed and living in poverty still seems to mean Xbox, smart phone and plenty of alcohol for the weekend I'm not particularly inclined to care if that's what people who disrupt everyone else's education end up being.

[evening sunrise]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
One starts by putting resources into university selection procedures.

The per capita investment in selecting students has declined dramatically across all universities except Oxbridge and most subjects except medicine, nursing, teaching, music and art.

How does one spot potential from a series of exam result percentages, some statistics about the applicant's school, some social information about his postcode, a PS which may have been written by Mummy and Daddy and a reference which says he like everyone else in the school is a genius?

I do not fully agree. Certainly some investment, but blind selection has a lot going for it, although it could be improved. For a start physical appearance does not come into it, neither does accent, body language and various other factors, such as shyness. Anyone who has worked in any kind of commercial environment knows what an impact these factors have on any selection process, even when such an effect is only involuntarily applied by the selector. None of these should go against a student who simply wishes to pursue academic study / excellence. Whatever weaknesses they have in these areas will bite them hard enough when they hit the job market.

In terms of implementing the Deputy PMs policy I would like to see the usual approach.

Problem definition, broken down into coherent components
Solutions the can be demonstrated to directly address one or more of the problem components. (No stats, direct solutions, to specific problems.)

A statement of the additional problems (side effects if you will) the solutions may / will generate. To be sure this is a ballon like problem, squeeze it at one end and the other end gets bigger and we must also void anymore decades of politicians and civil servants playing "mallet the rat" with education, mallet the rat is great fun but best kept to the travelling fair.

I have sympathy with the folks trying to improve things, the maintenance and adjustment of any legacy system, becomes less and less viable and more and more expensive to the point where only a new replacement system will deliver the goods. Hence there is a case of holding fire on tweaking A level and conducting a complete redesign of the education system, such a design should be predicated on the requirements prevailing now in 21st century with a globalised economy. Expensive, yes, but cheaper and far more effective in the long run.

Which brings me to the matter of the problem its self, as perceived by Mr Clegg.

Who are this army of poor people banging on closed doors so hard that Mr Clegg needs to open them for them? Everyone on here is adament that it does not matter which university one attends, and that entrance grades only reflect the popularity of an institution rather than the quality/standard of degree education delivered and subsequent earning potential having entered the job market.

[TheHansa]

I was hoping he was going to hire porters to make them feel more upper-class.

[Craghyrax]

(Original post by Smack)
Not when I was at school they didn't. My education was disrupted for years because the school didn't/couldn't remove problem pupils. Sometimes there was exclusions, but what's the point when they just return a few days later to do the same thing again?

And I'm not just talking about exclusions. Unruly and disruptive pupils could have easily been removed from class almost immediately after they kicked off without excluding them.

You'll forgive me for taking the research on education as a wee bit more representative than than your single opinion based on the one school you went to.

So? My immediate concern was the quality of my education, and when I have kids it'll be the quality of their education. It isn't whether the people who ruin everyone else's education end up at a PRU or in a gang.

I've already explained that if the country becomes more poor overall, that then affects the parents of future generations and the home life of future pupils. You might not care about anybody else other than you or yours, but if the state school system just keeps having to deal with more and more social problems connected to poverty, then that will affect the quality of school for everyone. Even for people in different state schools in better areas, because there are less and less resources to go around.
Your solution would just slowly and systematically boot everybody from severely dysfunctional families out of schools until we had large numbers of them with no occupation basically from the time they left nappies until the day they died.
Lots of people like to ignore poor people, but they live in the same society and the problems they face have repercussions for everybody.

It seems considerably more sensible to simply try and tackle poverty and unemployment effectively, which will result in children coming to school not being unruly and disruptive because they will be living with families who have enough money to actually care for them. They won't get sent to school malnourished (which is a big cause of misbehaviour), their families will be less likely to experience dysfunction (alcoholism etc.) and their parents might actually work normal hours and be at home some times to support and motivate their kids rather than leaving them to self raise themselves with the neighbourhood gangs or whatever.
Since 99.9999999% of research in Education suggests that poverty and other social issues are the primary reason for the main problems that weaken the UK education system, I don't think the answer is 'just kick out the poor kids and make poverty worse'

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by evening sunrise)
I do not fully agree. Certainly some investment, but blind selection has a lot going for it, although it could be improved. For a start physical appearance does not come into it, neither does accent, body language and various other factors, such as shyness. Anyone who has worked in any kind of commercial environment knows what an impact these factors have on any selection process, even when such an effect is only involuntarily applied by the selector. None of these should go against a student who simply wishes to pursue academic study / excellence. Whatever weaknesses they have in these areas will bite them hard enough when they hit the job market.

In terms of implementing the Deputy PMs policy I would like to see the usual approach.

Problem definition, broken down into coherent components
Solutions the can be demonstrated to directly address one or more of the problem components. (No stats, direct solutions, to specific problems.)

A statement of the additional problems (side effects if you will) the solutions may / will generate. To be sure this is a ballon like problem, squeeze it at one end and the other end gets bigger and we must also void anymore decades of politicians and civil servants playing "mallet the rat" with education, mallet the rat is great fun but best kept to the travelling fair.

I have sympathy with the folks trying to improve things, the maintenance and adjustment of any legacy system, becomes less and less viable and more and more expensive to the point where only a new replacement system will deliver the goods. Hence there is a case of holding fire on tweaking A level and conducting a complete redesign of the education system, such a design should be predicated on the requirements prevailing now in 21st century with a globalised economy. Expensive, yes, but cheaper and far more effective in the long run.

Which brings me to the matter of the problem its self, as perceived by Mr Clegg.

Who are this army of poor people banging on closed doors so hard that Mr Clegg needs to open them for them? Everyone on here is adament that it does not matter which university one attends, and that entrance grades only reflect the popularity of an institution rather than the quality/standard of degree education delivered and subsequent earning potential having entered the job market.

I do not think you can analyse the problem to that degree because as soon as you do, you find that people who are ostensibly on the same side do not agree what the problem is.

I don't think Cameron, Osborne and the like were at all concerned about Ebdon's appointment as director of OFFA. They, as I, remember an Oxford that was more diverse than it is today. However, fair access/widening participation isn't really a threat to them. Cameron's father in law will always have his ancestral acres and posh wallpaper will always sell.

The screams came from the less confident middle classes, the people who had an expectation of their children having a fairly cushy billet in life but limited means of delivering it. What they did was invest in good schooling and not because education was the key to success in life because because they could make make economic and social advancement contingent on an education the oiks couldn't buy in the same way that previous generations had made it contingent on being a "gentleman". The last thing these people wanted was the currency they had invested in devalued.

Therefore to achieve change in the "national" interest, you cannot analyse the problem too deeply because then people, particularly the government's supporters, will see that the policy is something they don't really want.

The strategy has to be incremental and pursued across perhaps a decade or two. There have been successes; trade union reform, re-creation of a private rented housing sector (without Peter Rachman), welfare reform (which really started around 1996 but has another decade at least to go) but there have been failures as well. Blair effectively scrapped and then re-introduced the Major government's plans for both school administration and the NHS. That simply lost a decade.