Happy Hump Day everyone! - Wed 12th May Daily Chat thread

ZTD

ghostmadlittlemiss wrote: »

Awesome, I've just managed to work a reference to this site into an essay! I'm writing about faith schools (yes, still *rolls eyes*) and I'm happily tearing apart the argument of the British Humanist Association that faith schools only receive better results because they take less children from deprived backgrounds. That might well be the case but their data in support of that claim are figures from 2005 of the amount of children receiving free school meals in each type of faith school, compared to those of non-faith schools. I'm arguing that not all families earning less than £16,190 a years (Martin's figures over on the Benefits Check up article) are deprived. Not to mention the figure being 5 years out of date.
Kayleigh

But equally, the maths for that only works if those earning less than £16K are equally likely (or less likely) to be deprived than those earning about £16K, otherwise their assertion that they are taking less children from deprived backgrounds still holds true. (actually you'd need to work out proportions/ratios but as a general rule of thumb...)

Lucifa73

And now I've done my homework I'm going to bed:p:rotfl:

(kidding Katsu - I spent a good chunk of time reading through Hubbles' appraisal stuff for work too - I should hire myself out, speaking of which has Pap done her weights, Bunny been running and Sammy got her outfit sorted yet? )

ghostmadlittlemiss

ZTD wrote: »

But equally, the maths for that only works if those earning less than £16K are equally likely (or less likely) to be deprived than those earning about £16K, otherwise their assertion that they are taking less children from deprived backgrounds still holds true. (actually you'd need to work out proportions/ratios but as a general rule of thumb...)

I'm trying to find data of the current 'poverty line' in the UK in order to argue that that would be a better benchmark for deprivation than receiving free school meals but I'm not having much luck. I guess I'll have to do most of my attacking on the fact that the data is vastly out of date, considering the change in the number of faith schools in the UK in the last five years. I'm just looking up the data on that. That's the problem with academia, you can't break wind without having to reference it.
Kayleigh
Edit - Well, that's scuppered that idea. The number of faith schools in the last five has dropped. :eek: Has anyone told the Daily Mail? :rotfl:
Edit 2 - The lying gits! I've just checked the figures against the Department for Children, Schools and Families' statistics and the national average for school meals is much lower then what they're saying. So the faith schools aren't nearly as 'selective' as the BHA is making out! :mad:
Edit 3 - Scratch that, I was looking at the national average, not the number from non-faith schools. :doh:

ghostmadlittlemiss

Well, that's well and truly killed the chat. :rotfl: Think I'll call it a night, I've written 296 words in the last hour or so. I'll get cracking on it again tomorrow.
Kayleigh

ZTD

ghostmadlittlemiss wrote: »

I'm trying to find data of the current 'poverty line' in the UK in order to argue that that would be a better benchmark for deprivation than receiving free school meals but I'm not having much luck. I guess I'll have to do most of my attacking on the fact that the data is vastly out of date, considering the change in the number of faith schools in the UK in the last five years. I'm just looking up the data on that. That's the problem with academia, you can't break wind without having to reference it.
Kayleigh
Edit - Well, that's scuppered that idea. The number of faith schools in the last five has dropped. :eek: Has anyone told the Daily Mail? :rotfl:
Edit 2 - The lying gits! I've just checked the figures against the Department for Children, Schools and Families' statistics and the national average for school meals is much lower then what they're saying. So the faith schools aren't nearly as 'selective' as the BHA is making out! :mad:
Edit 3 - Scratch that, I was looking at the national average, not the number from non-faith schools. :doh:

The number you're wanting is "expected outcome". An example may be in order:

Group A - less than 16K.
Group B - more than 16K.

Proportion of "deprived" in group A = 50%
Proportion of "deprived" in group B = 25%

School X has 50% Group A 50% group B = expected number of deprived = 25+12.5 = 38 ish per 100 pupils.

School Y has 20% Group A and 80% Group B = expected number of deprived = 10 + 20 = 30 ish per 100 pupils.

So long as proportion of deprived in group B is less than in group A, any school that takes more of A will have more deprived.

I hope that makes sense.

ZTD

ghostmadlittlemiss wrote: »

I'm trying to find data of the current 'poverty line' in the UK in order to argue that that would be a better benchmark for deprivation than receiving free school meals but I'm not having much luck. I guess I'll have to do most of my attacking on the fact that the data is vastly out of date, considering the change in the number of faith schools in the UK in the last five years. I'm just looking up the data on that. That's the problem with academia, you can't break wind without having to reference it.
Kayleigh
Edit - Well, that's scuppered that idea. The number of faith schools in the last five has dropped. :eek: Has anyone told the Daily Mail? :rotfl:
Edit 2 - The lying gits! I've just checked the figures against the Department for Children, Schools and Families' statistics and the national average for school meals is much lower then what they're saying. So the faith schools aren't nearly as 'selective' as the BHA is making out! :mad:
Edit 3 - Scratch that, I was looking at the national average, not the number from non-faith schools. :doh:

It's not the number of faith schools - it's the number of faith pupils. Two schools of 100 pupils are the same as one school of 200 pupils.

ghostmadlittlemiss

ZTD wrote: »

The number you're wanting is "expected outcome". An example may be in order:

Group A - less than 16K.
Group B - more than 16K.

Proportion of "deprived" in group A = 50%
Proportion of "deprived" in group B = 25%

School X has 50% Group A 50% group B = expected number of deprived = 25+12.5 = 38 ish per 100 pupils.

School Y has 20% Group A and 80% Group B = expected number of deprived = 10 + 20 = 30 ish per 100 pupils.

So long as proportion of deprived in group B is less than in group A, any school that takes more of A will have more deprived.

I hope that makes sense.

Yes, it does. I had to re-read it a few times but that's just because it's late. I'll go to bed in a minute then have another go at it in the morning. Tbh, I think the BHA have a good point, I just tend to get higher marks if I pick holes in the academic arguments.
Kayleigh