I thought the coalition was meant to be saving money?

drc

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Dont blame decent hardworking parents for making the effort; raise the expectations of chav parenthood is the only way of improving chav kids lot in life. In other words, lets drag up expectations, not try and make excuses for those that cant be bothered.

I agree with this bit. There should be equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.

It's like the saying "give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime".

You can throw as much money as you like at the symptom but unless you address the root cause, nothing will change. You need to educate the parents so that they don't perpetuate a poor/victim mentality and that they can do well but they need to want that.

My granddad came to the UK from the Ukraine when he was 12, poor as mud, worked hard (even as a 12 year old he was cleaning out toilets and sweeping floors) all his life and made something for himself. He didn't get any benefits or help in those times but had a work ethic and realised that progression was up to him and that nobody would give it to him on a plate. The problem these days is that people are mollycoddled and told they are perpetual victims of circumstance and that nothing is ever their fault or responsibility. This is so damaging, not just to a person's self esteem and prospects but to society as a whole in my opinion.

StevieJ

I trust he is not the shop steward, what a dumbo

bookfay – the college student services supervisor


I work in a college's student services in a supervisory role for around £17k. When I left university, I worked in a bar on minimum wage, which at the time was close to £4.50 an hour since I was 21. Five years later, my current salary is more money than I have ever seen in my life, and to be honest, it is too high a salary.

vivatifosi

setmefree2 wrote: »

Look at it another way. Breast cancer treatment or play facilities for 2 year olds?

Personally I'd cut Trident and keep both.

Degenerate

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Maybe in your tiny socialist brain it doesnt.

Starting your argument with an ad-hominem attack lends it no credibilty. You demonstrate the tinyness of you own brain with the following:

they need to axe total numbers attending and focus on say5-10% of the population MAX as the future leaders, managers and thinkers in this country. Sending 50% of people from ALL backgrounds is pointless; not everyone is cut out to be a manager or an engineer.

Straw-man argument. I said nothing about the 50% target. In fact, as my past posts on this subject will confirm, I would agree with all the above statements if you hadn't sneaked the word "backgrounds" in there, rather than "abilities".

UCAS does not recruit students based on whether they can afford to go;

UCAS does not recruit students, full stop. Students apply through UCAS. A decision made by the individual that is likely to be influenced by the prospect of massive debt.

They recruit based on academic ability

Individual institutions may be selective, but with a 50% target the overall system is hardly discriminating at all. With fewer places available the potential to be more selective exists, but you can only select from those who have applied.

something unloved and uneducated chav kids are always going to be lacking in. No manner of thrusting money at them will solve this issue. Having a benefits system that ensures people arent brought into this world to be unloved, purely to line their 17 year old mothers cigarette addiction and want of a bigger council house will stop this.

The way you conflate background with ability says quite a lot about your own level of intelligence, beyond that this is just a typical right-wing rant unrelated to the subject at hand.

It's obvious we cannot afford the current model of university funding. I favour a smaller number of the most worthy students studying worthwhile subjects. We need to discriminate on ability, massive fee increases do not serve that end, rather they favour those from wealthier backgound regardless of merit. I would like to see our brightest encouraged into higher education without being deterred by financial issues.

The point of my original post was that spending money on disadvantaged children at the early stages of education is pointless whilst simultaneously placing a massive financial hurdle for them later in their educational career. Clearly it went over your head.

Butterfly_Brain

Bloody stupid idea
I would not send a 2 year old to formal education that is pushing kids too far.
A lot of 2 year olds are still in nappies and are not too steady on their feet

silvercar

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

A lot of 2 year olds are still in nappies and are not too steady on their feet

One has a lot to do with the other.

vivatifosi

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

Bloody stupid idea
I would not send a 2 year old to formal education that is pushing kids too far.

I started my formal education at two as I could read and write then. Didn't do me any harm or impact on my social development.

It is normal to spend Saturday afternoons on an internet forum and ignore ones family isn't it:o?

daveyjp

No child at nursery receives a "formal" education - it's all play and observation.

baby_boomer

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11548062

OMG :eek: £7 bn. Obviously, everyone wants poor kids to be well educated but this seems mental.

Maybe it's not new money?

I'm so confused. The child benefit cuts only amounted to £1bn and this is £7bn!?

I wonder what new QUANGO will be set up to adminster this money :rotfl:

I bet it'll have a former LibDem grandee in charge .

Butterfly_Brain

vivatifosi

Maybe that is why you have no social skills now

FYI My kids are grown up now but if they were young now I would not send them to school full stop. They are bloody awful places, full of bullies and the teachers are useless that's why so many kids are on the scrap heap today