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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    Firstly, may I just say that I did deleted what you rightly claimed I said and re-edited it for the reason that it was poorly structured. But I'll give you a reply nevertheless.
    It wasn’t your poor structure I took objection with, I am dyslexic. It was the flawed arguments.

    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    New Labour have a goal to half child poverty by 2010 and to eradiacte child poverty by 2020. Labour have taken 600,000 out so far, missing their goals. Of course there is no final list. But the fact is there are too many failing schools, something which Labour have failed to achieve. Of course there will always be better schools than others, but there are still a huge number of students failing to abtain 5 C's at GCSE.
    Again this is all quite tabloid. You fail to give weight to the variables which in the case of education provision are very important. To couple “huge numbers of students failing to obtain 5C’s at GCSEs” with that school being tagged a failing school is not only absurd but dangerous.

    If a school in a destitute borough has a disproportionate number of economically disadvantaged children, how then, faced with that reality can they be charged with being a failing school if they churn out children who fail to obtain 5Cs at GCSE, when it is highly likely that those said students started at a far lower base than their middle class counter parts? One should not look at the end result to ascertain whether a school is succeeding or not you should look at the value added. Schools with a high intake of bright children from a stable background who churn out Bs and As have added virtually nothing to that child’s performance overall and should be charged with being a failing school.

    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    Nobody. But I did expect something better. BTW, I should also say that I am a Labour supporter. But the fact that OVER HALF of students do not get 5 GCSE's (including English and Maths) is nowhere near perfection.
    Who is that a failure for? Government, Students or Teachers? You can take a camel to water but can you can’t force it to drink?

    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    OK, the Capitalism debate is whole new subject and I really don't want to get dragged into that. And yes I agree, that was poorly written. Basically, what I meant to say is that it is a form of positive discrimination that should only in principle at least, be short term. Like the idea of getting women into under represented professions until the numbers even out.
    Ah, but that debate cannot be avoided. We get women into professions by means of positive discriminations, the numbers then even out as you put it. But remember the only reason the number have evened out is because of the positive discrimination not because of a change in the system. Remove the positive discrimination and the numbers will trail back. Which is why we can keep a corrupt system and use positive discrimination to mitigate its effects or create a new system all together, I’d favour the latter but you said you didn’t want to get into that debate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FyreFight)
    No group is disadvantaged by the system provided by government. Disregarding minor policies like EMA, everyone has equal access to the same schools and same resources provided by the state - this is exactly as it should be.
    That is the most ridiculous statement of this entire thread. It is so utterly off the wall in terms of stupidity that I won’t even bother to correct it. Favouring leaving it as an example to others. Sort of like impaling somebody’s head on a pike.
    (Original post by FyreFight)
    If some parents choose to send their children to private school because they can afford it, it is not the role of government to step in and lower the standards for poor children by allowing them to compete for the same places without the competency that the more privileged can obtain.
    What is being talked about is a scheme is for university places not private schools primarily. Why do poor people have to fund private schools through taxation by giving divisive institutions charitable status? Poor kids should be forced on private schools for that very reason.
    (Original post by FyreFight)
    In what sort of backwards world does punishing a child because his or her parents are successful count as lessening discrimination?
    What children are being punished as a result of this proposal?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezekiel)
    That is the most ridiculous statement of this entire thread. It is so utterly off the wall in term of stupidity that I won’t even bother to correct it. Favouring leaving it as an example to others. Sort of like impaling somebody’s head on a pike.
    Any school that provides its students with a textbook and a basic level of tutelage gives them more than enough to get an A grade at A-level. Many, many people self teach themselves qualifications without any sort of outside support whatsoever. If a school is so poor that it cannot teach a person to a point where they're eligible candidates for university, then that school has utterly failed and the onus is on the government to ensure that it can teach properly in future, not selectively make concessions for some students based on their parent's income.

    What is being talked about is a scheme is for university places not private schools primarily. Why do poor people have to fund private schools through taxation by giving divisive institutions charitable status? Poor kids should be forced on private schools for that very reason.
    My point was regarding competition for university places.

    What children are being punished as a result of this proposal?
    Those who are inherently disadvantaged by having to achieve higher standards for the same finite places, quite clearly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhereIsMyMind)
    If the education system isn't working for the working class, shouldn't Labour be doing something to ensure that it does work? Perhaps by improving it to the extent that these students can attain an A (etc.) grade?

    If the idea of this proposal is to perhaps take a C candidate and/or make their grade an A (equivalent) in the application process is quite unbelievable. If a prerequisite of gaining acceptance to a course is an A grade, then surely it's advantageous (in the long run) to ensure the student is to an A grade standard? It's pointless fast-tracking a student into such course, if the work is so demanding that they're going to suffer or find it difficult to cope.

    Private School is a choice. If a parent can afford to send their child to such an establishment that offers it, then I don't see how that can be held against the individual? I mean, at the end of the day, if the parent has worked hard to enable their child the opportunity, then why shouldn't they utilise it?

    It seems to me this of more a case of crying; 'It's not fair'. Life isn't fair. FFS! You either work and get something, or you don't get anything at all!
    Of course the government should be doing something to tackle the inequality in schools. However, I don't think this is possible within a capitalist economic as it suits the ruling class to reproduce the class system as it means they retain their power. While capitalism is still the dominant system, class inequality can only be managed by trying to give working-class people 'equality of opportunity'.

    I think you're missing the point. It's not a 'fast-track' to a certain university course, as they're already at the same standard as the middle-class pupils who achieve the higher grade. It's 'leveling the playing field'; the working-class person has tried just as hard as the middle-class person yet because of the disadvantages they've had both at home and school, they can't reach the same standard. (This doesn't apply to everyone - there are students from less advantaged backgrounds who can get three As, but I feel that these should be worth more than some middle-class students who have achieved the same grades.)

    Private school shouldn't be allowed as children shouldn't be able to benefit from what their parents have achieved. This naturally causes the class system to reproduce itself, which creates an unfair society. Why should working-class children suffer because their parent's 'didn't try hard' (or more likely - didn't get the same opportunities in school) and middle-class children get a better education because their parents earn more money? People should at least start life equal, even if society won't let them end it that way.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Of course the government should be doing something to tackle the inequality in schools. However, I don't think this is possible within a capitalist economic as it suits the ruling class to reproduce the class system as it means they retain their power. While capitalism is still the dominant system, class inequality can only be managed by trying to give working-class people 'equality of opportunity'.

    I think you're missing the point. It's not a 'fast-track' to a certain university course, as they're already at the same standard as the middle-class pupils who achieve the higher grade. It's 'leveling the playing field'; the working-class person has tried just as hard as the middle-class person yet because of the disadvantages they've had both at home and school, they can't reach the same standard. (This doesn't apply to everyone - there are students from less advantaged backgrounds who can get three As, but I feel that these should be worth more than some middle-class students who have achieved the same grades.)

    Private school shouldn't be allowed as children shouldn't be able to benefit from what their parents have achieved. This naturally causes the class system to reproduce itself, which creates an unfair society. Why should working-class children suffer because their parent's 'didn't try hard' (or more likely - didn't get the same opportunities in school) and middle-class children get a better education because their parents earn more money? People should at least start life equal, even if society won't let them end it that way.
    It is 'fast-tracking' (to a certain extent). If the working class student was at the same standard as the middle class student, then surely there wouldn't be such a need for this (IMO) ridiculous proposal. I find this proposal preposterous, in that it doesn't take into consideration how the admissions system works. It works solely on grades. If therefore (on the basis of your argument) the students are at the same level, then this proposal shouldn't be needed?

    I don't see how we can be creating a level playing field, if we are forcibly making changes to a (perfectly functioning) system, which then favours a certain group? We already have discrimination in the system (EMA etc).

    I'm not being harsh when I say this. But trying doesn't matter jacks ass! I'm sorry but if you can't attain high grades, then that's your loss. We have hundreds of thousands of students from working class families gaining admissions to courses in the 'elitists' of establishments. If the schools are educating correctly, then you have all of what you need to gain you those top marks. If you can't or aren't able to utilise available resources, then that's your loss.

    Why shouldn't private schools be allowed? It's about choice. I know working class families that send their children to private schools. It's about knowing what's best for your children, and providing for their needs. If you want the best for your children (and under the current government) in terms of education, then private establishments are the way forward.

    Why shouldn't children be allowed to benefit from what their parents have achieved? If I work my socks off and earn a nice salary so that I can send my children to a private school, then why shouldn't I? At the end of the day, I work for my children, I would want the best for them. I know this is rather 'snobbish' of me, but why should I care about the demise of other parents and the effect this will have on their children?

    If the Labour government wants to ensure that working class families and children get the same level of education as the middle class, then they should invest heavily in it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is quite possibly the ******** idea in human history.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    if parents have the money to pay a tutor the pupil will do better

    2 same children different universes

    universe 1- child gets tutor
    universe 2- child doesnt

    who does better?
    So surely some sort of grant for poorer families to afford tutoring for a struggling child would be better. Well at least better than giving every child from a poorer family a 2 grade head start?

    This is positive discrimination like it said in the article.

    You can't possibly generalize on that scale and say that every child from a poorer family would benefit from a 2 grade 'head start' AND that every child from this kind of background wishes to go to university but can't because they can't achieve good grades at school because their family is too poor.

    I'm sorry, but I think the idea is just crazy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is bull ****. I'm from a single parent council estate and I would of gotten this grade bonus. I think it would be ridiculous. I've done well for myself without it and those that get bad grades get them not because there poor but because there complete idiots who don't care about their grades.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There are self-esteem issues here too...who could take pride in their achievements knowing that their good results were the result of them having been bumped up? Pride in your work comes from working your ass off and knowing that you deserve your reward of good marks. You would always feel like an imposter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm all for improving social mobility but surely the government can think of something better than just artificially changing grade boundaries? This seems a bit off to me o_O
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do I qualify ?

    - Live with mum , no dad
    - Extreme debt
    - On benefits
    - And I'm fifteen

    Do I get a head start or something , sorry I didn't read the link , I couldn't be bothered.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is just a load of new labour bull, designed purely so they can keep up their image as crusaders for the equal rights of all. Oh what do gooders they are. Life is unfair- fact. Some people are dealt a duff hand, but work hard enough to get themselves off the heap. What mentality is this trying to give to the people of britain. That 'oh, don't work too hard, we will bump your grades up and give you an easy ride'. And what happens when these people get to uni, and find they cannot keep up with the work because they're not actually smart enough to be there. Besides, this whole policy is a bit patronising. Just because someone is poor, doesn't mean they don't have the smarts to do just as well as anyone else. Christ, what happened to a bit of hard work to get what you want in life. And then you have the middle class, some kids of which will be working hard and getting good grades, only to be denied university places by those who get this head start. What happens to these guys. It's not discrimination for a university to want to take on the brightest kids. It's political correctness gone mad, and its policies like this that will shape the next fifty years of this country. It isn't looking good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, there's some pretty myopic people here who love their sensationalist headlines.

    We'd all agree that it's only fair that top university places are awarded exclusively on the basis of ability; nobody would condone admitting poorer kids to uni at the expense of middle-class kids, if the latter had more potential than the former.

    But imagine a genuinely bright working-class lad, whose had the misfortune of being born in the catchment area of an uncommonly rough comprehensive school; it's likely that his teachers are either sub-par, or tormented by rowdy pupils to the point where they can't perform their duty to teach this hapless lad what he needs to know. The school's resources are probably piss-poor, and even with a thoroughly decent brain, and some good old fashioned elbow grease, his likelihood of being sufficiently prepared for the hoop-jumping fiasco of modern exams is gonna be pretty slim. People in better schools probably can't even begin to imagine how tough it is to achieve academically in of of our many extremely bad comps; especially privately educated kids, perhaps possessing only a fraction of our working-class lad's intellect, but coched to pass exams in tiny classes with talanted teachers and showered with cash and resources. There's absolutely no comparison; the quality of one's school has an enormous effect on the quality of one's A-Level grades - why ever else would wealthy parents send their kids to expensive schools?

    So, unusually for me, I can see where Labour is coming from. This isn't about giving the middle-classes a raw deal, but to recognise that poorer kids, often with natural academic talent, are often shunned by some universities because their grades don't cut the mustard - often due to the woefully inept schools they attended. I really do believe that a privately-educated student who got AAA may, in reality, be far less able than somebody who went to a ***** school and got ABB. The former will be more likely to gain access to a better uni and this rides roughshod over the principle that the more talanted student gets a better university place than the less talanted one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LurkerintheDark)
    Wow, there's some pretty myopic people here who love their sensationalist headlines.

    We'd all agree that it's only fair that top university places are awarded exclusively on the basis of ability; nobody would condone admitting poorer kids to uni at the expense of middle-class kids, if the latter had more potential than the former.

    But imagine a genuinely bright working-class lad, whose had the misfortune of being born in the catchment area of an uncommonly rough comprehensive school; it's likely that his teachers are either sub-par, or tormented by rowdy pupils to the point where they can't perform their duty to teach this hapless lad what he needs to know. The school's resources are probably piss-poor, and even with a thoroughly decent brain, and some good old fashioned elbow grease, his likelihood of being sufficiently prepared for the hoop-jumping fiasco of modern exams is gonna be pretty slim. People in better schools probably can't even begin to imagine how tough it is to achieve academically in of of our many extremely bad comps; especially privately educated kids, perhaps possessing only a fraction of our working-class lad's intellect, but coched to pass exams in tiny classes with talanted teachers and showered with cash and resources. There's absolutely no comparison; the quality of one's school has an enormous effect on the quality of one's A-Level grades - why ever else would wealthy parents send their kids to expensive schools?

    So, unusually for me, I can see where Labour is coming from. This isn't about giving the middle-classes a raw deal, but to recognise that poorer kids, often with natural academic talent, are often shunned by some universities because their grades don't cut the mustard - often due to the woefully inept schools they attended. I really do believe that a privately-educated student who got AAA may, in reality, be far less able than somebody who went to a ***** school and got ABB. The former will be more likely to gain access to a better uni and this rides roughshod over the principle that the more talanted student gets a better university place than the less talanted one.
    Don't bother explaining mate, most of the people on this thread are as you described in your first sentence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hate all this discrimination against the middle classes. Why should I be punished because my parent's worked hard for their money and used it to send me to private school. My family came from nothing, two generations ago they were immigrants that slept on factory floors because they couldn't afford housing and now they're being punished because they worked hard and invested in their children's education.

    I don't believe that giving students a two grade head start will help them in any sense. The grades are that level because you need that knowledge and hard work to help you pass the course. If you let people who haven't reached that standard take the course they usually won't be able to keep up and will end up dropping out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellsbells3032)
    I hate all this discrimination against the middle classes. Why should I be punished because my parent's worked hard for their money and used it to send me to private school. My family came from nothing, two generations ago they were immigrants that slept on factory floors because they couldn't afford housing and now they're being punished because they worked hard and invested in their children's education.

    I don't believe that giving students a two grade head start will help them in any sense. The grades are that level because you need that knowledge and hard work to help you pass the course. If you let people who haven't reached that standard take the course they usually won't be able to keep up and will end up dropping out.
    How are you being punished?
    Surely its the other way round now?
    Take the subject maths for example, if you don't "get it" then its pretty hard to learn by yourself no matter how many books you read.
    Scenario 1: your parents have enough money to hire a private tutor to help you out/you go to a private school.
    Scenario 2: your parents don't have enough money for even a private tutor?
    Who's being punished here? Who has to work harder to get an A? Just because they don't have enough money?
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by LurkerintheDark)
    Wow, there's some pretty myopic people here who love their sensationalist headlines.

    We'd all agree that it's only fair that top university places are awarded exclusively on the basis of ability; nobody would condone admitting poorer kids to uni at the expense of middle-class kids, if the latter had more potential than the former.

    But imagine a genuinely bright working-class lad, whose had the misfortune of being born in the catchment area of an uncommonly rough comprehensive school; it's likely that his teachers are either sub-par, or tormented by rowdy pupils to the point where they can't perform their duty to teach this hapless lad what he needs to know. The school's resources are probably piss-poor, and even with a thoroughly decent brain, and some good old fashioned elbow grease, his likelihood of being sufficiently prepared for the hoop-jumping fiasco of modern exams is gonna be pretty slim. People in better schools probably can't even begin to imagine how tough it is to achieve academically in of of our many extremely bad comps; especially privately educated kids, perhaps possessing only a fraction of our working-class lad's intellect, but coched to pass exams in tiny classes with talanted teachers and showered with cash and resources. There's absolutely no comparison; the quality of one's school has an enormous effect on the quality of one's A-Level grades - why ever else would wealthy parents send their kids to expensive schools?

    So, unusually for me, I can see where Labour is coming from. This isn't about giving the middle-classes a raw deal, but to recognise that poorer kids, often with natural academic talent, are often shunned by some universities because their grades don't cut the mustard - often due to the woefully inept schools they attended. I really do believe that a privately-educated student who got AAA may, in reality, be far less able than somebody who went to a ***** school and got ABB. The former will be more likely to gain access to a better uni and this rides roughshod over the principle that the more talanted student gets a better university place than the less talanted one.
    It is about giving middle-classes a raw deal.

    I accept your argument; it serves a valid purpose, and raises some interesting points.

    However, what I'm against, is that the government isn't tackling the problem head on - the problem of poor education.

    If Labour can acknowledge that some intellectual and talented individuals are getting caught up in the charade that is 'rough comprehensive', then the onus is on them to either improve the standards of education, and/or facilitate the use of the individuals intellect.

    I'm not so sure it's fair to penalise parents, who have rightfully worked hard to enable their child to get an excellent education. An education that Labour has long said it is providing for everyone? :rolleyes:

    I'm also dead against this idea that poor schools = poor grades. If one is committed to gaining an excellent education, and to further themselves, then nothing is stopping an individual of utilising their own 'intellect' and self teaching. I know several students who went to poor schools who were able to gain straight As/A*s.

    I'm also finding it hard to understand how you feel that parents are wealthy if they send their children to private schools? I know parents that aren't wealthy by any means, and yet work around the clock to ensure their children get an excellent education, because the local school can't simply provide it. I don't see why parents should pay (rightfully) to ensure their children are adequately educated, and then for their child to be unfairly discriminated against.

    As for why parents choose to send their children to private schools? I think you answered that question yourself already. Because the local comprehensives are poorly managed, with insufficient resources. Is that the middle-class families fault too?

    It seems to me this is a load of crap to ensure votes from the working-class and rather oddly masking the actual problem. The problem is with the poor educational standards. It's nothing to do with how much money individuals have? I can't think of any reason why a parent would be prepared to spend an exorbitant amount of money on private education, when the local comprehensive offers it for nothing extra out of their pocket? Oh. That's right. It doesn't.

    I'm not myopic by any means. However, I find it hard to believe that we are all equal. It's simply not the case and never will. It's all about crying foul, and bringing people down to get ahead yourself.

    Middle-class people haven't always been middle-class. I find it rather worrying and shocking, that people that have worked hard their entire life, are now going to be discriminated so those that weren't bothered and/or capable can get ahead!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Great, more from the party that loves to encourage discrimination.

    Why bother studying and working for the grades you need to get in, simply because someone poorer who doesn't have the grades will be given the place because you're middle class?

    Any parent would do as much as possible to ensure their child gets a good education, unless they are inbred chavs who's only concern is getting a moped. Are we now going to start punishing those families because they have done what they can to get their child higher grades?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is disgusting.

    This does nothing but undermine the education system, as well as undermining the poor people (like me) who EARNED their grades, and in fact, undermines anybody who earns their grades.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by _Hayko)
    How are you being punished?
    Surely its the other way round now?
    Take the subject maths for example, if you don't "get it" then its pretty hard to learn by yourself no matter how many books you read.
    Scenario 1: your parents have enough money to hire a private tutor to help you out/you go to a private school.
    Scenario 2: your parents don't have enough money for even a private tutor?
    Who's being punished here? Who has to work harder to get an A? Just because they don't have enough money?
    I think what you've failed to grasp, is that this money hasn't magically entered the parents bank accounts. It's come from hard work. If the parents are prepared to work hard to ensure their child's place, then surely its the working-class families fault for not doing the same?

    I appreciate that certain individuals talents and intellect aren't being exercised; but how is that the fault of the middle-class parents? I'm going to go as far as saying it's not even the working-class families fault. It's the fault of the government for not ensuring that these intellectual children have been given the opportunity to exercise their potential.

    I don't see how giving poorer children the two-grade advantage is going to solve this issue (of poor education).

    If a child hasn't been given the opportunity to exercise their intellect and potential, and thus hasn't attained an A grade in say Maths. Then I don't see how bumping up their grade so that they have an A grade (on paper) is going to solve anything?

    In fact, it's going to make things worse, or perhaps go in a circle. This individual is then going to go to University, and find that they haven't covered most of the work (due to the mismanagement of the school and it's teaching), and thus they will get a poor graded degree.

    Are the employers now going to have to give an unfair advantage to a candidate? It's stupid to consider that they will, and therefore we'll have more students in debt, and therefore back in that wonderful circle!
 
 
 
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: August 13, 2009
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.