Reply to: It takes a nation of millions to hold us back

[Freamon]

Has this been posted yet?

[DodgyAgent]

I've never said that education couldn't or shouldn't be improved, this is simply something that DA has made up to suit himself. As regards his spoutings in particular, my argument is that a) most state services aren't "manifest failures" as he likes to make out and b) calling for all services to be "as good as the best" sounds good but doesn't actually make sense when you look at it critically.

As regards education, I'm sure you can improve the delivery of education in the UK but I don't believe it will make that much difference to outcomes for low achieving pupils because they are low achievers due to other factors. As regards how to improve education, I don't think easing labour laws will help, because lots of places with stricter labour laws have education systems that outperform the UK, I don't think throwing money at it will help, because we are actually slightly above the OECD average, and I don't think tinkering with the mechanisms for parental choice to create "competition" will help unless you can make it a real choice which means creating a surplus of places in the education system.

Some things I do think will help are starting school later and reducing the pressure on families to have two parents working.

So the upshot of that is although I'm all for improving educational outcomes, I don't think DA's suggestions will work and I don't think his expectations are realistic. Try and point this out to him and you will be called a lefty and accused of resisting any and all change, because his mind isn't sophisticated enough to grasp anything more nuanced than the fact you don't agree with him.

Spoken like a true NUT trade union official

[doodab]

I must admit mate I don't fully understand your argument.

It seems to me, and outsider to this debate, that your argument is that you cannot significantly improve the way education is delivered in the UK, because the great majority of causes of pupil under-achievement are from outside the schools. Thus improvements will only come from changing society. That's the way I read what you've said so far. So I get the impression that it is fairly pointless trying to change the internals of the education system.

I'm not 100% sure of dodgy's argument either but it's a bit clearer. From what I've read I think it says that, regardless of outside causes of pupil underachievement, you can still improve UK education delivery, but you won't unless you are willing to change the way things are done, and that is very difficult because there is a lot of resistance to change.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

I've never said that education couldn't or shouldn't be improved, this is simply something that DA has made up to suit himself. As regards his spoutings in particular, my argument is that a) most state services aren't "manifest failures" as he likes to make out and b) calling for all services to be "as good as the best" sounds good but doesn't actually make sense when you look at it critically.

As regards education, I'm sure you can improve the delivery of education in the UK but I don't believe it will make that much difference to outcomes for low achieving pupils because they are low achievers due to other factors. As regards how to improve education, I don't think easing labour laws will help, because lots of places with stricter labour laws have education systems that outperform the UK, I don't think throwing money at it will help, because we are actually slightly above the OECD average, and I don't think tinkering with the mechanisms for parental choice to create "competition" will help unless you can make it a real choice which means creating a surplus of places in the education system.

Some things I do think will help are starting school later and reducing the pressure on families to have two parents working.

So the upshot of that is although I'm all for improving educational outcomes, I don't think DA's suggestions will work and I don't think his expectations are realistic. Try and point this out to him and you will be called a lefty and accused of resisting any and all change, because his mind isn't sophisticated enough to grasp anything more nuanced than the fact you don't agree with him.

[scooterscot]

And that's what we have. Millions of thickos.







No wonder I feel like I'm talking to 5 year olds sometimes.

BBC News - Poor numeracy 'blights the economy and ruins lives'

Story bleating on about Britain's poor numeracy again when clearly this is problem in England. Braun down south with the brain up north, sounds about right. Although Jonny Wilkinson's drop kick seems less than successful these days. Aye the future's looking thick.

Scotland may have answers to English maths problem

A study by the Royal Society of Arts says England, where one in four adults cannot do basic calculations, is out-performed by the likes of Scotland and Hong Kong.

England's maths education is not fit for purpose and risks damaging the economy, it adds.

The government said England must keep up with leading education systems.

The RSA report cautions against adopting any country's teaching system wholesale but says that England should draw on the experiences of Scotland and Hong Kong to improve the effectiveness of its mathematics teaching.

[DodgyAgent]

I must admit mate I don't fully understand your argument.

It seems to me, and outsider to this debate, that your argument is that you cannot significantly improve the way education is delivered in the UK, because the great majority of causes of pupil under-achievement are from outside the schools. Thus improvements will only come from changing society. That's the way I read what you've said so far. So I get the impression that it is fairly pointless trying to change the internals of the education system.

I'm not 100% sure of dodgy's argument either but it's a bit clearer. From what I've read I think it says that, regardless of outside causes of pupil underachievement, you can still improve UK education delivery, but you won't unless you are willing to change the way things are done, and that is very difficult because there is a lot of resistance to change.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Spot on with my bit

[Doggy Styles]

I have to say, only a genuine total ****wit could take a thread I have started bemoaning the state of education in Britain and use it to argue that I am against improving the standard of education in Britain. Talk about pick your battlegrounds.

I must admit mate I don't fully understand your argument.

It seems to me, and outsider to this debate, that your argument is that you cannot significantly improve the way education is delivered in the UK, because the great majority of causes of pupil under-achievement are from outside the schools. Thus improvements will only come from changing society. That's the way I read what you've said so far. So I get the impression that it is fairly pointless trying to change the internals of the education system.

I'm not 100% sure of dodgy's argument either but it's a bit clearer. From what I've read I think it says that, regardless of outside causes of pupil underachievement, you can still improve UK education delivery, but you won't unless you are willing to change the way things are done, and that is very difficult because there is a lot of resistance to change.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

[DodgyAgent]

I have to say, only a genuine total ****wit could take a thread I have started bemoaning the state of education in Britain and use it to argue that I am against improving the standard of education in Britain. Talk about pick your battlegrounds.

Please excuse me I am a little on the thick side

I mean yes it so off topic to respond by discussing the reasons for the poor state of education. And it is probably inappropriate that I should point out that you personally support the status quo and have no desire to discuss or even accept the concept of change.
And for me to then go and point out the parallel between your views and the vested interests within the education system is probably even more unreasonable..

In our last "argument" you questioned whether the system of education was actually bad at all. then you go on to give an example of it failing.

[doodab]

I have to say, only a genuine total ****wit could take a thread I have started bemoaning the state of education in Britain and use it to argue that I am against improving the standard of education in Britain. Talk about pick your battlegrounds.

[DodgyAgent]

He repeatedly says that all schools should acheive the standards of the very best. When measured by exam performance, that means 100% pass rates at GCSE.

I've no doubt there are some problem schools ,invariably these are in deprived areas and have more deprived kids in them. Educating those people is harder. Getting good people to want to live and work there is harder. These are problems that need to be solved, and giving parents vouchers so they can spend them at the same school because there isn't a good school with free places near by isn't going to solve them. Those parents who care already applied to that school and didn't get a place.

I've said many times that the biggest determinant of academic performance is socioeconomic background. There is copious data to back this up. Unless you solve the problems of inequality in society, improving education won't make much difference to outcomes.

This is something I care about, as my own child has just started school and didn't get a place at any of the first choice schools. Vouchers would have made **** all difference, because the places aren't there.

The best chance kids have of improving their socioeconomic background is to give them a decent education., Your friends on the left prefer to borrow money and then spend it on making more people poorer

[doodab]

If one can do it others can.

Some can. But not all of them. There are cases of good ones getting less good as well.

Going from one example to a general rule while ignoring the rest of the evidence is exactly the sort of potato headed daily mail logic which education is supposed to stamp out.

[doodab]

This is such a ridiculously lame argument that it is laughable.

It's not an argument about perfection you diptulip. It's an argument that when you have a population, and you measure the variance in the mean in multiple disjoint subsets of that population that decreasing the variance in the mean of those disjoint subsets means that some individual means will go down as well as up.

Do you think that the provision of food supply is perfect? It is not, far from it - I cannot buy Pol Roger champagne at my local Tesco. I am sure that this can be proved mathematically too . Apply your pathetic argument to this then all food should according to your logic be supplied by the state through a single retailer (A 5 year old with no maths will then be able to show you what is meant by inefficiency ).

So then because perfection is not attainable we should not bother? Tell that to the 1000s of Olympic competitors - that because they cannot achieve perfection there is little point in turning up

I'm not arguing for state supply of anything you stupid ****er. I'm pointing out that what you are continuously demanding is impossible.

My point about education is that it should bring the best out of children in whatever subject or sport or hobby (music). If one school can do it then they all can -

Perhaps they already do. We can't tell because that isn't what is being measured.

You really are a first class troll. You start off ranting and when people pick holes in your argument you scale back to being mr reasonable. I've got you sussed. And you are going on ignore.

Now FOAD you slimy brylcreemed twat.

[Arturo Bassick]

I've said many times that the biggest determinant of academic performance is socioeconomic background. There is copious data to back this up. Unless you solve the problems of inequality in society, improving education won't make much difference to outcomes.

No doubt this is an issue, but there are any number of reports of the worst failing schools being turned around to being the best. Not many I grant, but it has been done which disproves the stereotype. If one can do it others can.

This is something I care about, as my own child has just started school and didn't get a place at any of the first choice schools. Vouchers would have made **** all difference, because the places aren't there.

If Dodgies Nirvana existed then there would be no need to make a choice of school.

[doodab]

I don't think dodgy is saying what you think he is saying. Event agents know not everyone can be top of the class.

But he does say that there is a lot of room for improvement in schooling. We keep banging on about how good education is in other countries, so what are we doing here that is so different to foreign climes?

Starting school earlier, endless tests and league tables, forcing both parents back to work while someone else raises their kids, parents working longer hours, having a more unequal society in general.

[DodgyAgent]

Dear Thicky,

The point, which I have to conclude you are simply incapable of grasping, is that your endless ranting along the lines of "everything has to be the very best or it's a disaster" helps nobody and has no place in an intelligent debate. There is no mechanism to raise the general level of a population up to the "standards of the very best of them", because the standards, in the sense they are defined here, simply don't work like that. If you want exams to distinguish between the best and worst pupils, and you wish to decrease the variance in the performance of individual schools based on measuring exam performance, then you are going to see some schools do worse when others do better, simply because of how better and worse is measured. You cannot have every school achieving a 100% pass rate in every exam unless every exam has a 100% pass rate.

The simple fact is, I can see that what you are demanding is impossible. I can prove, mathematically, that it's impossible. Alas, it appears that trying to persuade someone as stupid as you that this is the case is also impossible. Hence, I'm not going to bother discussing this with you any more as you are simply too stupid for it to be anything other than practice for when my 5 year old asks for help with his homework. I will however reserve the right to question your thicky rantings if you decide to rant about something else.

This is such a ridiculously lame argument that it is laughable. Do you think that the provision of food supply is perfect? It is not, far from it - I cannot buy Pol Roger champagne at my local Tesco. I am sure that this can be proved mathematically too . Apply your pathetic argument to this then all food should according to your logic be supplied by the state through a single retailer (A 5 year old with no maths will then be able to show you what is meant by inefficiency ).

So then because perfection is not attainable we should not bother? Tell that to the 1000s of Olympic competitors - that because they cannot achieve perfection there is little point in turning up

and as AB points out where in any of my arguments did I say that getting high level results is what education should be about? My point about education is that it should bring the best out of children in whatever subject or sport or hobby (music). If one school can do it then they all can -

I take it you dont have children?

Thicko

[doodab]

I think you are missing DAs point (though I might be too).

He is not suggesting that 100% should pass the exams, but he is suggesting that the education provided enables 100% of those capable of doing so to do so.
Whether you like it or not, there is clear evidence that a a number of state schools fall well behind the teaching standards of other state schools and the private sector.
The nation as a whole and parents in particular have every right to expect that all children will be educated to the best standards to allow them to reach the heights they are capable of.

He repeatedly says that all schools should acheive the standards of the very best. When measured by exam performance, that means 100% pass rates at GCSE.

I've no doubt there are some problem schools ,invariably these are in deprived areas and have more deprived kids in them. Educating those people is harder. Getting good people to want to live and work there is harder. These are problems that need to be solved, and giving parents vouchers so they can spend them at the same school because there isn't a good school with free places near by isn't going to solve them. Those parents who care already applied to that school and didn't get a place.

I've said many times that the biggest determinant of academic performance is socioeconomic background. There is copious data to back this up. Unless you solve the problems of inequality in society, improving education won't make much difference to outcomes.

This is something I care about, as my own child has just started school and didn't get a place at any of the first choice schools. Vouchers would have made **** all difference, because the places aren't there.