Inequality in Britain

[DJKillaQueen]

Yep that article is exactly what is going on.

Targets aren't in themselves always bad. The NHS for example has (esp in relation to waiting times) benefitted from target setting, but then all patients are capable of attending an appointment in equal measure. With education however, targets depend on the assumption that all pupils are capable of achieving certain levels of education and across the board. Common sense says that's not the case.

A school or college has no way of knowing how many pupils it will get of varying abilities each year, yet it is expected to achive certain targets or results and so on, linked to funding, which in turn can mean employment of teachers etc, so if you can see why a headmaster or teacher, worried about losing funding that might in turn put their job at risk would prefer to pass people who should fail, or worse still, embrace the system of dumbing down we've seen in education over the past 10 years.

Take just the GCSE for example. How strictly it is marked will vary from exam board to exam board. How on earth are employers or colleges/ universities supposed to measure that? If we don't have an exam or assessment system that accurately measures pupil knowledge and potential (which the currect system doesn't - because of the pressures to show all children seemingly doing better than average at school) then no wonder the top Universities have gone back to entrance exams and stick to recruiting mainly from the public school system.

Education is the one area where Labour have failed imo. Well the poor levels of literacy are proof enough.

[vinceayre]

Except now people who used to buy and sell shares for a living use spread betting instead as all gains are tax free.

[Ladymuck]

Eh? You've lost me there vinceayre. Don't suppose you could clarify?:-S

Thanks.

[DJKillaQueen]

Lost me too but I think he is referring to the proceeds from gambling being tax free.......not sure where that fits in though.

[Ladymuck]

LOL! Perhaps he meant to post on another thread? As you say, can't see where it fits in with education targets. But you never know - there may be some logic behind the apparent madness! Let's see if he returns.

[Loz]

I tbink what vinceayre means is that some people who previously traded in shares switched to instead betting on the spread betting market on those same shares. Same effect, but no stamp duty or capital gains to be paid.

How is that relevant? Erm, dunno. (?)

[Ladymuck]

Utterly hilarious!!!!

Thanks Loz!!!:))

[Ladymuck]

Looks as though VA was merely flitting by...so...

back to targets in education.

One thing is apparent: as well-intentioned as they might be, it would seem that they have had the undesired effect of increasing inequalities in our education system. The Institute of Fiscal Studies reports:

"In this paper, we consider research on links between higher education and family background, focusing particularly on the experiences of two cohorts of individuals born in 1958 and 1970. The findings point to a rise in educational inequality during the period relevant to these two cohorts. Specifically, links between educational achievement and parental income / social class strengthened during this period. Furthermore, a person's actual (measured) ability became a poorer predictor of whether they would get a degree than was previously the case. The expansion of higher education in the UK during this period appears to have disproportionately benefited children from richer families rather than the most able. Furthermore, the labour market success or failure of individuals became more closely connected to their parents' income, revealing a fall in the extent of intergenerational mobility over time."

Sound familiar?

Regarding the raising of standards, perhaps instead of imposing a super-abundance of targets which appear to be doing little to that end, we should simply be aiming for a system of education which provides teaching of such high quality that the private sector would eventually become redundant. Now wouldn't that be something!

Regarding inequalities in education, given that they appear to stem from poverty, then surely the priority should be to deal with the source - i.e. the poverty itself?

[????]

Er....other way round possibly LadyM..in real terms people were poorer in 1950 but inequalities less, education is the cause...whatever way you look at it I think well meant but ill thought out socialist engineering towards the goal of 'equality' in education wrecked the education for the among very poorest and especially the brightest among them. Thus we need to be very carefull with this loose, ill defined, 'progressive', value full mantra 'equality'....but idealism over practicaility always looks so much 'better'/nicers, etc whatever its effects ....*sighs.

*see also overspending on worthy, decent projects/goals that you can't afford and bankrupting onesself

[DJKillaQueen]

The other thing with the 1950's is that we still had a manufacturing and factory workbase....there was far more unskilled employment available and often secure jobs for life with it. That also meant that for many children, academic or skills based achievment at school was not as necessary as it is today.

At the same time, changes that came with the welfare state, university grants etc were aimed at opening up the highest levels of education to the poor. It came too late to help my father for example, who was a grammar school boy, but was not allowed to go to university because his father couldn't afford it.

Tuition fees and loans have become a disincentive to closing that gap.

Illiteracy existed in the 50's, but you still stood a fair chance of finding employment. Today, the skills base required for the modern workplace is without doubt higher and illiteracy is a major barrier to any employment, combined with a culture where aspirations are not only higher but to have them, expected. Far too many children just can't compete with that.

No wonder we have so many disenfranchised.

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...whatever way you

> look at it I think well meant but ill thought out

> socialist engineering towards the goal of

> 'equality' in education wrecked the education for

> the among very poorest and especially the

> brightest among them. Thus we need to be very

> carefull with this loose, ill defined,

> 'progressive', value full mantra 'equality'....but

> idealism over practicaility always looks so much

> 'better'/nicers, etc whatever its effects

> ....*sighs.

>

> *see also overspending on worthy, decent

> projects/goals that you can't afford and

> bankrupting onesself

I can see where you are coming from Quids...we just can't seem to get it right. I am just wondering how other countries might tackle the problem if faced with the UK's dilemma. I must question your use of the term "social engineering" though, which - to me - implies some sort of trickery, or at the very least, manipulation? Where is this apparent to you?

As for "*see also overspending on worthy, decent projects/goals that you can't afford and bankrupting onesself", of course you are right. All very well everyone (including me) saying we should do this, that and the other, but at the end of the day it all costs. Unfortunately now is probably not the time for splashing out. (*joins Quids in a long weary sigh*).

As to whether "projects/goals" are "decent" (or otherwise), I think DJKQ's anectdote on the EMA scheme above, if true, is rather worrying.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>No wonder we have so many disenfranchised.

I thought the education sector was going to be safe in terms of spending. Did the coalition not say something like that at the outset ? or did I mishear/misread? In which case, apart from the indirect education cuts via the scrapping of education-related QUANGOS, why are they now talking about providing 10,000 fewer university places than promised under Labour ? despite a massive increase in applications?

What are all these students supposed to do? There probably aren't going to be enough jobs for them and they may well end up on benefits ? and therefore a burden to the tax-payer there. It all seems so short-sighted and does not make sense to me at all.

Am I alone? Or is there something which I am failing to grasp?

*sticks head in sand*

[HAL9000]

1) Never trust a politician.

2) There is no more money left (really).

[Ladymuck]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 1) Never trust a politician.

> 2) There is no more money left (really).

That is not what I want to hear...they promised...they did...they did...:(

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tuition fees and loans have become a disincentive

> to closing that gap.

Granted. However, by the time students are thinking of applying to university the problem has become so chronic that any attempt to close that gap becomes increasingly difficult (pretty impossible I would say). This is because (studies have shown that) the poorest children are already almost 12 months behind those from middle income homes by the time they are five years old - i.e. before they have started going to school.

Full report here.

[DJKillaQueen]

I thought the education sector was going to be safe in terms of spending.

The signals change by the day. Nick Clegg promised to abolish tuition fees for example and now faces the wrath of students (most of them first time voters) who voted Lib Dem because of that pre election policy, which now seems to have vaporised, a bit like the Tory promise to not follow through with Labouts planned 1p rise in National Insurance.

University places increased under Labour helped by the change in status of former polytechnics and colleges of further education, but when I hear of degrees in things like 'airline management' then I'm not sure some of those courses have any value to most employers anyway.

There are a lot of students at universities that 15 years ago would have only made the entry level for a BTEC or HND course. Just like the GCSE replaced O'levels and CSE's to create one exam for everybody, we have created degrees for everybody, regardless of ability.

the poorest children are already almost 12 months behind those from middle income homes by the time they are five years old

The reasons are complex but yes this is true. A large part of it though is parenting. If a child has literate parents, irregardless of affluence, those parents are more likely to read to their children and teach them basic numracy and literacy at an early age. My mother did for example. Often though the poorest in society are the least literate (and least employable, hence the poverty) and the cycle goes on. If we are to break that then we need to provide nursery schooling to those children.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The reasons are complex but yes this is true. A

> large part of it though is parenting. If a child

> has literate parents, irregardless of affluence,

> those parents are more likely to read to their

> children and teach them basic numracy and literacy

> at an early age. My mother did for example. Often

> though the poorest in society are the least

> literate (and least employable, hence the poverty)

> and the cycle goes on. If we are to break that

> then we need to provide nursery schooling to those

> children.

We are on the same wavelength DJKQ. The most noteworthy causative factor which accounts for higher test results by the age of 5 years is indeed good parenting. And, as you say, things like regular reading to children (as occurred with you) are directly linked with more advanced intellectual development in children by the age of 5 irrespective of socio-economic background.

Interestingly (and, personally, I find this quite exciting), this then presents us with the strong possibility that one way to counteract the disadvantages which poverty can have on our children's intellectual development would be to look at ways of improving parenting. After all, education starts at home - from the day a child is born. Responsibility for all-round education of that child shouldn't fall solely to the State. Parents have a duty to take part - especially in the early years (pre-school). And if such a measure were to be implemented in conjunction with tackling poverty (where an issue) e.g. by (as you suggest) providing nursery education, then - as the problem would be hit at source - these combined measures might well prove to be a most cost-effective way of resolving current inequalities so inherent in our education system.

It doesn't seem so difficult. So why have Cameron/Clegg not come up with such a scheme? My guess is that the pay-back would more than compensate for the initial expenditure.

[Huguenot]

Lol!

I think trying to help parents with the upbringing of young children would be the definition of the nanny state?

The one thing that stood out with Jamie Oliver's school dinners campaign was how many parents were actively and aggressively opposed to it.

It strikes me that there's likely to be a heavy crossover between parents who aren't bringing up their children successfully, and those who would respond violently to any suggestion by the state that they needed help in doing so.

[DJKillaQueen]

That is true Huguenot but pre-schooling would go some way to helping and I agree with Lady, that it possibly could be the most effective measure in combatting poverty.

Any polician implementing the idea though would have to wait two terms to see the first results and a generation to see if it had any real impact further down on recurring levels of poverty within established socio-economic groups, and I suspect that is the reason for a lack of interest.

Sweden has compulsary pre-schooling for all children but then Swedes pay extremely high taxes for pay for it. Here we have prep schools used by the privately educated as a matter of course, so again the more priviliged are getting head starts and most state educated children will never catch up.

On parenting, there is no question that bad parenting is the biggest disadvantage a child can face. A bad parent is not the same as a poorly educated parent though. There are many parents that would embrace the opportunity for their children to get pre-schooling even though they are not able to help their children with schoolwork themselves.

Some schools now have homework clubs for children to use that don't have either a quiet area at home to do their homework or parents that can help. Clearly providing extra help and schooling where it's needed would be a step in the right direction accross the board - maybe even opening schools on Saturday mornings for that.

On another point, I did see that the government are going to end the process of students that fail or fall short in grades with final A level exams being able to retake the failed parts. At present pupils can do this to get their grades up.

Universities have complained about being unable to determine who got their A grade from a single exam passed first time and those who got them after retaking parts of the exam. It astounds me that even happens. Revising for an entire exam and passing it first time with an A grade is not the same as revising bit by bit and retaking in part until you get an A grade.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lol!

>

> I think trying to help parents with the upbringing

> of young children would be the definition of the

> nanny state?

Oh Consummate Mocker,

...whose talent in the art of mocking remains unsurpassed. Mock you may. Or is that ridicule?

*ploughs on undeterred, but not before giving Huguenot one hell of a "clip" around ear*

I am quite serious. Furthermore, (*clips other ear for good measure*), I believe it could just work.

I take your point that, looking at ways of improving parenting, might be perceived by some as excessive control by the Government. Do, for example, mandatory vaccination programmes constitute a Nanny State? It's certainly debatable - given what is at stake (e.g., in the case of bovine TB, the welfare of cattle and, ultimately, of those who consume its meat). And so it is with improving parenting as a method of counteracting the negative impact which poverty can have on a child's intellectual development. It would not be about seeking to control or even intervene, but more about educating parents - though I acknowledge such a proposal might appear patronising to some. But come now Mr. H, you yourself are not averse to educating various members of the public when convenient to your particular argument at a given time?;-).

[Ladymuck]

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>But come now Mr. H, you

> yourself are not averse to educating various

> members of the public when convenient to your

> particular argument at the time.

I simply had to fish out an example. I didn't have to go back far!:))

Re: The National Equality Panel Report concludes that Britain has become more unequal since 1997

Posted by: Huguenot May 17, 04:12PM

...We would all like to see a parliament that more closely reflects the population, but you cannot do this by removing democratic rights. You must instead educate the electorate in the benefits of diversity and ensure the opportunity to learn the necessary skills are open to all.

*flees ED*

[expat]

LM do not go to Singapore! 8-)

[Marmora Man]

Ladymuck Wrote:

I take your point that, looking at ways of improving parenting, might be perceived by some as

> excessive control by the Government. Do, for example, mandatory vaccination programmes

> constitute a Nanny State? It's certainly debatable - given what is at stake (e.g., in the

> case of bovine TB, the welfare of cattle and, ultimately, of those who consume its meat). And

> so it is with improving parenting as a method of counteracting the negative impact which poverty

> can have on a child's intellectual development. It would not be about seeking to control or even

> intervene, but more about educating parents - though I acknowledge such a proposal might appear

> patronising to some. But come now Mr. H, you yourself are not averse to educating various

> members of the public when convenient to your particular argument at a given time?

Have a look at Centre for Social Justice - Family Policy that advocates much greater support for families, particularly during first three years, as a way out of the dysfunctional cycle that many are trapped in. With Iain Duncan Smith as a Minister perhaps some of these ideas will get a decent chance of implementation

[Ladymuck]

Ha ha ha!

Besides, the gap between rich and poor is even greater there than it is over here.

*remains in hiding*

[Ladymuck]

Oh bums! Another cross-post.

Above post is in response to "expat's" - 3 posts back.