Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Well, the Conservatives were the ones telling us to 'vote for change' in 2010
    Well, they do tend to be the ones that implement the change
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    That's more a problem with grammar schools being so few and far between - if there were one in every town then that effect wouldn't occur to anything like that extent.
    (Original post by United1892)
    With a national grammar school system all areas would be served by this. Also higher funding for schools in low income areas would help to provide education which competes with that of a higher income child with private tuition.
    But both of you miss the fact that it isn't just grammar schools that have this, it is any good school. The good schools are almost always heavily populated with the middle class because they can either afford to live near them or afford to help give their children an edge.

    As I said, why was my sixth form so full of middle class students? Well, partly because it's an expensive area that costs people out, but because there are plenty of good private schools in the area and lots of people who can afford to get private tuition etc allowing them to meet the high entry requirements. On the other hand, those from poorer backgrounds do not have this and so have to settle for about 5th best (2-4th being private)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by APlantinga)
    Many companies would go under, some would drastically reduce their production curve (mass job losses) some would weather the storm and make less money.
    I doubt companies like Sports Direct would go under if they were banned from misusing zero hour contracts.

    I wasnt saying ban them full stop.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But both of you miss the fact that it isn't just grammar schools that have this, it is any good school. The good schools are almost always heavily populated with the middle class because they can either afford to live near them or afford to help give their children an edge.

    As I said, why was my sixth form so full of middle class students? Well, partly because it's an expensive area that costs people out, but because there are plenty of good private schools in the area and lots of people who can afford to get private tuition etc allowing them to meet the high entry requirements. On the other hand, those from poorer backgrounds do not have this and so have to settle for about 5th best (2-4th being private)
    Placing Grammar schools in in a range areas as well as funding lower income schools would help to stop the best schools purely being in higher income areas. In addition extra free tuition for lower income children would help to reduce there disadvantage in exams such as the 11 plus.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    I doubt companies like Sports Direct would go under if they were banned from misusing zero hour contracts.

    I wasnt saying ban them full stop.
    But they'd have to either reduce the numbers of workers they use, OR massively increase costs most probably eating into their profit margin. Of course they'd choose the former. And of course people would lose their jobs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by APlantinga)
    But they'd have to either reduce the numbers of workers they use, OR massively increase costs most probably eating into their profit margin. Of course they'd choose the former. And of course people would lose their jobs.
    Sorry, but that's a load of bull. If the workers weren't enabling them to make more profit, they wouldn't hire them in the first place. Hence getting rid of the workers would also eat into their profits. The only question is if the workers make enough money for them to be worth keeping even on more stable contracts, and I would wager they are.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    Placing Grammar schools in in a range areas as well as funding lower income schools would help to stop the best schools purely being in higher income areas. In addition extra free tuition for lower income children would help to reduce there disadvantage in exams such as the 11 plus.
    And how much would that cost? How do you decide who is eligible for the free tuition? How much would that specifically cost? Hour effective would it be?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And how much would that cost? How do you decide who is eligible for the free tuition? How much would that specifically cost? Hour effective would it be?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I am not going to claim to know how much it would cost.

    You decide who is eligible using household incomes with anything below the median given it.

    I reckon it would be pretty effective in helping working class children reach their full potential and making success in education based on intelligence rather than class.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Green_Pink)
    Sorry, but that's a load of bull. If the workers weren't enabling them to make more profit, they wouldn't hire them in the first place. Hence getting rid of the workers would also eat into their profits. The only question is if the workers make enough money for them to be worth keeping even on more stable contracts, and I would wager they are.
    Lets suppose the cost of a worker on ZHC is 7, and the money they bring in is 10.

    Suppose you have 20 workers. Then you have business costs of 140, and bring in 200. Some of that 60 has to go in profits, other to investment and perhaps expansion.

    However, a Bill is brought in which increases the cost of those workers to 9.

    For 20 workers, you pay 180 and get 200.

    Plausibly, 20 is not enough to cover other business costs and still achieve satisfactory profits.

    So you have to scale back your industry to allow that profit margin to allow profits, and this includes job losses.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by APlantinga)
    But they'd have to either reduce the numbers of workers they use, OR massively increase costs most probably eating into their profit margin. Of course they'd choose the former. And of course people would lose their jobs.
    As Green Pink says it is unlikely to harm them too much also even if there was damage it would likely help to create jobs in the sports direct example as it would allow other companies to expand via increasing sports directs prices which would allow other companies to compete.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But both of you miss the fact that it isn't just grammar schools that have this, it is any good school. The good schools are almost always heavily populated with the middle class because they can either afford to live near them or afford to help give their children an edge.

    As I said, why was my sixth form so full of middle class students? Well, partly because it's an expensive area that costs people out, but because there are plenty of good private schools in the area and lots of people who can afford to get private tuition etc allowing them to meet the high entry requirements. On the other hand, those from poorer backgrounds do not have this and so have to settle for about 5th best (2-4th being private)
    I agree with your point that middle class children populating the good schools, however, I disagree with the point that the make up of the pupils is dependent on the quality of the school; I believe it is the other way around. I think the middle class and upper class parents push their children more which leads to children working harder in school because they want to learn; the schools adapt to fit the attitudes of the pupils.

    Countless research papers reveal social crime such as anti social behaviour, petty theft and assault is higher among the working class than the middle class. If external crime is higher among the classes it is reasonable to believe the behaviour of children in school is better among middle class children than working class children. It is no coincidence that the worst performing schools with the most behavioural problems are in areas dominated by working class people. The standards of schools in poorer areas will only improve when the poorer children change their attitude towards learning.

    I accept not all poorer children are naughty but the ring leaders are not dealt with quick enough which either causes other pupils to join in, or for the teacher to spend time punishing the pupil which impacts teaching time. Private schools are a special case as money is dependent on the child's behaviour. If the child misbehaves the child is quickly thrown out of the school, without going through the endless appeals that litter the state education sector, which wastes the parents money from the term's fees. Even pupils on a scholarship to the school have an incentive to behave properly as their place will no longer be available following bad behaviour. For the standards of school to improve the trouble makers needs to be given one warning for lesser acts with the second incident ending in permanent exclusion, serious acts are equivalent to two minor acts. The current model of inclusiveness, mixed sets, and restorative punishments does not improve the quality of schools in the country.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Are you another one of these people that will make a statement based on what they think they know rather than what is actually so? Grammar schools do not help the poor in very significant numbers. If there is a very good school, those who can afford to move into the catchment area and price out the poor.

    Why were there so few poor at my sixth form? They couldn't afford to live there.
    Why are the grammar schools full of middle class students? The poor cannot afford to live there.
    Some people have to get the lucky ticket in the postcode lottery, others can simply buy it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As someone who lives in close proximity to grammar schools and has many friends in grammar schools this is completely false. Most grammar schools have a large catchment area as to allow a large variety of students (poor, rich whatever) to join. Most councils offer reduced rates on bus fares etc for those who are very poor too if they are travelling long distances. And yes, grammar schools are on the whole better than comprehensives because you cannot have a decent quality of teaching for the most able of pupils with a one size fits all approach under a comprehensive system.

    And besides that isn't an argument against them - it is merely a condition that every town should have a grammar school (ie, a UKIP policy).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by APlantinga)
    Lets suppose the cost of a worker on ZHC is 7, and the money they bring in is 10.

    Suppose you have 20 workers. Then you have business costs of 140, and bring in 200. Some of that 60 has to go in profits, other to investment and perhaps expansion.

    However, a Bill is brought in which increases the cost of those workers to 9.

    For 20 workers, you pay 180 and get 200.

    Plausibly, 20 is not enough to cover other business costs and still achieve satisfactory profits.

    So you have to scale back your industry to allow that profit margin to allow profits, and this includes job losses.
    Any business spending 70% of turnover on wages is in serious, serious trouble anyway. More realistically we're talking about them spending somewhere between 30-40% on wages, and the amount barely increasing at all considering this wouldn't even increase the actual salaries.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Countless research papers reveal social crime such as anti social behaviour, petty theft and assault is higher among the working class than the middle class. If external crime is higher among the classes it is reasonable to believe the behaviour of children in school is better among middle class children than working class children. It is no coincidence that the worst performing schools with the most behavioural problems are in areas dominated by working class people. The standards of schools in poorer areas will only improve when the poorer children change their attitude towards learning.
    Social crime is generally exacerbated by poor education rather than the other way round.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Green_Pink)
    Sorry, but that's a load of bull. If the workers weren't enabling them to make more profit, they wouldn't hire them in the first place. Hence getting rid of the workers would also eat into their profits. The only question is if the workers make enough money for them to be worth keeping even on more stable contracts, and I would wager they are.
    Zero-hour contracts at companies such as Sports Direct rarely give someone on the contact zero working hours. The use of zero hour contracts is to allow extra workers to be brought in when the staff are stretched during buys times, and to spread out the work load between extra workers all paid on an hourly basis. Assume the company calculated its maximum profitable productivity was achieved when man hours equalled 2000 per week, the company could either hire 50 full time staff to work 40 hours a week on full time contracts or it could hire an unlimited number of zero-hour contract staff to give 100 workers 20 hours a week. The hourly wage rate is the same for all staff on all contracts so the cost to the company is the same, but zero hour contracts provide more workers. It is true the company could hire 100 workers on 20 hour, part-time contracts but if during the winter months business was slow it is more costly to keep the fixed contract workers coming in to work, but zero hour workers cannot be given working hours, hence the trend to favour zero hour contracts for seasonal-dependent businesses.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Green_Pink)
    Any business spending 70% of turnover on wages is in serious, serious trouble anyway. More realistically we're talking about them spending somewhere between 30-40% on wages, and the amount barely increasing at all considering this wouldn't even increase the actual salaries.
    It was just an example. The principle holds true in reality; plausibly many small businesses based on minimising costs on labour, or those who have seasonal/fluxiating demand.

    Bigger companies? Would probably be able to weather the storm but that doesn't mean they'd be completely unresponsive to a major change in the cost of labour.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    Social crime is generally exacerbated by poor education rather than the other way round.
    I disagree with this again as if this statement of yours was true we would see perfectly behaved children in infant schools before they have experienced a poor education. The bad behaviour seen in infant schools in poorer areas is evidence the attitude of the pupils to learning is the biggest factor behind learning. We could take the worst performing school in the country and replace its pupils with pupils from the best performing private school school, after removing additional factors like external tutors and facilities the school would still see an improvement because the pupils will want to learn and be pushed by their parents. Blaming crime on poor education is a fallacy as the basis of poor education is poor parenting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I disagree with this again as if this statement of yours was true we would see perfectly behaved children in infant schools before they have experienced a poor education. The bad behaviour seen in infant schools in poorer areas is evidence the attitude of the pupils to learning is the biggest factor behind learning. We could take the worst performing school in the country and replace its pupils with pupils from the best performing private school school, after removing additional factors like external tutors and facilities the school would still see an improvement because the pupils will want to learn and be pushed by their parents. Blaming crime on poor education is a fallacy as the basis of poor education is poor parenting.
    But that's taking those children's behaviour as caused by their upbringing as an isolated system. Societal behaviour doesn't work like that.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Tonight junaidk7 has been elected Deputy Leader.
    Hurrah to junaid, I look forward to working with him.

    (Original post by Aph)
    Can't say I've seen all of your MP's in action but generally I would say Stannis is most right, maybe more Tory then labour?
    And TBM is most leftist but he's fairly moderate for a leftist. Junaid7 is definitely one of the most right wing members you have
    ... Thank you for telling the Party Chair (who runs a lot of the internal stuff) where his MPs lie on the political spectrum. I'm sure it's been enlightening for him.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    "Sorry lads - I can't go to Magaluf next week - I've just been elected Prime Minister"
    PRSOM xD

    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    I only have faith in Ray, no-one else.
    Well that's very much appreciated.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 17, 2018
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.