Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The bigotry of low expectations.

Currently trying to write an essay about it as part of my CPD and also trying to implement it within my Scheme of Work.

The problem is - what is it? The subject doesn't exist. What to call it? Values? Whose values?
I don't know your background but almost everything should be hit between PSHE and tutorial activities. Some places also offer a Citizenship GCSE - no idea on that as I've never had anything to do with it.

Also, you have to do essays for CPD?

I tried doing this once by discussing laws and started up with Hamumrabi and went on to Magna Carta. One of my colleagues then correctly pointed out that no-one gives a fk about that and the kids were better off looking up why Snoop-Dizzy-McFly-Dude got arrested and whether his behaviour was considered acceptable.
Which is where the usual newspaper opinion pieces on 'Why aren't schools teaching X?' fall down. Chances are all of this extra stuff is being covered by someone who really doesn't want to do so, delivering substandard resources to bored kids who see it as an hour off from real work.
 
For me it wasn’t uncool, but by the time I’d settled here I had variously been through the German primary, British military, Italian Colonial and Boarding School: To come to a secondary Modern in the U.K. where the teachers were more interested in Kaftans and where the next pot hit would come from, let alone a fixation with my Germanness And the prejudices that came with it was something I couldn’t cope with.


This sounds in some degree my experience of 'Secondary Modern' education, and when it started to change from education to indoctrination. To some degree also a fixation of the heritage of my surname... Wasn't nice at time but much like you I think you probably managed to shrug it off and live with it, and in later life perhaps turn that negative into a positive by being a more resilient person.

The learning experience was fundamentally changed under the 1964–1970 Labour government. and since then has become worse not better. "The road to hell being paved with good intension" does to some degree to allow Labours policy to seen as flawed not deliberately bad.

Add to that the opportunity then offered to Rudi Dutschke circa 1967, and fellow communists via 'The long march through the institutions' (der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen) to see the western world fall, subverted from within.

That such changes have inexorably led generation after generation to the stage, where everyone gets equally rewarded for taking part rather than striving to be the single winner. This rather endures that no one has to find out that life is not fair and is hard, and as importantly how to make the best of the hand you have been dealt not the hand that one wants.

Of course the issue is that it takes effort to overcome adversity. Some will look at adversity and say its not their fault it is because of the actions of the state, others will understand that it is not so, and strive to change their circumstances within the bounds of the law and their abilities.
 
Which is where the usual newspaper opinion pieces on 'Why aren't schools teaching X?' fall down. Chances are all of this extra stuff is being covered by someone who really doesn't want to do so, delivering substandard resources to bored kids who see it as an hour off from real work.

Two questions, the first is when you say. "Chances are all of this extra stuff is being covered by someone who really doesn't want to do so".

We are constantly told, That teaching is a 'Skilled Professional Occupation' that should be respected. Now I do realise that any 'Professional Occupation' will always have some *******, I also realise that some also in the teaching profession are political agitators. I suspect that there is also likely an overlap of both characteristic in such teachers.

So let us discount those, when talking about those who have to cover lessons, everyone can have a bad day but not wanting to something because its covering, is a shite attitude.

As an instructor many times i have had to instruct and only had substandard resources, no one wants that to be the norm, but it will be in some cases a long or short period before resources match requirements.

To my mind that is the difference between a real teacher being one who strive to pass on knowledge and wants to contribute to society at large. from someone who is just marking time between pay days. Why on gods green earth would someone like that become a teacher other than its easy to hid being mediocre in the profession.

Yet anytime a government proposes changes other than throwing more money at state education, the teaching unions rabble rouse. That is something of a rhetorical question, and one that you have alluded to in the past as being a pretty wankish attitude.

That the only honest path out of poverty, is education and I think it is something we can all agree on. I think we can also agree that despite the narrative of equality for all, humans are not all the same, not everyone is an intellectual but that does not mean they are stupid, not everyone is capable of being an artisan even, if they have a genius IQ.

I know from experience though there is a real issue that some are unteachable, it does not follow that they are just useless or violent potential criminals, but he sad fact remains though being unteachable has consequences, and that some choose not to engage at all, is likely to see them fail at every turn.

While schooling has adapted to try and ensure that all have a path to education, the simple fact is that the teaching profession as a whole seems to dislike streaming of children's education, into ability cohorts. Because it is considered unfair or unequal. Until this fiction is abandoned, and it is accepted we cannot all be CEO's nothing much will change.

That so many urban school are straining under increasing cohorts of the differing cultures all being told that cultural practices must all be equally valued and celebrated, has seen discrimination not eradicated, and thus someone is judged by the content of ones character, rather they are judged by the character of ones cohort, because well they need more help because they are not the same as us, and need more money time and resources, than another cohort... This is once again an example of the bigotry of low expectation. All this has done just change who is on the top of the tree...


That children are often told "you can be and do anything in life" sadly often missed out is the proviso "with application of effort". Also I think we have moved from seeing the education of children, properly ending for the majority after secondary education thus it is too make them fit to work. with small cohorts of the intellectuals going on to university, and the artisans to college. the reality is that "you can be and do anything in life" there are consequences that when you want to be a brain surgeon but have hands like shovels, and are clumsy as fcuk you are likely to fail.

While we continue to push the conveyor belt of education into filling the halls of higher education, which sadly is even more a zone of indoctrination than education it is little wonder that they embrace any narrative of victimhood when it all goes tit's up.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
While schooling has adapted to try and ensure that all have a path to education, the simple fact is that the teaching profession as a whole seems to dislike streaming of children's education, into ability cohorts. Because it is considered unfair or unequal. Until this fiction is abandoned, and it is accepted we cannot all be CEO's nothing much will change.
That's an ideological construct, not one based on what's real or needed.
 
Just to steer the thread to another area of bigotry of low expectations ...... Reaction to Voter ID laws.
Both in the US and the UK opposition parties wet themselves with outrage that minority communities will be disenfranchised because they are less likely to have ID, work a computer, fill in forms etc.
I always found this unrealisticly low expectation of members of a community to be arrogant and patronising at best, or down right racist at worst.
Especially as the downtrodden demographics dont hold that view of themselves.

This is a very telling clip from YT.

 
The learning experience was fundamentally changed under the 1964–1970 Labour government. and since then has become worse not better. "The road to hell being paved with good intension" does to some degree to allow Labours policy to seen as flawed not deliberately bad.
That is a fundamental failing of understanding running between the need to educate people to an acceptable standard for everyday working life ( which started in the 19th Century for the purposes of the industrial revolution) and the acceptance that Knowledge is a commodity that will invariably be paid for. The Schools acts of the 1870's was a much a need to establish a location for children whilst the parents worked, the requirement for a fundamental knowledge as well as a useful source of pretrained labour. My experience in Secondary was that the education of children was rather secondary( if you'll pardon the pun) to the need to be seen as a Teecha with all the libertarian aspects that it brought, need to actually teach being a bit of a tedious bore-to wit, "Latin class today Kidz, here's a handout- I'll see you next week. I'm orf to the common room." It stands of course that I bear no grudge to any teacher here present.
 
Two questions, the first is when you say. "Chances are all of this extra stuff is being covered by someone who really doesn't want to do so".

We are constantly told, That teaching is a 'Skilled Professional Occupation' that should be respected. Now I do realise that any 'Professional Occupation' will always have some *******, I also realise that some also in the teaching profession are political agitators. I suspect that there is also likely an overlap of both characteristic in such teachers.

So let us discount those, when talking about those who have to cover lessons, everyone can have a bad day but not wanting to something because its covering, is a shite attitude.

As an instructor many times i have had to instruct and only had substandard resources, no one wants that to be the norm, but it will be in some cases a long or short period before resources match requirements.

To my mind that is the difference between a real teacher being one who strive to pass on knowledge and wants to contribute to society at large. from someone who is just marking time between pay days. Why on gods green earth would someone like that become a teacher other than its easy to hid being mediocre in the profession.
A couple of points - teaching is a skilled occupation as far as any profession is. I could pretend to be a GP tomorrow and would probably be acceptable. Being a mediocre teacher is not an easy thing to hide - if classes you teach repeatedly fail to perform to expected levels in exam results chances are you will be 'encouraged to move elsewhere'. If management get a whiff of incompetence they will organise lesson observations and unannounced checks until you either up your game or quit. Unless you're in one of the sink schools where getting students to turn up in the morning is an achievement but at that point teaching ability is pretty much irrelevant.

Maybe I wasn't clear - we are employed as subject specialists to teach a particular subject. Part of the job is also to act as a surrogate parent figure looking after a group of kids which is fair enough.

What Dashing_Chap was suggesting is a subject of personal development, moral values etc. That extra content outside of subject areas is what I was getting at with "Chances are all of this extra stuff is being covered by someone who really doesn't want to do so, delivering substandard resources to bored kids who see it as an hour off from real work."

Take someone with a Mathematics degree, a PGCE and a dozen years experience in teaching maths. Then tell them that for 3 hours per week they will be attempting to make 15 year olds care about how laws are made. It's the equivalent of getting a colour sergeant at Sandhurst to teach the officer cadets watercolour painting. But the officer cadets have been told the painting does not count in any way towards their final scores and if they choose to do nothing there is nothing the instructors can do.

While schooling has adapted to try and ensure that all have a path to education, the simple fact is that the teaching profession as a whole seems to dislike streaming of children's education, into ability cohorts. Because it is considered unfair or unequal. Until this fiction is abandoned, and it is accepted we cannot all be CEO's nothing much will change.
Teaching in ability sets has been done in every secondary school I've worked in over the last decade.

There is good quality educational research that shows mixed ability teaching improves the attainment of the less able students in a class (whether that's down to being taught higher level material, higher expectations, role models of more able students or just ********* being spread out is for debate). I'd still rather teach students broadly grouped by ability, just because it's so much easier to target appropriate levels of difficulty.
 
A couple of points - teaching is a skilled occupation as far as any profession is. I could pretend to be a GP tomorrow and would probably be acceptable. Being a mediocre teacher is not an easy thing to hide - if classes you teach repeatedly fail to perform to expected levels in exam results chances are you will be 'encouraged to move elsewhere'. If management get a whiff of incompetence they will organise lesson observations and unannounced checks until you either up your game or quit. Unless you're in one of the sink schools where getting students to turn up in the morning is an achievement but at that point teaching ability is pretty much irrelevant.

That is good to know, and I was not having a dig at you, rather outlining my concerns not with the larger group of teachers who do the best that they can but, rather the small group who manage too dodge such evaluation or use the system against itself, I have little doubt such people are not liked, by either fellow teachers or the students.

Sink schools, I would suggest are where many like that end up, either as teachers or management and that just compounds the issue, of poverty and deprivation. I think we can both agree that there will always be areas that sometimes see the conditions for a sink school, but that does not mean it has to be that way. I would suggest that some local authorities, rather use schooling as a political cudgel which is disgusting but sadly a fact of life.


Maybe I wasn't clear - we are employed as subject specialists to teach a particular subject. Part of the job is also to act as a surrogate parent figure looking after a group of kids which is fair enough.

Indeed i know what its like to have to cover teaching something either you have no interest in or a deep subject matter knowledge, and always at the last minute. When I have had to do that, I have always taken it as a opportunity to use it to refine and up to date my basic methods of instruction skills, and carried a nirex of basic lesson plans, for such circumstance. However the ability to teach is grounded i believe in the personal joy of seeing someone learn and thrive, that counts as much as being a subject matter expert.

Of course covering for someone else's absence, is never something that is a deliberate occurrence and thus it tends to be a 'all hands to the pumps' last resort, it is not something that should be allowed to carry on for long period.


Take someone with a Mathematics degree, a PGCE and a dozen years experience in teaching maths. Then tell them that for 3 hours per week they will be attempting to make 15 year olds care about how laws are made. It's the equivalent of getting a colour sergeant at Sandhurst to teach the officer cadets watercolour painting. But the officer cadets have been told the painting does not count in any way towards their final scores and if they choose to do nothing there is nothing the instructors can do.
Agreed.


Teaching in ability sets has been done in every secondary school I've worked in over the last decade.

There is good quality educational research that shows mixed ability teaching improves the attainment of the less able students in a class (whether that's down to being taught higher level material, higher expectations, role models of more able students or just ********* being spread out is for debate). I'd still rather teach students broadly grouped by ability, just because it's so much easier to target appropriate levels of difficulty.

Again i understand that streaming is being done now, and again its not a criticism of most teachers, who I suspect understand but may not be able to say openly, that better results will happen when a class is "broadly grouped by ability".

However there is still a broad push against it by the teaching unions, aided and abetted by the activistic left who consider such streaming to be, based on evil capitalism, and all the other 'ists and isms' you see regularly trooped out, to undermine educating particularly in some urban areas where it is seen as proof positive of discrimination. Like it or not the grammar school system works in the main.

That the teaching unions, and the activistic left are able to round up the useful idiot parents who think that their little Johnny or Joanna, is the next Albert Einstein and its not fair that he is not in the top A* stream, and he is not because he is... Well just fill in what ever this terms cause is 'blank'.

God forbid that they put some effort into encouraging his education at home or put their hand on the piggy bank and get some extra tuition, and god forbid also in some case they accept they have rather produced a violent thug in little Johnny or Joanna.

Not everyone can afford private tuition or computers I know, but where there is a will there is always a way.
 
Exactly but when you point that out to those who are of the left, they have no answer. This is one of the reasons I cannot buy into leftist ideology.

Sadly it is an example of the cognitive dissonance required to believe that socialism can work. Socialism like most military plans falls apart on contact enemy or in its case the wider populace.

There is a clear difference between society wanting to have a welfare system as an emergency fallback to maintain the fabric of society. This is something which one can support as a positive even if you are on the right of the political spectrum. That to be supportive of the basic ideology of conservatism is portrayed as being composed of only the greedy selfish and nasty by the left, is the greatest lie the 'Left' tell. I dont hate most of the left, I just believe at best their ideas are wrong.

That the left think the welfare state is something more than a safety net, boggles my mind. You mentioned you are a 'Socialist' in another thread, I would beg to differ, the posts you have made in this thread clearly show that you believe in the main people are responsible for the action that they take.

I will be bold and propose that you believe we should as a society strive to do the best we can to reduce poverty, I would also suggest that you also know that constantly throwing money at it wont change that much before you run out of money. This again is something that fits with conservatism.

Rather it requires those most affected by poverty, have to be prepared to do the hard thing and change their behaviour, also the sad reality that some will never. Thus then a hard choice has to be made, when do we have to accept that society must ignore and cut off support to help those who will change. Rather than continue too reward bad behaviour and see society run out of money and resources.

Because modern society is complicated and advanced that we think that we have evolved to be able to fix anything and everything, that is a conceit that all of us are guilty of to some degree or another. Society cannot save everyone, and when it attempts too it instead saved no one.

While you are right that I have a fair few conservative leanings I also have many socialist leanings. Mainly nationalisation of the railways, buses and key utilities (and lashings of SOE's), free education, council housing (the old model pre 90's), the NHS, not to mention workers rights. My friends say I am "Old Old Labour". Reward workers and keep a balance of power.

While the Conservatives have done well to ensure workers rights and the NHS so far, they tend to give in/swayed by big corporations. Not sure how BoJo will fare as it is early days.

I am a socialist with a small "s" as apposed to a Socialist with a big Hammer and Sickle.
 
Just to steer the thread to another area of bigotry of low expectations ...... Reaction to Voter ID laws.
Both in the US and the UK opposition parties wet themselves with outrage that minority communities will be disenfranchised because they are less likely to have ID, work a computer, fill in forms etc.
I always found this unrealisticly low expectation of members of a community to be arrogant and patronising at best, or down right racist at worst.

Much like affirmative action/positive discrimination.
 
While you are right that I have a fair few conservative leanings I also have many socialist leanings. Mainly nationalisation of the railways, buses and key utilities (and lashings of SOE's), free education, council housing (the old model pre 90's), the NHS, not to mention workers rights. My friends say I am "Old Old Labour". Reward workers and keep a balance of power.

While the Conservatives have done well to ensure workers rights and the NHS so far, they tend to give in/swayed by big corporations. Not sure how BoJo will fare as it is early days.

I am a socialist with a small "s" as apposed to a Socialist with a big Hammer and Sickle.

Slightly off thread, but politics does play into why the bigotry of low expectations is corrosive to all.


Well this is where me and many other conservatives would say, that there is a clear difference between those like yourself who identify more with the ideals of post war old Labour. "A country fit for everyone", and those who have and continue too propose for socialism, only there as a prerequisite to the adoption of communism.

I have meet more people who while supporting Labour are not motivated by envy and tend too hate communism and what it has done, we debate and at best come to some middle ground or at worst too agree to disagree about things such as nationalisation vs. strategic control of the nations assets and all of the other things that you mention. I dont consider your ideas to be evil just wrong and by wrong I mean that for some of them to work we need a population that wont deviate... Human nature is the single point of failure in most things.

Sadly I believe that you and the many others like you have and are ignored by the Labour party and will continue to be. The Labour parliamentary party today seem more determined that other to play the, race and race baiting, gender, sexual orientation cards for political advantage and worst of all a disdain for the nation and its history regardless of good and bad.

Why does the Labour party focus on so much on race, why do they so vigorously court the minority block vote... To gain power, i have no doubt.

They celebrate often the first BAME man, woman whatever be appointed to such or such a position, as if positive discrimination polices have made it happen, and thus we must go continue to discriminant to end discrimination. Rather than celebrating that someone worked hard to gain whatever the position, they paint a picture that an immutable characteristic define the person rather than their character and ability. Talk about subverting Dr Martin Luther King Jnr, for political advantage.

I dont have a decent answer to how you can bring Labour back to a position where it can represent a differing view of how the nation should be best governed but still think this nation is a good nation with much to be proud of in our past and much to be able to achieve in its future.

I have always believed that there is an absolute need for there to be political parties of opposite to the government of the day, it need not be a mirror opposite to conservatism. It should oppose in debate and oppose in action, on principle not for political advantage.

There are many who are not white but are conservatives, why are they called race traitors, and various other pejoratives by political opponents in some cases... Why do they do that? Switch the immutable characteristic and party of such type of behaviour and it would be considered a HATE Crime.


p.s. the whole Hate Crime Legislation and associated nonsense is a divisive crock of shite.
 
I don't know the dates of those numbers but the NHS budget is nearer over £140bn and Defence just shy of £40bn. So the information may be beautiful but ever so slightly incorrect.
I am kind of cool with the idea that you think that is attributable to me, but am afraid that you are sightly mistaken. At the bottom of this very clever graphic, the compilers explain that they are using multiple sources, but that they did the best with very messy data. You know the saying, "Good enough for government work"...literally.
 
Not everywhere...

No doubt, everyone's heard the racial slurs about Australian aborigines, but how long could the average Western genius survive in the Australian outback? That is a different type of intelligence.

Unfortunately, if we're talking about modern Western civilisation where success is equated with affluence and the ability to take on a wide variety of responsibilities, as well as communicate to a high standard, then a different kind of intelligence is required. Psychometric tests are the most accurate factor we have of predicting long-term success in the Western world.


It's worth pointing out that there's no way of testing to find out if someone's a twat, you could be a complete genius and still be evil, as was proven by the Nazis. A person's value and virtue is more important than their IQ. Teaching value and virtue is what needs to be done in education to make this societal change, imho.

We have Maths/English/Geography/History/Art etc. But no topic exists in the school curriculum to examine proper behaviour, why family is important and what meaning there is in life. Until this is dealt with then we'll continue to see family break ups, fathers shirking their duties and the community going to hell.
Look around the world at the different societies created by different races and you will see who's winning and who's loosing, you don't need IQ tests .
 

daz

LE
Interesting views

 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
I am kind of cool with the idea that you think that is attributable to me, but am afraid that you are sightly mistaken. At the bottom of this very clever graphic, the compilers explain that they are using multiple sources, but that they did the best with very messy data. You know the saying, "Good enough for government work"...literally.
It’s quite clear it isn’t attributable to you and I never thought it was.

It’s still wrong though, there’s no getting away from that.
 
That is good to know, and I was not having a dig at you, rather outlining my concerns not with the larger group of teachers who do the best that they can but, rather the small group who manage too dodge such evaluation or use the system against itself, I have little doubt such people are not liked, by either fellow teachers or the students.

Sink schools, I would suggest are where many like that end up, either as teachers or management and that just compounds the issue, of poverty and deprivation. I think we can both agree that there will always be areas that sometimes see the conditions for a sink school, but that does not mean it has to be that way. I would suggest that some local authorities, rather use schooling as a political cudgel which is disgusting but sadly a fact of life.




Indeed i know what its like to have to cover teaching something either you have no interest in or a deep subject matter knowledge, and always at the last minute. When I have had to do that, I have always taken it as a opportunity to use it to refine and up to date my basic methods of instruction skills, and carried a nirex of basic lesson plans, for such circumstance. However the ability to teach is grounded i believe in the personal joy of seeing someone learn and thrive, that counts as much as being a subject matter expert.

Of course covering for someone else's absence, is never something that is a deliberate occurrence and thus it tends to be a 'all hands to the pumps' last resort, it is not something that should be allowed to carry on for long period.


Agreed.




Again i understand that streaming is being done now, and again its not a criticism of most teachers, who I suspect understand but may not be able to say openly, that better results will happen when a class is "broadly grouped by ability".

However there is still a broad push against it by the teaching unions, aided and abetted by the activistic left who consider such streaming to be, based on evil capitalism, and all the other 'ists and isms' you see regularly trooped out, to undermine educating particularly in some urban areas where it is seen as proof positive of discrimination. Like it or not the grammar school system works in the main.

That the teaching unions, and the activistic left are able to round up the useful idiot parents who think that their little Johnny or Joanna, is the next Albert Einstein and its not fair that he is not in the top A* stream, and he is not because he is... Well just fill in what ever this terms cause is 'blank'.

God forbid that they put some effort into encouraging his education at home or put their hand on the piggy bank and get some extra tuition, and god forbid also in some case they accept they have rather produced a violent thug in little Johnny or Joanna.

Not everyone can afford private tuition or computers I know, but where there is a will there is always a way.
Re streaming my school (bog standard comp albeit entirely white and with a1 sports facilities) was streamed in everything except humanities and English who were run by 'modern' teachers aka the beard gang where as everything else was school masters.

The beard gang felt streaming was elitist and the sensible teachers thought it was effective. Long story short I proposed a school debate about it to my lefty English teacher which he jumped at as clearly kids would support the left.

I lead the debate on our side and our football captain who was not thick but no genius the other. Took me about 5 minutes to demonstrate that despite being a very handy rugby player I was notorious for being shite at football and compensating by going in far too hard at tackles and getting sent off there was no way he would want to train with me let alone give me a first team place. So why are classrooms different then? Errr. Ok fair point. We won about 90% of the vote.

Show kids that it's vital to try at everything but there will be areas you are better at and there is no shame at struggling with some things and you'll get the best out of them. Tell them they're all equally valid at everything and they are fecked when they get out in the world and get brutally appraised that they are not.
 

endure

GCM
No streaming at my school. It was a grammar school after all ;-)
 
Hmm, an interesting correlation there. Tell me, did you pass English?
Straight A's on everything ( till A levels then it was a bit more nuanced). Admittedly my interweb speelung is a bit random but it's not getting marked.
 
Top