Reply to: Racism at its finest

[speling bee]

I'm guessing the difference in spending is largely because of the employment of extra classroom assistants and/or translators.

Could be state funded trips to Mecca I suppose.

Trojan Horse: Birmingham academy spent £50,000 on trip to Saudi Arabia using travel firm linked to school director - Birmingham Mail

I hope these costs are included in those wonderful statistics that prove immigration is such a benefit to the economy

Hopefully such funding is now being redirected to remedial literacy classes for UKIP supporters who voted UKIN.

An Independence From Europe - Mike Nattrass MEP

[Flashman]

It is a lot to do with high ethnic areas, Tower Hamlets for example, receiving a lot of extra funding and attention which those in rural areas do not get.

Borough's school's 'among world's best'



BBC News - What does the schools spending data show?

Those lazy welfare dependent white Brits of Knowsley in Merseyside eh? If we doubled the money spent on them to match that we spend on ethnic/migrant areas, that might work.

I'm guessing the difference in spending is largely because of the employment of extra classroom assistants and/or translators.

Could be state funded trips to Mecca I suppose.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...-spent-7248217

I hope these costs are included in those wonderful statistics that prove immigration is such a benefit to the economy

[lilelvis2000]

Probably a stat to show the poor white brits that 'hey your're dumb. but not as dumb as these folk. so be happy"

Its crap.

[SpontaneousOrder]

They went looking for a race element otherwise they wouldn't have asked the question. And perhaps that in itself could be called racist.

No - because the definition of racism is as per the block you quoted. Recording statistics with regards to race is no different than recording them due to sex.

For example it would be absurd to suggest that stating "boys perform less well in school than girls, and therefore perhaps we should pay more attention to improving boys performance at school" is in any way sexist. It's just a statistical fact.

The latter example is actually closer to sexism than the former is to racism, because we all understand that boys and girls, generally speaking, ARE very different. It's still not sexist though.

The original example doesn't even suggest what the reason may be for the disparity - only that there is one. It would be a fair assumption, in my mind, to assume that the difference is cultural - and I presume that most others would make the same assumption. So even there there is no racism - culture and race share a coincidental relationship rather than a causal one.

[VectraMan]

There is no "belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:" implied here.

They went looking for a race element otherwise they wouldn't have asked the question. And perhaps that in itself could be called racist.

[SpontaneousOrder]

There you go a dictionary definition.

racism: definition of racism in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)



They are grading peoples ability with regard to their race, they are making decisions based on characteristics they believe their race possess.

Not sure what you think racism is, but I agree with the dictionary definition.

Now if they measured against time in country, economic status or qualifications of parents etc it might be more interesting.

They aren't grading people's ability according to differing benchmarks that have been set with regard to their race, as you seem to be implying (that's the only way you can agree with the dictionary definition and still think it's racist). They are simply identifying that among poor children, the white ones are performing the worst:

Their exam results are much worse than disadvantaged black or Asian pupils.

There is no "belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:" implied here.


It's like me saying "more black people Britain rob cars than white people, proportionally speaking". Whether that's true or false, it's not racist by your own (and the dictionary's) definition.

[vetran]

IF that were true (not saying whether it is or isn't) it still has nothing to do with racism. I think you misunderstand what racism is.



Whether that is right or not, it's nothing to do with racism.



I don't know what 'grading people on the colour of their skin' means.

There you go a dictionary definition.

racism: definition of racism in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:

They are grading peoples ability with regard to their race, they are making decisions based on characteristics they believe their race possess.

Not sure what you think racism is, but I agree with the dictionary definition.

Now if they measured against time in country, economic status or qualifications of parents etc it might be more interesting.

[xoggoth]

Not sure it is a good way of identifying those that are behind by race but it seems to be the way they do

This is actually a comparison of a small subsection of pupils, AKA pupils from poorer backgrounds. Because some minorities tend to have much larger numbers from poorer backgrounds, this is not a comparison of like with like. Taking all pupils into account, Chinese and Indians do actually perform better than the white British but other groups certainly do not.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Why do they have to identify children like that? Can't that just identify poor pupils whatever their background?

That'd put a lot of people in government & government sponsored positions out of a job. The whole point of government is to grow for it's own sake. Hence the continual invention of illusory 'problems'.

[BrilloPad]

The white kids need it :

POOR PUPILS ACHIEVING GOOD GCSEs
White British 32% (28.3% boys; 37% girls)
Indian 62%
Pakistani 47%
Black African 51%
Black Caribbean 42%

Not sure it is a good way of identifying those that are behind by race but it seems to be the way they do.

Why do they have to identify children like that? Can't that just identify poor pupils whatever their background?

[SpontaneousOrder]

yes but if additional funding is distributed based on race and preconceived ideas of a race's achievement ... That pupil gets less money spent on them because they are Indian or Chinese ...

IF that were true (not saying whether it is or isn't) it still has nothing to do with racism. I think you misunderstand what racism is.

We need another measure that ignores race for making decisions.

Whether that is right or not, it's nothing to do with racism.

You either decide grading people on the colour of their skin is wrong or you don't. If you do think its wrong then you need more scientific methods.

I don't know what 'grading people on the colour of their skin' means.

[vetran]

Achievement is defined by virtue of achievement, not by race. It is analysed by race as it gives an understanding of where the greatest need is.

yes but if additional funding is distributed based on race and preconceived ideas of a race's achievement is that not racist? That pupil gets less money spent on them because they are Indian or Chinese is obviously racist. That pupil gets more money spent on them because they are under achieving is fine.

We need another measure that ignores race for making decisions.

You either decide grading people on the colour of their skin is wrong or you don't. If you do think its wrong then you need more scientific methods.

[speling bee]

But that would be racist, you'd be spending as much on British citizens as ethnic minorities, imagine the uproar in The Guardian!

Are ethnic minorities not British citizens?

[MicrosoftBob]

It is a lot to do with high ethnic areas, Tower Hamlets for example, receiving a lot of extra funding and attention which those in rural areas do not get.

Borough's school's 'among world's best'



BBC News - What does the schools spending data show?

Those lazy welfare dependent white Brits of Knowsley in Merseyside eh? If we doubled the money spent on them to match that we spend on ethnic/migrant areas, that might work.

But that would be racist, you'd be spending as much on British citizens as ethnic minorities, imagine the uproar in The Guardian!

[speling bee]

surely by defining achievement by virtue of race is inherently racist?

Interesting that the African & Pakistani results have climbed appreciably maybe that is down to the money spent on them?

I would prefer to see everyone treated equally and support for the weaker be available to all.

Achievement is defined by virtue of achievement, not by race. It is analysed by race as it gives an understanding of where the greatest need is.