Tax Credits

WHA

kinger101 wrote: »

I'll still don't understand why we went to a comprehensive system because the secondary modern (and technical) were failures. Improving them would have been the appropriate action.

Absolutely. Should have left the grammars alone and concentrated on bringing the others up to standard.

The other thing they badly messed up was continuing to allow faith schools within the state system. For the true "comp" model to work, all schools should have had open admission. Instead, the "parents who cared" ensured that their kids went to a good faith school instead of an average comp. All that happened was a different kind of selection. In my town, the two church schools have grown out of all proportion in the last 30-40 years, over which time, two of the town's (failing) comps have closed down due to falling numbers, and at a time when church attendances are falling! Round here, the high priced houses are in the direct catchment areas of the church schools! So what exactly did scrapping the grammars achieve when they continued to allow and increase the size of selective church schools.

Today we have a crazy world where academic success is something to be embarrassed about in schools. Kids with abilities in drama, arts etc are celebrated and no-one bats an eyelid when some able kid goes to drama school instead of a comp, but it's like a dirty secret when an academic kid gets a place at one of the few remaining grammars! Unbelievable.

WHA

kinger101 wrote: »

There's not always the critical mass to get effective streaming. In my science class (the top form), we had one student who routinely got around 5/20 in a multiple choice (A/B/C/D) science test.

I remember it well from my comp days. This so-called flexibility to move between ability groups is an illusion.

We, too, had some subjects where there was no streaming/setting. I vividly remember our German and History GCE groups where there was only one class for all abilities within that option block. We had the swots at one end of the scale and the trouble-makers at the other. An absolute nightmare for the teacher. I also remember there being only a top and bottom group for both Chemistry and French in the option blocks - no-one ever moved up, but a fair few were moved down. I really can't see how anyone could ever move up in the middle of a course as the lower groups will be working at a lower speed, so the higher groups will have done topics the lower groups havn't, making it difficult for someone to move up as they'll have missed things. Worse in the old days when the lower groups did the CSE and the higher groups did the GCE making the "gap" between the groups even wider. Not as bad today though with foundation level and higher level GCSEs but I think the same applies - if you're in year 10 on a foundation level course, you're not realistically going to get moved up to a top group doing higher level as that group will have already done things you havn't.

Even where there was multiple groups for Maths and English, they still weren't properly set according to ability. We had 6 forms in the year. There were 2 sets of groups for forms 1-3 and another for forms 4-6, so a top group for forms 1-3 and another top group for forms 4-6, etc. Pupils in 1-3 didn't mix at all with those in 4-6. So the streams still had a wide ability group - i.e. a 33.33% range, whereas proper setting would have had all forms across 6 ability groups, drastically reducing the ability range to 16.67%.

So, no, I really don't buy into this promised land of easy moving between streams.

gadgetmind

Generali wrote: »

And I know where I'd rather be hiring bankers!

Ah, yes, where would this country of ours be without Eton!

WHA

ukcarper wrote: »

The answer is to improve comprehensives plenty of bright kids fail 11+ their places taken by the kids whose parents pay for the private tutors.

No, the answer is to have more grammars. It's the shortage of grammars which creates the "super selectives" that only someone with private tutoring would ever pass, the pass rates are often 95%+ simply due to the high demand and low supply of places.

Out in the rest of the country, away from the heavy demand super-selectives, you really don't need tutoring to get a place. At our local grammars, the pass marks are a more realistic 60-70% and most entrants havn't been tutored (they don't need to be). In my DS's primary school, (in a normal area, not affluent by any means, and with its fair share of council and social housing) 9 kids out of the class of 30 secured a place at a local grammar school. That's not highly selective by any standard. Just like the old days where you had a grammar in every town and basically a third went to the grammar and two thirds went to a secondary/technical.

I get fed up of people citing the stupidity of the super-selectives as justification for scrapping all grammars. Plenty of areas have grammars (like ours) that are open and achievable to above-average pupils without intensive tutoring. The Super-selectives are an aberration, often cited by people with a chip on their shoulder to justify scrapping the entire system, even the areas where the grammar system remains a success.

missyrichards

Malthusian wrote: »

According to Freakonomics, drug dealers earn less than the minimum wage. The reason young men become drug dealers rather than better-paid shelf stackers is mainly the lure of becoming one of the "big men" who do earn thousands (and have the cars, the women, the respect, etc etc). The incentive is not the money they get for dealing but the small chance of big money in the future. It's similar in that respect to taking up professional football.

I have known some who earn far more than minimum wage. I was quite surprised that someone I know (a friend of a friend;)) earns about £300 a day.

Moby wrote: »

Due to the nature of my work I see a lot of 'problem' families. In London there is a major issue with gangs, drugs, crime etc. If young people are outside their postcode they get challenged by other street gangs. Young women are 'passed' between different male gang members to be used and abused. Sleeping with a 'shank' under the pillow and in your back pocket during the day is a way of life. Probation, YOT teams and police try but there is no money and few resources. Of course most of these young people get convictions sooner or later. Any employment /training chances they had then take a serious dive......because an employer weeds out someone with convictions. We get some of them jobs in warehouses etc.........but they are fixated on making money. Its the world they know. Why would they bother with the minimum wage when local drug runners are earning thousands?.....and frankly lets face it......... marketing, advertising, consumerism feeds into this by continually telling them that buying/nicking those £150 trainers will make them a 'man'. Day after day I visit properties where the kids live in squalour, there is nothing in the fridge but there is a massive 60inch tv blaring out adverts promising the world available to anyone if you can get money! Nothing has changed since the London riots in August 2011....other than we now have huge pressures on housing, further population increases and people living more than ever in ghettos, knowing next to nothing about the culture of where they live. Resources are being squeezed and to cap it all we have a Govmt completely out of touch with the world I describe................We are storing up trouble for the future in a serious way imo! The point of benefits etc is to keep society stable enough so the rich can feel safe in their beds at night. Those of us who feel able to judge the !!!!less poor amongst us need to think about that a tad more!

I have worked with people like these but what do you think the solution is? Why do we have so many people in the UK who are incapable or unwilling to be good parents or do anything bl**dy useful with their lives.

I personally think one idea would be to tell young women how bad an idea it is to get pregnant by a loser who won't parent or give money to his kid. I think the economic disadvantages should be spelled out to them.

CLAPTON

missyrichards wrote: »

I have known some who earn far more than minimum wage. I was quite surprised that someone I know (a friend of a friend;)) earns about £300 a day.



I have worked with people like these but what do you think the solution is? Why do we have so many people in the UK who are incapable or unwilling to be good parents or do anything bl**dy useful with their lives.

I personally think one idea would be to tell young women how bad an idea it is to get pregnant by a loser who won't parent or give money to his kid. I think the economic disadvantages should be spelled out to them.

what economic disadvantages are theses?
free nice house for life?
plenty of free money to live on without working?

missyrichards

CLAPTON wrote: »

what economic disadvantages are theses?
free nice house for life?
plenty of free money to live on without working?

I have known some women like that but being a single mother will probably mean living on a rough estate, fatherless kids usually will do worse in school, be more likely to be involved in crime etc...16 years of not working will leave you working in a crap job when you do have to start work.

Making the decision to become a single mother means you will probably end up living in poverty, I think it's twice as likely as couple parent families. Girls need to get that message.

Moby

missyrichards wrote: »

I have known some who earn far more than minimum wage. I was quite surprised that someone I know (a friend of a friend;)) earns about £300 a day.



I have worked with people like these but what do you think the solution is? Why do we have so many people in the UK who are incapable or unwilling to be good parents or do anything bl**dy useful with their lives.

I personally think one idea would be to tell young women how bad an idea it is to get pregnant by a loser who won't parent or give money to his kid. I think the economic disadvantages should be spelled out to them.

I agree to some extent....education can help sometimes and people do escape. Peer pressure is an enormous influence though. Young people living in such circumstances have no positive role models from the elder generation and the criminal peer group influence fills the gap. The basic point I'm making is that sweeping statements about 'chavs' etc are unhelpful and are really an expression of ignorance by individuals who don't understand the intractable nature of these issues.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

I agree to some extent....education can help sometimes and people do escape. Peer pressure is an enormous influence though. Young people living in such circumstances have no positive role models from the elder generation and the criminal peer group influence fills the gap. The basic point I'm making is that sweeping statements about 'chavs' etc are unhelpful and are really an expression of ignorance by individuals who don't understand the intractable nature of these issues.

one might have speculated that the word 'chav' exactly encompasses the idea of the intractable nature of the people concerned.

free housing to parker morris standards isn't the answer

michaels

CLAPTON wrote: »

what economic disadvantages are theses?
free nice house for life?
plenty of free money to live on without working?

Back to...we don't build enough houses so high prices ration supply so those who can only look to earn a below average wage will never escape the housing benefit trap so there is little incentive for them to try as whether they work a few hours and have kids or work mega hours and don't they will have a similar low but acceptabel standard of living.

And it is not because proving housig is too expensive, it is beause we artifically restrict the supply by not allowing building where it is needed.

At least in the SE the BENEFITS TRAP and the HOUSING CRISIS are the same thing.