New teachers strike wtf
Discussion
Mr Snap said:
However, it's more complex than this. No teacher in their right mind is going to go against their union because of the legal protection they also provide - no small thing when a disgruntled child or parent can utterly ruin your life with an accusation (which I've seen happen twice to people who weren't guilty but had their lives destroyed none the less). Damned if you do and damned if you don't, basically.
Or put differently the Union is basically a protection racket where you have to compromise your moral beliefs to maintain a "shield" - nice! heppers75 said:
turbobloke said:
heppers75 said:
Mr Snap said:
heppers75 said:
Mr Snap said:
fblm said:
Mr Snap said:
...many parents who opt for private education drop out. Often when their "brilliant" offspring turn out to be not quite so brilliant and they can't achieve the grades required for the next stage.
Mr Snap said:
You weren't aware of the fact that public school alumni are measurably more intelligent than the rest of the population?
You clearly find it impossible to hide your sneering contempt for 'posh' kids but the fact that most public schools have entry exams, scholarships for the brightest poor kids and kick failing kids out means that you are probably right. Doh.As I've explained before, my partner is the head of a private school. To be broad brush regarding class, scholarships tend to go to, stretched, middle income people with a middle class background; i.e. people who know how to play the system. Poor working class parents, with highly intelligent children, don't apply.
Considering that it's the future of the country we're talking about, doesn't it make more sense to give the best - state funded - places in universities to the most intelligent students, rather than to those with the most expensive education? It's common knowledge that ex state school students tend to get better degrees at Oxbridge - that points towards a lot of your 'posh' kids being bed blockers. I don't mind about people paying for private education, what I object to is their using it to gain an unfair advantage in getting a, state funded, university place.
I do not deny it is supportive of what you say, I am saying it is hardly able to represented as a universal fact when it is based on low single digit percentage of the total.
You have to wonder what a study of degrees obtained by state educated pupils with the same A-levels from Nottingham or Grimsby compared to students with the same grades from state schools located in Bournemouth or Gloucester.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/school...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/schools/873597...
Part of the reason we have to wonder what the study would say is that there almost certainly isn't such a study to consult.
Having quotas based on the perspective of one social group is ridiculous, particularly when the social group concerned is politically polarised with a sizeable chip on its collective shoulders. Variable geographical quotas seem daft, state-independent quotas seem less so only due to incessant propaganda which abuses the concept of fairness for political ends.
Also as I said earlier in the thread that actually I would expect if you have two persons who got the same results on a standardised test and one managed to do so in a more disadvantaged environment then you would tend to lean at one level towards the one that did so in the harsher environment.
The study also raises the very valid point and seems to support that what should be used to allocate places is contextual information and not just results, or state vs private. Contextual analysis is rather common sense and is exactly what should be used.
It is in fact rather telling that aspect of the study was ignored by you Mr Snap and you simply focused on the more social and political standpoint to support one argument.
I guess it's just my lack of public school education that meant I failed to develop the necessary telepathic and prophetic abilities to foresee and deal with such obvious objections in advance.
turbobloke said:
Rovinghawk said:
Mr Snap said:
I have a problem with well off parents who attempt to procure an unfair and unwarranted advantage for their averagely intelligent children.
They shouldn't try to do the best for their kids?Mr Snap said:
scholarships tend to go to, stretched, middle income people with a middle class background; i.e. people who know how to play the system. Poor working class parents, with highly intelligent children, don't apply.
I believe they should have the same opportunity. If they don't try to grasp it then tough.Mr Snap said:
I don't mind about people paying for private education, what I object to is their using it to gain an unfair advantage in getting a, state funded, university place.
The places go to those who best pass the test. If private education ultimately wins then why scrap it?It sounds like jealousy to me.
Why should the children in areas with low standards simply suffer their fate... if their parents have the affrontery (!) and the means to spend even more money on rectifying the failures of the state system, then that's actually an unfairness working against them. Poorer families in other places wouldn't have to spend more, the fact that they cannot is neither here nor there. The question then is, why should the children in areas with poor state education miss out on university places.
graphene said:
It's a strange idea that any inequality of outcome is 'unfair', and almost always the fault of economic privilege. In this case, could it be due to the attitude of the parents, their choices and values?
Inequality should not be treated as injustice.
What, never?Inequality should not be treated as injustice.
Inequality of outcome is inevitable, but surely it is reasonable to strive for equality of input (which is one of the tings that unions are claiming that they're trying to achieve!)
Mr Snap said:
heppers75 said:
turbobloke said:
heppers75 said:
Mr Snap said:
heppers75 said:
Mr Snap said:
fblm said:
Mr Snap said:
...many parents who opt for private education drop out. Often when their "brilliant" offspring turn out to be not quite so brilliant and they can't achieve the grades required for the next stage.
Mr Snap said:
You weren't aware of the fact that public school alumni are measurably more intelligent than the rest of the population?
You clearly find it impossible to hide your sneering contempt for 'posh' kids but the fact that most public schools have entry exams, scholarships for the brightest poor kids and kick failing kids out means that you are probably right. Doh.As I've explained before, my partner is the head of a private school. To be broad brush regarding class, scholarships tend to go to, stretched, middle income people with a middle class background; i.e. people who know how to play the system. Poor working class parents, with highly intelligent children, don't apply.
Considering that it's the future of the country we're talking about, doesn't it make more sense to give the best - state funded - places in universities to the most intelligent students, rather than to those with the most expensive education? It's common knowledge that ex state school students tend to get better degrees at Oxbridge - that points towards a lot of your 'posh' kids being bed blockers. I don't mind about people paying for private education, what I object to is their using it to gain an unfair advantage in getting a, state funded, university place.
I do not deny it is supportive of what you say, I am saying it is hardly able to represented as a universal fact when it is based on low single digit percentage of the total.
You have to wonder what a study of degrees obtained by state educated pupils with the same A-levels from Nottingham or Grimsby compared to students with the same grades from state schools located in Bournemouth or Gloucester.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/school...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/schools/873597...
Part of the reason we have to wonder what the study would say is that there almost certainly isn't such a study to consult.
Having quotas based on the perspective of one social group is ridiculous, particularly when the social group concerned is politically polarised with a sizeable chip on its collective shoulders. Variable geographical quotas seem daft, state-independent quotas seem less so only due to incessant propaganda which abuses the concept of fairness for political ends.
Also as I said earlier in the thread that actually I would expect if you have two persons who got the same results on a standardised test and one managed to do so in a more disadvantaged environment then you would tend to lean at one level towards the one that did so in the harsher environment.
The study also raises the very valid point and seems to support that what should be used to allocate places is contextual information and not just results, or state vs private. Contextual analysis is rather common sense and is exactly what should be used.
It is in fact rather telling that aspect of the study was ignored by you Mr Snap and you simply focused on the more social and political standpoint to support one argument.
I guess it's just my lack of public school education that meant I failed to develop the necessary telepathic and prophetic abilities to foresee and deal with such obvious objections in advance.
Also just to correct what I can see as an assumption there on your part - I am from Mansfield 'me duck' went to a series of the worlds worst schools with rough arses local schools and an even worse comp and I am in no way shape or form privately educated. My son however will be as I am at a point where I can afford to give him opportunities and advantages I never had and I would dearly love for him not to have to needed to have worked as hard as I have to get to where I have and hopefully far far beyond!
Edited by heppers75 on Wednesday 26th March 18:40
nadger said:
turbobloke said:
Rovinghawk said:
Mr Snap said:
I have a problem with well off parents who attempt to procure an unfair and unwarranted advantage for their averagely intelligent children.
They shouldn't try to do the best for their kids?Mr Snap said:
scholarships tend to go to, stretched, middle income people with a middle class background; i.e. people who know how to play the system. Poor working class parents, with highly intelligent children, don't apply.
I believe they should have the same opportunity. If they don't try to grasp it then tough.Mr Snap said:
I don't mind about people paying for private education, what I object to is their using it to gain an unfair advantage in getting a, state funded, university place.
The places go to those who best pass the test. If private education ultimately wins then why scrap it?It sounds like jealousy to me.
Why should the children in areas with low standards simply suffer their fate... if their parents have the affrontery (!) and the means to spend even more money on rectifying the failures of the state system, then that's actually an unfairness working against them. Poorer families in other places wouldn't have to spend more, the fact that they cannot is neither here nor there. The question then is, why should the children in areas with poor state education miss out on university places.
since the point I was making related precisely to geographical differences. TBH there wasn't such an assumption at work, as I hadn't intended to rule out any of the many possible causes of any differences we see e.g. between Nottingham and Bournemouth.Whether the performance of Algernon and Persephone boils down to crap teaching and/or a lack of money to pay for resources (including teachers) it's still something that isn't uniform and so ought to be seen as unfair, but there are no calls for variable quotas for LAs in which pupils are state educated.
I have considered letting my kids sit their A levels at a deprived, inner city college rather than at their private school. Shouldn't be impossible to arrange, a couple of months state education wouldn't harm their prospects too much and they could gain their qualifications in a deprived environment. Oxbridge here they come...
If you can afford private school without skimping on your life and other opportunities, I would say do it, without a doubt. But if you have to make cuts to other areas of your life, I personally don't think it's that advantageous. You can't beat spending time with your kids and enthusing them about life by spending that money on hobbies, such as karting or music.
Results alone do not reflect teaching ability (as has been mentioned).
edit: Interestingly, of the 3 people who muddled their way through my wife's PGCE, 2 went to private schools and the other went to a middle school.
Results alone do not reflect teaching ability (as has been mentioned).
edit: Interestingly, of the 3 people who muddled their way through my wife's PGCE, 2 went to private schools and the other went to a middle school.
Edited by SpeedMattersNot on Wednesday 26th March 19:17
turbobloke said:
Whether the performance of Algernon and Persephone boils down to crap teaching and/or a lack of money to pay for resources (including teachers) it's still something that isn't uniform and so ought to be seen as unfair, but there are no calls for variable quotas for LAs in which pupils are state educated.
It isn't just about resources. If you take a walk around a typical private school you will see small classes of well behaved, motivated children getting on with their work, even a mediocre teacher would get decent results. Many (by no means all) state schools are far more challenging for teachers, and far more challenging for those children trying to achieve the best results possible (as opposed to the C grade GCSEs that too many schools settle for).RYH64E said:
It isn't just about resources. If you take a walk around a typical private school you will see small classes of well behaved, motivated children getting on with their work, even a mediocre teacher would get decent results. Many (by no means all) state schools are far more challenging for teachers, and far more challenging for those children trying to achieve the best results possible (as opposed to the C grade GCSEs that too many schools settle for).
I think that is what is referred to by some as the old "unfair advantage" I mean how can it be fair that some get to exist in pleasant, ordered, well mannered and resource rich environments just because they have money! Nasty, horrible and unfair clearly it would be far far better if all children existed in the same environment even if it means eradicating that fantastic environment for the few and bringing them back down to the one where "all are equal". Clearly a much better thing for everyone, obvious really.
That is of course in no way shape or form motivated by anything other than ensuring that we do the best 'for our children' - there is no political or social agenda with that kind of thinking at all oh no it is in everyones best interests to have that "equality".
Edited by heppers75 on Wednesday 26th March 19:36
RYH64E said:
turbobloke said:
Whether the performance of Algernon and Persephone boils down to crap teaching and/or a lack of money to pay for resources (including teachers) it's still something that isn't uniform and so ought to be seen as unfair, but there are no calls for variable quotas for LAs in which pupils are state educated.
It isn't just about resources. If you take a walk around a typical private school you will see small classes of well behaved, motivated children getting on with their work, even a mediocre teacher would get decent results. Many (by no means all) state schools are far more challenging for teachers, and far more challenging for those children trying to achieve the best results possible (as opposed to the C grade GCSEs that too many schools settle for).RYH64E said:
turbobloke said:
Whether the performance of Algernon and Persephone boils down to crap teaching and/or a lack of money to pay for resources (including teachers) it's still something that isn't uniform and so ought to be seen as unfair, but there are no calls for variable quotas for LAs in which pupils are state educated.
It isn't just about resources. If you take a walk around a typical private school you will see small classes of well behaved, motivated children getting on with their work, even a mediocre teacher would get decent results. Many (by no means all) state schools are far more challenging for teachers, and far more challenging for those children trying to achieve the best results possible (as opposed to the C grade GCSEs that too many schools settle for).Mr Snap said:
Depends on local conditions. Obviously they would never admit to withdrawing support - but you might not get the support you need. Bear in mind, your career is probably ruined already.
I can actually back this up - my wife was with the NASUWT when they voted to strike, but didn't as she doesn't believe in it. Her union rep at the school issued a veiled threat, as in "if you don't support the union in our action, we may not be able to support you if you have an allegation made against you".All off the record, of course. Scum. Luckily we never had to test it out as she never got into any trouble.
heppers75 said:
I think that is what is referred to by some as the old "unfair advantage" I mean how can it be fair that some get to exist in pleasant, ordered, well mannered and resource rich environments just because they have money! Nasty, horrible and unfair clearly it would be far far better if all children existed in the same environment even if it means eradicating that fantastic environment for the few and bringing them back down to the one where "all are equal".
Clearly a much better thing for everyone, obvious really.
I read somewhere an interesting proposition, that if you took all the children from a failing inner city school and swapped them for the children from a local private school, leaving the teachers in their original schools, it's very likely that the failing inner city school would very soon be outperforming the private school. In my opinion, the results are more dependent upon the children, their attitude, behaviour and motivation (not just intelligence), than the teachers or resources.Clearly a much better thing for everyone, obvious really.
TankRizzo said:
Mr Snap said:
Depends on local conditions. Obviously they would never admit to withdrawing support - but you might not get the support you need. Bear in mind, your career is probably ruined already.
I can actually back this up - my wife was with the NASUWT when they voted to strike, but didn't as she doesn't believe in it. Her union rep at the school issued a veiled threat, as in "if you don't support the union in our action, we may not be able to support you if you have an allegation made against you".All of the record, of course. Scum. Luckily we never had to test it out as she never got into any trouble.
That's entirely wrong, I expect you informed the union itself of the threat?...
RYH64E said:
Unlike the vast majority of us, teachers get plenty of holiday time in which to recover from the stress of their day job. It's also worth remembering that for every challenging inner city comprehensive there's plenty of primary schools and well run rural academies where teachers have very modest workloads, but they're still on strike.
As the only adult member of my family who isn't a teacher I have some insight into their work load, at least two of them went into teaching because it was much easier than their then current jobs (engineering and law respectively) and whilst they both moan I don't see either of them wanting to go back to what they did before.
unfortunatrely, when people make comments like this people presume that terachers get the same time off that students do - especially as the additional mandatory CPD days introduced by Kenneth Baker as education secretary under Thatcher / Major are seenas days off ... As the only adult member of my family who isn't a teacher I have some insight into their work load, at least two of them went into teaching because it was much easier than their then current jobs (engineering and law respectively) and whilst they both moan I don't see either of them wanting to go back to what they did before.
In terms of secondary teachers people also forget that significant numbers of them have to spend the greater part of two weeks in August in school for GCSE / KS4 / leval 2 vocational exam results and for A-level / Level 3 results ... suddenly that '6 weeks off' has dropped to 4 and a bit ...
SpeedMattersNot said:
..erm, and you didn't do anything about that?
That's entirely wrong, I expect you informed the union itself of the threat?...
She was made aware in no uncertain terms that everything was off the record so it would be her word against the rep's.That's entirely wrong, I expect you informed the union itself of the threat?...
She was leaving for maternity in a few months anyway so didn't pursue it. I was fuming when she told me, as you might expect.
TankRizzo said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
..erm, and you didn't do anything about that?
That's entirely wrong, I expect you informed the union itself of the threat?...
She was made aware in no uncertain terms that everything was off the record so it would be her word against the rep's.That's entirely wrong, I expect you informed the union itself of the threat?...
She was leaving for maternity in a few months anyway so didn't pursue it. I was fuming when she told me, as you might expect.
The children's complaints would be their word against your wife's, so I wouldn't hesitate to make this aware to your wife's union.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff