Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B927 - Segregation in Schools Bill 2016 Watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    In my capacity as leader of The Green Party I have decided to support this bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Why not create a situation where everyone is as equally likely as is possible to do well?
    A situation like that is a fallacy, equality of opportunity is not achievable; the government should invest its limited resources in the people most likely to do well.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Hell no. I don't think I need to rehash what's been said already in this thread.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Ol' Terry Taos dad was a doctor though so he was doing okay for 'imself.
    Doctors are middle class and nowhere near being upper class. Even worse if it's only one of the parents.

    Also, he didn't win a Nobel Prize.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Doctors are middle class and nowhere near being upper class. Even worse if it's only one of the parents.

    Also, he didn't win a Nobel Prize.
    It wasn't a serious point, though the Fields medal is thought of in much the same way.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    A situation like that is a fallacy, equality of opportunity is not achievable; the government should invest its limited resources in the people most likely to do well.
    Yes, it is. All you have to do is ensure that everyone receives the same standard of education and that no-one has a barrier to academic achievement that others don't have. Shouldn't be hard in a civilised western country.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Yes, it is. All you have to do is ensure that everyone receives the same standard of education and that no-one has a barrier to academic achievement that others don't have. Shouldn't be hard in a civilised western country.
    For the state to provide a decent education for all children the costs will be over £10000 a year for one child, at the moment the amount spent per child in a year is under £3500; the education budget would have to be tripled to provide a decent standard of education. The tripling of the education budget to £180bn will need to happen with an increase in one-off investments to build new schools, invest in new equipment, and train more teachers; the state cannot afford to do this. If the highest estimate for corporation tax avoidance was used, the extra tax revenue would still not make up the extra £120bn needed for a tripling of the education budget; the government needs to prioritise who it invests in.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    For the state to provide a decent education for all children the costs will be over £10000 a year for one child, at the moment the amount spent per child in a year is under £3500; the education budget would have to be tripled to provide a decent standard of education. The tripling of the education budget to £180bn will need to happen with an increase in one-off investments to build new schools, invest in new equipment, and train more teachers; the state cannot afford to do this. If the highest estimate for corporation tax avoidance was used, the extra tax revenue would still not make up the extra £120bn needed for a tripling of the education budget; the government needs to prioritise who it invests in.
    I agree, so investing in the people who need the least investment is the worst way of going about that. Literally the worst way.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I agree, so investing in the people who need the least investment is the worst way of going about that. Literally the worst way.
    No, it is the best way because investing in people from lower socio-economic backgrounds will likely not give the same returns.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, it is the best way because investing in people from lower socio-economic backgrounds will likely not give the same returns.
    No, it won't give the same returns, it'll give better returns. The richer people can afford their own private education where they can contribute to the economy during their education as well as after it. This can only cost money.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    For the state to provide a decent education for all children the costs will be over £10000 a year for one child, at the moment the amount spent per child in a year is under £3500; the education budget would have to be tripled to provide a decent standard of education. The tripling of the education budget to £180bn will need to happen with an increase in one-off investments to build new schools, invest in new equipment, and train more teachers; the state cannot afford to do this. If the highest estimate for corporation tax avoidance was used, the extra tax revenue would still not make up the extra £120bn needed for a tripling of the education budget; the government needs to prioritise who it invests in.
    I didn't say anything about providing a decent education for all. Although that would be ideal, as you've just proven, that's unaffordable. Providing an equal education so that everyone has a more or less equal start in life is a much better solution than this bill offers, because then we'll be a lot closer to a situation where those who succeed and become the millionaires, the CEOs, the senior doctors or the senior civil servants are those who both genuinely deserve to succeed and are best suited for the role, rather than those whose ancestors succeeded.

    Let's say, under a hypothetical situation where this bill has become law, you have a company employing 5,000 people in the UK, and someone from a high socio-economic background becomes the CEO. However, it turns out they're incompetent and as a result of their mismanagement, the company's fortunes take a nosedive and 1,000 jobs are lost. Now let's also say that in the same school year as that CEO, there was a kid who was more intelligent than them, had better management skills than them, had better business acumen than them, and whose dream job was to be a CEO of a largish company in that particular company's sector of the economy, BUT who was from the lowest possible socio-economic background and thus got a bad education and is now a roadsweeper driver. If those two people had had an equal education and as equal an opportunity of becoming the CEO of that company, the more intelligent one with the better business and management skills would have got the job, the company wouldn't have started to perform badly and 1,000 jobs wouldn't have been lost. So what was the point in investing more into the person with the higher socio-economic background?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    I didn't say anything about providing a decent education for all. Although that would be ideal, as you've just proven, that's unaffordable. Providing an equal education so that everyone has a more or less equal start in life is a much better solution than this bill offers, because then we'll be a lot closer to a situation where those who succeed and become the millionaires, the CEOs, the senior doctors or the senior civil servants are those who both genuinely deserve to succeed and are best suited for the role, rather than those whose ancestors succeeded.

    Let's say, under a hypothetical situation where this bill has become law, you have a company employing 5,000 people in the UK, and someone from a high socio-economic background becomes the CEO. However, it turns out they're incompetent and as a result of their mismanagement, the company's fortunes take a nosedive and 1,000 jobs are lost. Now let's also say that in the same school year as that CEO, there was a kid who was more intelligent than them, had better management skills than them, had better business acumen than them, and whose dream job was to be a CEO of a largish company in that particular company's sector of the economy, BUT who was from the lowest possible socio-economic background and thus got a bad education and is now a roadsweeper driver. If those two people had had an equal education and as equal an opportunity of becoming the CEO of that company, the more intelligent one with the better business and management skills would have got the job, the company wouldn't have started to perform badly and 1,000 jobs wouldn't have been lost. So what was the point in investing more into the person with the higher socio-economic background?
    I reject that assertion, it is not the case that people from high socio-economic background do not have talent, nor are people from high socio-economic backgrounds given roles as CEOs if the individual does not have talent. The problem with providing a bad standard of education to all is that society will decline, Britain will not have millionaires as the business opportunities are filled by more talented foreigners, the CEOs will not be British people, and the Civil Service will collapse; the reason for the dominance of people who were independently educated is not all down to having better connections, it is down to those people tending to have a better education which makes them better suited for the role.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I reject that assertion, it is not the case that people from high socio-economic background do not have talent, nor are people from high socio-economic backgrounds given roles as CEOs if the individual does not have talent. The problem with providing a bad standard of education to all is that society will decline, Britain will not have millionaires as the business opportunities are filled by more talented foreigners, the CEOs will not be British people, and the Civil Service will collapse; the reason for the dominance of people who were independently educated is not all down to having better connections, it is down to those people tending to have a better education which makes them better suited for the role.
    ......You are so out of touch it's unreal.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    This is nonsensical, "good" catchment areas often include some "poor" housing nearby. If we judge by average housing prices then poor families will be punished purely because their child goes to a lucky school.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Oh jesus, this is actually the reverse of what I thought, appalling attitude towards social mobility. I thought UKIP was for grammar schools?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I reject that assertion, it is not the case that people from high socio-economic background do not have talent, nor are people from high socio-economic backgrounds given roles as CEOs if the individual does not have talent. The problem with providing a bad standard of education to all is that society will decline, Britain will not have millionaires as the business opportunities are filled by more talented foreigners, the CEOs will not be British people, and the Civil Service will collapse; the reason for the dominance of people who were independently educated is not all down to having better connections, it is down to those people tending to have a better education which makes them better suited for the role.
    So there is no possible way for underclass people to become wealthy? And you prepare to perpetuate it than tackle it?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The government should treat individuals as investments, investing in children from better higher socio-economic backgrounds is a better investment because children from higher socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to do better.
    Economically that is incorrect, investing in wealthier children will simply encourage them to move abroad for work. Invest in the lower classes and you take them off the dole.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I see someone has a Brave New World vision

    I won't be surprised if I see a bill which introduces cloning and conditioning.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Nay
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    6) Band C schools may only use the facilities of other band C, and band D schools.
    7) Band D schools may only use the facilities of other band D schools.

    Methinks this is crazy
 
 
 
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: January 31, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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