Turn on thread page Beta

Poorer students to get two grade "head start"! watch

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    It's common sense really. If middle-class people and working-class people only mix on a level of working-class people serving middle-class people, it doesn't create a harmonious society. People are bound to get bitter - and rightly so. And actually, people who didn't get into grammar schools were made to feel like failures. Grammar schools improve the opportunities of their pupils at everyone else's expenses. If you talk to anyone who went to a secondary modern, you will probably get a similar response. My point about the class divide still stands anyway - it's hardly something that should be pushed to one side either. If that was the only problem with grammar schools, I'd still be against them.
    They shouldn't have been made to feel like failures. still, you can't blame the grammar schools themselves for that. That was due to bad attitudes which are unacceptable.

    How do they improve the opportunities of only those people at them? Those pupils at secondary schools are better served, since their teachers can spend extra time going over concepts etc, as, in general, they won't be as academically capable.

    I could equally say. "talk to anyone who goes to a rubbish comprehensive". There you can have very bright people, from poor backgrounds, who are being held back.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    It's common sense really. If middle-class people and working-class people only mix on a level of working-class people serving middle-class people, it doesn't create a harmonious society. People are bound to get bitter - and rightly so. And actually, people who didn't get into grammar schools were made to feel like failures. Grammar schools improve the opportunities of their pupils at everyone else's expenses. If you talk to anyone who went to a secondary modern, you will probably get a similar response. My point about the class divide still stands anyway - it's hardly something that should be pushed to one side either. If that was the only problem with grammar schools, I'd still be against them.
    Has it never occurred to you that because people have different qualities there will always be inequalities?

    There will always be class differences and no social engineering, no matter how unfair and ridiculous, will ever change that I'm afraid.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by berryripple)
    You are making huge, sweeping generalisations.
    That's right, blame your grades on the school.
    Maybe I blame my school for my grades, but rich kids with an IQ of 110 and 3 private tutors should thank them for their grades. On their own, they would have got about half as many A*s.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marsha2112)
    Maybe I blame my school for my grades, but rich kids with an IQ of 110 and 3 private tutors should thank them for their grades. On their own, they would have got about half as many A*s.
    Seriously, stop generalising. They might have got the same number of A*s. :p:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Like this will ever get made into actual legislation.

    Also way to go labour on making A levels even more worthless.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marsha2112)
    1)It's a generalisation, but it's a majority as well.
    2)Private schoolers probably do work as hard, but many because of outside pressure, and also they have better resources and interesting teachers to actually motivate them, whereas in a poor state school it's entirely up to the kid.
    3)Some private schools aren't worth the money but the top ones definitely are, and they're the ones who make up like 1/3 of Oxbridge's intake.
    4)Yes we should improve on these things, but that will take years, so rather than disadvantaging children till we sort out the problem, I do think the ABB thing is a good temporary solution.
    Whichever school you go to, it's entirely up to the kid. If the kid doesn't want to learn, and wishes to mess around and not go to classes - which is so much easier at A-level since the boundaries are so slim, then they will, whereas if the child wants to learn, then they will. Plus, you are assuming that all teachers in comprehensives are crap, which they are not :no:.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Lol i heard this on the bbc news at like half 5 in the morning. tis great....
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiritedAway)
    But whilst that student may have a lower IQ, they also, obviously, understand the course better than the student who received ABB.
    Also, whilst the ABB student may not be incapable of getting AAA, the didn't! I mean you can't use that excuse really, I mean if you miss the criteria for entrance you can't ring up and say "well, I mucked up in year 13 and only came out with ABB, now, I realise the requirement was AAA, and here on my UCAS track it tells me you've rejected me. That's a joke right, because I am capable of getting an AAA." Getting sidetracked isn't an excuse, they should have just gotten on with it! Hell, people self-teach themselves and come out with great grades, TSR is an example of that.

    You're also assuming that all middle school kids go to private school, what about a student who works hard and is middle class and goes to a regular comprehensive? But because their parents earn "too much" they are not given the same treatment as other children.
    They 'uderstand the course better' because they have great teachers, resources and good teaching. When they go to uni and have to do most of it themselves, the ABB person would probably be better. Some research from Oxford showed that state school students overall do better on their degree, as they're used to not being spoonfed. What you're saying is unfair, as the public school student never has a chance to get sidetracked and will always be pressurised to do well. Do you HONESTLY think that if you put every single AAA Eton student into a crappy state school with a 20% pass rate, they'd ALL come out with the same grades because they were so 'motivated'? No.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marsha2112)
    They 'uderstand the course better' because they have great teachers, resources and good teaching. When they go to uni and have to do most of it themselves, the ABB person would probably be better. Some research from Oxford showed that state school students overall do better on their degree, as they're used to not being spoonfed. What you're saying is unfair, as the public school student never has a chance to get sidetracked and will always be pressurised to do well. If the ABB one who had a much worse atmosphere surrounding them, had gone to a better school, they would've got AAA just the same. Do you HONESTLY think that if you put every single AAA Eton student into a crappy state school with a 20% pass rate, they'd ALL come out with the same grades because they were so 'motived'. No.
    Not EVERYONE would have got the same grades. But you are generalising to a ridiculous degree. A lot of private school people could have got the same grades at a state school.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrightGirl)
    Everyone should not be equal. If I hypothetically cba with anything and cba to get a job, and I enjoy vandalising things, I don't deserve as much money as someone who can be arsed to get a job and work.
    I do have to work harder, I am not rich and I don't go to a private or grammar school. That is just the way things are. You can't take money away from people who happen to have parents who have succeeded with money, or give more to people who parents haven't.
    Of course you can. It's no less fair than a child suffering in the school system because their parents haven't got as much money as someone else's. Most of the time it's not about 'trying hard'. It's about a class cycle which won't be broken unless measures like the one we're suppose to be discussing are put in place. (Not that this will solve the inequalities while living in a capitalist society, but that's for a different thread.) You have to ask why can't some people be bothered to get a job, and why do they enjoy vandalising things? The answer is probably because it's not worth them getting a job when the education system has failed them - not through lack of trying but because schools represent middle-class cultural values which they don't have. Perhaps they vandalise things because they're angry with the system that has left them with few opportunities because of their background. I'm not excusing these things, however, it's important to look at the social factors behind them rather than condemning them for things that may not be entirely in control of.

    Sorry, that was a bit of a ramble, which may or may not have any relation to the post I was quoting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is a ******* stupid idea. I'm all for social mobility but not when it directly impinges on others.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by berryripple)
    This.
    You are really overdoing the generalisation, you cannot assume that it is the same for every single student.
    I didn't say 'everyone', I mean 'most'. And most people I know aren't that motivated to work on their own that they'd get the same grades in any situation, it's usually their parents making them do their work. And in a private school, it would be the teachers. Only everyone on TSR either goes to a top private school or is 'self-motivated', so don't understand that for a lot of people your surroundings play a critical part in what grades you get. They really do. That's all this policy is trying to solve.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the reasoning behind it, but not the practice.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yay lets penalise/boost people based on the achievements of people around them.

    When I went into education there is no way my parents could have afforded public school, but as my education progressed they have progressed to become well off, then they went through a divorce a year before I went into secondary education so the cycle sort of started again. Pretty much my parents can probably now afford to send me to public school but with a year left what's the point?

    Secondly, the quality of state schools varies ridiculously
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marsha2112)
    They 'uderstand the course better' because they have great teachers, resources and good teaching. When they go to uni and have to do most of it themselves, the ABB person would probably be better. Some research from Oxford showed that state school students overall do better on their degree, as they're used to not being spoonfed. What you're saying is unfair, as the public school student never has a chance to get sidetracked and will always be pressurised to do well. Do you HONESTLY think that if you put every single AAA Eton student into a crappy state school with a 20% pass rate, they'd ALL come out with the same grades because they were so 'motivated'? No.
    But because their PARENTS earn more, of course the CHILD should be disadvantaged. Of course, it all makes sense now :rolleyes:.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8192234.stm

    I'm not sure if there is already a thread about this, but I am furious at the idea. I've just finished school at 18, but how is this right?

    They say it helps social mobility. It was the Labour Party who abolished grammar schools which actually helped social mobility (facts and figures I'm afraid, not just personal opinion). Some people are left behind, but the majority are do worse because they don't put the effort in or just simply are not acadmeic - neither of which are a reason to give them a "head start".
    They shoudl work on improving students grades through helping them actually do better on their own merits than just introducing state sactioned grade-cheating.

    Opinions? :p:
    deosnt solve the actual problem - it is equality of outcome but still leaves inequality of input ie secondary education and would put poorer candidates into innapropriate courses - poor in the sense they havent had the correct preperation not that they themselves dont have the potential - this is a waste of money and deosnt help anyone
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    way to patronise people - like oh, you're poor, which means you're obviously not good enough to get into uni by yourself, have a nice iclke wickle helping hand.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Of course you can. It's no less fair than a child suffering in the school system because their parents haven't got as much money as someone else's. Most of the time it's not about 'trying hard'. It's about a class cycle which won't be broken unless measures like the one we're suppose to be discussing are put in place. (Not that this will solve the inequalities while living in a capitalist society, but that's for a different thread.) You have to ask why can't some people be bothered to get a job, and why do they enjoy vandalising things? The answer is probably because it's not worth them getting a job when the education system has failed them - not through lack of trying but because schools represent middle-class cultural values which they don't have. Perhaps they vandalise things because they're angry with the system that has left them with few opportunities because of their background. I'm not excusing these things, however, it's important to look at the social factors behind them rather than condemning them for things that may not be entirely in control of.

    Sorry, that was a bit of a ramble, which may or may not have any relation to the post I was quoting.
    Not because the education system has failed them, but because they realise that if they doesn't get a job, then the state will give them a house and an income :awesome:. The vandalism thing is probably die to lack of morals.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Before i begin, my views do not represent those of my party, who tell me i have a Tory education policy But even so, i go to a Grammar School. If by social mobility you mean the ability of poor kids to get into good schooling, then the grammar system as it stands is a complete farce. Almost all of the kids in my school are middle class kids, because their parents can afford to send their sons to private tutoring or are determined enough to push their kids to achieve. However, back when the grammar system was present across the board, this was hardly the case. People simply took the test and were selected based on their intellect, and the effect of "parental pressure", which is always present to varying degrees, would have been somewhat ameliorated anyway because of the greater number of places available; the smart or hard working kids as well as the kids forced by their parents got in :yes:
    You admit that grammar schools currently are, for the reasons given, effectively free private schools for the middle classes. But why do you think that this situation would be any different if the system was rolled back out across the country? Yes, there'd be more places available, but proportionately the ratio of students to places would be similar, because if they were spread nation-wide there'd be more people able to apply for them. In any case, is it right that thousands of mediocre yet well-trained middle class children gain places in these elite schools, whereas only the brightest and most able of the children from more disadvantaged backgrounds can take their place next to them?

    This in addition to ArtGoblins's points, of course.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by creak)
    You admit that grammar schools currently are, for the reasons given, effectively free private schools for the middle classes. But why do you think that this situation would be any different if the system was rolled back out across the country? Yes, there'd be more places available, but proportionately the ratio of students to places would be similar, because if they were spread nation-wide there'd be more people able to apply for them. In any case, is it right that thousands of mediocre yet well-trained middle class children gain places in these elite schools, whereas only the brightest and most able of the children from more disadvantaged backgrounds can take their place next to them?

    This in addition to ArtGoblins's points, of course.
    That's a silly point to make. Ofcourse the proportion would increase if it were done on the same scale as before Thatcher closed them down! And even so, before the devil spawn did close them down, Grammar schools were hardly a preserve of the middle class, being dominated by intelligent kids regardless of social background.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
The home of Results and Clearing

1,792

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

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.