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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    For some children, home is noisy, damp, cold and crowded. They cannot work there because they have nowhere quiet to work.

    You try doing quadratic equations when you're hungry, you've got a cold, your asthma's playing up, your siblings are playing loudly next to you and you don't really understand the work.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This. ^
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Well answer my question and it will prove why it is not incorrect.
    The premise of your question is just casual racism, against children no less. You have no evidence to back up your argument, just an un-sourced statistic (which I think is correct but has more context to it) and a chain of warped reasoning to your conclusion that 40% of children are happy to be on handouts or minimum wage.

    EDIT: I'll add more to explain where I'm coming from on this issue. In education I think there are very few factors which have been directly linked to increasing achievement, which are enormously outnumbered by factors which seem to be correlated with achievement but in fact don't have a particular effect in isolation. So there are loads of wives' tales about education best practices out there. One of these is class size, where I think the evidence is very mixed. As much as I admired Michael Gove for his curriculum reforms, which I think were badly needed from a perspective of global competitiveness (in reality I think it overshot simply 'matching' East Asia and whatnot) he was very bad for this sort of stuff. The example that sticks out in my mind was the insistence on linear A levels, which basically took away the main route disadvantaged students had to getting in university; smashing the AS exams. The idea of linear A levels being better was inherently tinged by nostalgia and politics.

    In reality, there are usually multiple ways of achieving the desired results, and any preference for one over the other is essentially a question of politics in the absence of evidence. In the case of lengthening the school day I don't think the premise really adds up. Yes, East Asians spend ungodly hours in school and studying. East Asian children are also more unhappy and have high suicide rates, and although they score well in the PISA rankings, their education in social sciences is deeply rooted in rote learning random historical and cultural facts to the extent they have at best an archaic view of the study of history and literature. Finns have shorter school days and probably much less homework but achieve competitive outcomes. If achieving better outcomes for students is a choice between innovation or forcing them to give up their free time I think I know which is preferable in the cultural context of the United Kingdom.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    What the hell is wrong with you?! How on earth is cutting benefits of disabled people a good thing?!

    Clearly you haven't got a disability. You have no idea of all the torment and issues my disability causes me on a daily basis. I'm autistic. It means I have constantly high levels of anxiety which in my case is like having to live every moment of your life in a panic attack. Do you have any idea how crippling that kind of anxiety is?! It can destroy your whole life! The benefits I receive are instrumental in paying for the counceling and support group memberships that I need just to cope on a day to day basis. Without them I wouldn't get this much needed help.
    If you read his message properly, you will find that he said the opposite of what you are complaining about.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    What the hell is wrong with you?! How on earth is cutting benefits of disabled people a good thing?!

    Clearly you haven't got a disability. You have no idea of all the torment and issues my disability causes me on a daily basis. I'm autistic. It means I have constantly high levels of anxiety which in my case is like having to live every moment of your life in a panic attack. Do you have any idea how crippling that kind of anxiety is?! It can destroy your whole life! The benefits I receive are instrumental in paying for the counceling and support group memberships that I need just to cope on a day to day basis. Without them I wouldn't get this much needed help.
    I LITERALLY PUT IT IN CAPS SO IT WAS NOT MISUNDERSTOOD, HOW HAVE YOU NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO READ WHAT I HAVE PUT???? "Apart from cutting the benefits of the disabled"
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    The premise of your question is just casual racism, against children no less. You have no evidence to back up your argument, just an un-sourced statistic (which I think is correct but has more context to it) and a chain of warped reasoning to your conclusion that 40% of children are happy to be on handouts or minimum wage.

    East Asians spend ungodly hours in school and studying. East Asian children are also more unhappy and have high suicide rates, and although they score well in the PISA rankings, their education in social sciences is deeply rooted in rote learning random historical and cultural facts to the extent they have at best an archaic view of the study of history and literature. Finns have shorter school days and probably much less homework but achieve competitive outcomes. If achieving better outcomes for students is a choice between innovation or forcing them to give up their free time I think I know which is preferable in the cultural context of the United Kingdom.
    1) I stated ethnic minorities perform better, how is that racist, it is a fact? (Im white i doubt i could be racist to whites)
    2) I dont remember saying 40% did i?
    3) Oh right, where did you come up with that fact? Out your arse?
    4) Well it is a choice, you either work hard and give up your free time now and be within the high achievers, or be stuck in a dead end up job for the rest of your life. The choice is open for any child to make. Or are you telling me that kids who work hard in school and get into the best universities are "wasting their free time"??
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    First it was working tax credits, then increasing the school day, now cutting disability benefits? Come on David, and come on Britain? Is this really the country we want our children to be brought up in?!?
    Increasing school hours is wrong is it? Go to Japan where school begins VERY early hence the clever children

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    First it was working tax credits, then increasing the school day, now cutting disability benefits? Come on David, and come on Britain? Is this really the country we want our children to be brought up in?!?
    At least someone resigned on this matter.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pyslocke)
    Don't forget working on privatizing the NHS.
    It's gone from 5% to 6% since 2010 LOL


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    The majority of kids get out off school without a single GCSE to their name "Last year, four-in-10 teenagers failed to achieve five A* to C grade GCSEs, including English and maths" - They either cant be bothered, and if they cant be bothered to increase their own job opportunities why should we have to pay for their upkeep did the tax payer ask them to fail their education and now be un-employable? I think not.
    If this is the case, what makes you think that forcing kids to spend another hour and a half in the classroom is going to make things any better? We already have inequality of wealth, and education in this country.

    As a father of an eight year old, I can tell you that family time, and time on gadgets, are just as important for my daughter, as school time. And for kids who are failing, what on earth makes you and this government think that, more teaching is going to produce better results? It should be about quality and not quantity!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    1) I stated ethnic minorities perform better, how is that racist, it is a fact? (Im white i doubt i could be racist to whites)
    2) I dont remember saying 40% did i?
    3) Oh right, where did you come up with that fact? Out your arse?
    4) Well it is a choice, you either work hard and give up your free time now and be within the high achievers, or be stuck in a dead end up job for the rest of your life. The choice is open for any child to make. Or are you telling me that kids who work hard in school and get into the best universities are "wasting their free time"??
    1) If the answer you wanted me to give to that question was not along the lines of parental encouragement or immigrants tending to be slightly wealthier.
    2) If it's not a large subset of the population, what's the point in bringing it up? It was the only reason you identified for the high rate of children not obtaining 5A*-Cs at GCSE.
    3) I'm surprised you haven't heard about this. Suicide is the leading cause of death for 15-19 year olds in Japan. ( 自殺 = suicide, 第1位 = first place etc.) Admittedly the UK's stats aren't fine grained enough to compare properly. That being said, in Japan there's a trend of increasing suicide rate with age, that's also present much more severely in South Korea. So to put it another way, if sacrificing ungodly amounts of time in their childhood has had a positive impact on the life outcomes of East Asians, it is betrayed by very high suicide rates. As well as lower happiness, lower GDP per capita, and significantly, lower research impact and innovation performance. Of course Japan and South Korea do very well in all of these areas, but not as well as the UK.
    4) Having longer school days just ties down students who go to the best universities. The best private schools don't have enormous school days, but they do tend to have extremely good provision for extra-curricular activities. Very smart students simply don't need to work that hard to get good A levels and GCSEs, which are in turn good enough for admission to one of the best higher education systems in the world.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    4) Having longer school days just ties down students who go to the best universities. The best private schools don't have enormous school days, but they do tend to have extremely good provision for extra-curricular activities. Very smart students simply don't need to work that hard to get good A levels and GCSEs, which are in turn good enough for admission to one of the best higher education systems in the world.

    So you dont think longer school days are beneficial in equipping kids to be more competent in this current job market?

    (Original post by john2054)
    If this is the case, what makes you think that forcing kids to spend another hour and a half in the classroom is going to make things any better? We already have inequality of wealth, and education in this country.

    As a father of an eight year old, I can tell you that family time, and time on gadgets, are just as important for my daughter, as school time. And for kids who are failing, what on earth makes you and this government think that, more teaching is going to produce better results? It should be about quality and not quantity!
    There is a inequality of wealth and education is every country, what do you expect everyone to be paid the same amount? lol

    More time in school = More time for subjects to be taught, which thus means children will have covered the curriculum and have more time to see teachers if they need help etc..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    So you dont think longer school days are beneficial in equipping kids to be more competent in this current job market?



    There is a inequality of wealth and education is every country, what do you expect everyone to be paid the same amount? lol

    More time in school = More time for subjects to be taught, which thus means children will have covered the curriculum and have more time to see teachers if they need help etc..
    I was going to edit my other post with this paragraph but since you've replied I'll just put it here.

    You seem to be obsessed by this idea (and yes, I mean obsessed, this type of reasoning is obsessive) that more hours in school =(1) kids do more work =(2) kids learn more =(3) they get better university places and jobs. There are assumptions at each stage of this chain of reasoning. For the first equality, you're assuming that students will work at a fixed rate for the whole day which simply isn't the case. And for the second equality you're assuming more work in ANY form will translate to better learning. Off the top of my head I can think of many factors which confound this idea:
    - Concentration and motivation are affected by the start of the school day, the length of the school day, sleep, the amount of hours of continuous learning etc.
    - Different schools and teachers will convey the curriculum at different rates.
    - Some lesson structures and forms of work are more effective than others at aiding memory.
    - Since the curriculum will remain the same size, the pace of lessons on average would have to be slowed, which has unquantifiable effects on ease of retention etc.
    - Homework is also important to learning and different schools set different amounts of it. What effect would this change have on the amount of homework and what knock on effect would that have on, for instance, independent learning?

    As for the third equality, and this also addresses your point "So you dont think longer school days are beneficial in equipping kids to be more competent in this current job market?", this is generally not going to be the case. In your career you use a small subset of the knowledge you actually gain during school. What's more important and generally applicable are the skills you acquire through learning and experience. The specific dates of the reigns of English kings probably aren't particularly important to remember off by heart. What is very useful though in learning History is the ability to do case studies, look at evidence, compare sources and draw your own conclusions. So what you learn is easily much more important than the flat amount you are learning. In the jobs market, having high grades is useful for 'signalling' to an employer that you are smart but after you gain a decent amount of experience it's not overwhelmingly important.

    So determining whether adding an hour to the school day, for instance, will improve performance is not as simple as you are making it out. To answer that question, you need input from case studies, controlled analysis of statistics, education psychologists and professors, and what employers and universities actually want. This tends to give answers that can be counter-intuitive to the dogmatic idea that more work = better. (And targeting Michael Gove, that traditional methods are or were better). Cambridge university opposed the abolition of AS levels and doesn't support students doing more than three A levels. Employers are usually more concerned about a lack of specific skills, some which can't be easily taught as part of a rigid curriculum (business skills), and some of which could be just as easily solved by focussing resources into key areas (less RE, more Maths.) There has been a lot of noise about sleep deprivation causing a lack of concentration in school, partly caused by early school days which are out of sync with the natural clocks of teenagers. If we actually want to improve education, we should be focussing on the recommendations that are made by experts on a daily basis rather than making purely symbolic actions like increasing the length of the school day, which we don't know will have a positive effect on outcomes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)

    There is a inequality of wealth and education is every country, what do you expect everyone to be paid the same amount? lol

    More time in school = More time for subjects to be taught, which thus means children will have covered the curriculum and have more time to see teachers if they need help etc..
    https://www.rt.com/uk/272716-poverty...inequality-uk/
    ​Educational inequality as destructive for health as smoking – study


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...education.html
    North-South divide widens as school performance figures show vast inequality in education

    this...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    https://www.rt.com/uk/272716-poverty...inequality-uk/
    ​Educational inequality as destructive for health as smoking – study


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...education.html
    North-South divide widens as school performance figures show vast inequality in education

    this...
    Have you actually read the articles? The gap or inequality as you will is largely down to the grades you get. (Self explanatory) it literally says in the article that a better education leads to a decrease in mortality. So quote me if im wrong, in a country where education is FREE, what exactly are you blaming failing students on? The government or are you just going to ignore that for the vast majority, failing was their own fault. Yes your social background and all the rest come into play, however for the large part most of the kids who fail their GCSE`s fail by choice and people like you are just helping them shift the blame onto something else.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Have you actually read the articles? The gap or inequality as you will is largely down to the grades you get. (Self explanatory) it literally says in the article that a better education leads to a decrease in mortality. So quote me if im wrong, in a country where education is FREE, what exactly are you blaming failing students on? The government or are you just going to ignore that for the vast majority, failing was their own fault. Yes your social background and all the rest come into play, however for the large part most of the kids who fail their GCSE`s fail by choice and people like you are just helping them shift the blame onto something else.
    If you read sociology at undergraduate level, like i have done for the last five years, you would hopefully see that there is a lot more to facts and statistics, then first meets the eye. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Have you actually read the articles? The gap or inequality as you will is largely down to the grades you get. (Self explanatory) it literally says in the article that a better education leads to a decrease in mortality. So quote me if im wrong, in a country where education is FREE, what exactly are you blaming failing students on? The government or are you just going to ignore that for the vast majority, failing was their own fault. Yes your social background and all the rest come into play, however for the large part most of the kids who fail their GCSE`s fail by choice and people like you are just helping them shift the blame onto something else.
    and if kids fail 'by choice', what difference is adding another two hours to the school day going to do to that equation? Surely, if anything, it will result in more kids, choosing to flunk their final exams? We don't all go to private schools you know?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    How did you manage to read sociology for 5 years when it is a 3 year degree? And lol you posted the article and now are going to criticise me for using extracts.

    I dont really care, is that what they teach you for 9,000 a year?

    Or it will help the ones who want to do well but are not all that clever. Increased lesson time might be exactly what they need. And i dont think it matters, its their choice, flunk exams and sit and cry about how the system failed you, when it was your fault. Story of GCSE failures, ever noticed most are left wing? What a co-incidence.
    I started my degree part time, and am finishing it full time, hence the timing discrepancy. Plus i have had to take on extra units to cover my switch from single honours to joint honours half way through.

    What uni do you want to go to TSR, and do you think you will get the grades?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Tories have always been scum. This is what the people voted for apparently so let them dig their own graves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    It's gone from 5% to 6% since 2010 LOL


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ok Mr Torie sir
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pyslocke)
    Ok Mr Torie sir
    Excellent reply.

    I don't vote conservative lol


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • 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.