Poor UK education standards

Irritatingly I can't copy stuff from that link but it doesn't agree with what you're saying, particularly those children which were "in need of care, protection or control, deemed to be 'refractory' in the care of a Local Authority Children's Department or had run away from the care of a Local Authority or a 'fit person'".

Looks to me like if you were naughty enough at school or ran away from home you could be put in an Approved School. Similar to the current system where if you are really consistently badly behaved in school you are removed from "Main Stream" and end up in a PRU.
The significant point is that the were RESIDENTIAL, and removed the child from the toxic, inadequate, unsatisfactory, "home" environment that had - until then - shaped their development/attitudes.
 
That's always been my approach as well. His argument is basically that most poor behaviour comes from kids that have not been taught how to behave or emotional problems the kids have not been taught how to manage.
He is correct in where it comes from, imho, but not in its remedy.

It may be useful to the individual to be brought up to speed in the class but it's not beneficial to the other kids.

Would a maths teacher try to teach year 10s with a couple of year 5s thrown in the mix?

No. It's daft.

Miscreant out, explain error of ways, rejoin. But certainly you cannot leave some spacker acting the c*nt to disrupt 30 odd kids learning.
 
He is correct in where it comes from, imho, but not in its remedy.

It may be useful to the individual to be brought up to speed in the class but it's not beneficial to the other kids.

Would a maths teacher try to teach year 10s with a couple of year 5s thrown in the mix?

No. It's daft.

Miscreant out, explain error of ways, rejoin. But certainly you cannot leave some spacker acting the c*nt to disrupt 30 odd kids learning.
Again, always been my approach as well. However, he's getting better results without that sort of punishment than most schools are getting with it. Logically exclusion is not the fix I've always assumed it should be.

Unless you're talking about sending a child out of the room for 5 minutes to calm down in which case we mean different things by isolation.
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
I took "lower orders" to mean the sub section of society that wilfully rejects both education and useful employment, and not those who are merely not suited to academic study but go onto practical pursuits.
Let me explain what I mean by "lower orders". I am indeed an arts graduate and ex-public schoolboy.

IMHO, there has been a relative flattening of society in terms of social class, occasioned by the disappearance of a permanent class whose occupation was unskilled manual labour. Thus, the term "working class", as originally used, is outdated. I don't see any difference of value in high-levels of skill, whether manual, technical or intellectual.

By "lower orders", I mean those who, consciously and willingly, designate themselves as "victims" in relation to those who, by work and skill, do well for themselves. You could call them spongers or full-time victims, or admin cases, etc. They reject any form of authority, whether legal, occupational or educational.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily - however some very practically able people might struggle with abstract theory, and some academic types (like me) are not so great in terms of practical skills. The idea would be to have both skillsets.

I was responding to @lextalionis (an ex public schoolboy and arts graduate I bet) and his hopefully jestful comments about the 'lower orders'. The 'elite' seems to despise both groups mentioned above.
What makes you think those are the lower orders to which he referred?
 
Not necessarily - however some very practically able people might struggle with abstract theory, and some academic types (like me) are not so great in terms of practical skills. The idea would be to have both skillsets.

I was responding to @lextalionis (an ex public schoolboy and arts graduate I bet) and his hopefully jestful comments about the 'lower orders'. The 'elite' seems to despise both groups mentioned above.
We could go into why you think “lower orders” refers to STEM and practical types too.

Or why I posted without reading the last page of post.
 
IMHO, there has been a relative flattening of society in terms of social class,
Most studies I have seen seem to think social mobility is now worse than it was 50 years ago. And while the poor are getting richer, the richer are getting richer at a faster rate, creating more inequality.

incidentally, I’d like to ask why you dislike the egalitarian idea of equality of opportunity.
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
I would argue that such studies are statistically flawed, that annual income is a poor indicator of net wealth, and that you should consult the works of Thomas Sowell (cf. "Discrimination and Disparities", to name one) to satisfy yourself of this.

Egalitarianism is anti-reality. Life is inherently unfair - intelligence, good looks and being born into a functioning family are largely beyond government control. You cannot make a better world by ignoring its sometimes cruel, brutal but unyielding realities.
 
Last edited:

mcphee1948

War Hero
I think the education issue boils down to just this:

There are two different kinds of people in the world - those who are interested in learning, and those who aren't.
 
I would argue that such studies are statistically flawed, that annual income is a poor indicator of net wealth, and that you should consult the works of Thomas Sowell (cf. "Discrimination and Disparities", to name one) to satisfy yourself of this.

Egalitarianism is anti-reality. Life is inherently unfair - intelligence, good looks and being born into a functioning family are largely beyond government control. You cannot make a better world by ignoring its sometimes cruel, brutal but but unyielding realities.
Except the studies aren’t just based on income.

And that’s an awful understanding of equality of opportunity.

I was never good enough to get into my county rugby team, just played for the city. I still was able to attend the trails though.
 

mcphee1948

War Hero
Which team do the teachers fall under?
Depends on whether you're a teacher in the north of England. In that part of the country, can't to "learn" someone mean to "teach" them? That'll learn 'em! Bah gum, ecky thump, etc
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
Except the studies aren’t just based on income.

And that’s an awful understanding of equality of opportunity.

I was never good enough to get into my county rugby team, just played for the city. I still was able to attend the trails though.
Well, weren't the trials just a waste of time for you and everyone else concerned?

Equality of opportunity, where it's more or less clear someone is below the standard, wastes precious resources of time, money, etc. It's therefore immoral.
 
Well, weren't the trials just a waste of time for you and everyone else concerned?

Equality of opportunity, where it's more or less clear someone is below the standard, wastes precious resources of time, money, etc. It's therefore immoral.
morality, now that’s a very interesting word to invoke in a sporting setting. What would be immoral or evil about it?

and let’s look at what the standard is, perhaps there isn’t a standard but a quota, and one could be above the quality line but not above quantity.
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
Isn't it immoral to waste people's time knowingly, even in a "sporting setting"?

What do you mean by "not above quantity"? That's as clear as a mud pie.
 
Isn't it immoral to waste people's time knowingly, even in a "sporting setting"?

What do you mean by "not above quantity"? That's as clear as a mud pie.
who said it was wasting time, and why would it be evil?

There is a difference between a quality line and a quantity line.
 

mcphee1948

War Hero
Isn't it immoral to waste people's time knowingly, even in a "sporting setting"?

What do you mean by "not above quantity"? That's as clear as a mud pie.
The latest phrase is, that you're "unsighted" by it?
 

Yokel

LE
Isn't it immoral to waste people's time knowingly, even in a "sporting setting"?

What do you mean by "not above quantity"? That's as clear as a mud pie.
I think I know what you mean.

When I was at school the subject I worried about was Mathematics. Would I get a GCSE grade C? There were quite a few people on the borderline between D and C. However, the school's policy was to make sure everyone got something, but how useful is a grade F or G?

The lower end of the capability distribution did receive a lot of help to try to get them over the G line, and the grade A types got help, but what if those of us who where nearly A-C?

Is that what you are saying?
 
I think I know what you mean.

When I was at school the subject I worried about was Mathematics. Would I get a GCSE grade C? There were quite a few people on the borderline between D and C. However, the school's policy was to make sure everyone got something, but how useful is a grade F or G?

The lower end of the capability distribution did receive a lot of help to try to get them over the G line, and the grade A types got help, but what if those of us who where nearly A-C?

Is that what you are saying?
Which is very different to equality of opportunity or egalitarianism.
 
Top