Alunh
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
……..on this subject Wayne, it would be helpful if you move beyond these clichés about equality and define your terms. Karl Marx, who I think most people might consider left-wing, actually refined his argument about equality so that the idea of needs and abilities could be factored in. Accordingly, equality as some sort of static entity was ditched and the nuanced idea that an able bodied person might be expected to work harder than a disabled person or that a healthy person might need less from the NHS than an unhealthy person still equated with equality. Following this logic, I would like you to explain whether you believe students should:
1. Go to school at the age of 5 and be offered an equality of opportunity at school. This might mean that students with some sort of talent advanced at different rates in different subjects because they had a greater aptitude or ability in a subject or a range of subjects.
2. Go to school at the age of 5 and be offered an equal curriculum taught at an equal pace within mixed ability classrooms providing no advantage to anyone.
3. Go to school at the age of 5 with the target being to put students at a position of equal life opportunity at the age of 18 albeit discovering the rich variety in student possibilities that exist.
All of these broad aspects of ‘equality’ have hugely differing educational implications. Sadly the equality that you have referenced probably has produced the direst outcomes of all because it has led to lcd education. Lcd=lowest common denominator
@thewayneinspain 6416 wrote:
Studied it during my A levels and my psychology degree.
basic stuff on it…
Education Act 1944 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe butler act was a written by a Tory education minister during the middle of the second world war when people had other things to worry about.
In context of a war when many kids weren’t even with their parents, it had its purpose as also during the country rebuild. But the data that supported it was flawed and perhaps even faked.
I think it’s a fundamental human right to be given an equal chance as anyone else to succeed in life.
Being judged at 11 whether you’re academic enough to learn a language like latin or be consigned to the scrap heap/physical labour job market is wrong. Because if you are from a poor area, it would have been less likely you would have got the schooling/teachers to have passed the 11 plus.
Everyone deserves equality. Society deserves equality and the best people for the jobs. I find the butler act to be abhorrent and steeped in inequality..
Odd how someone who has studied Psychology would draw conclusions like this. The Butler Act was actually aimed at producing some sort of equality of outcome by offering students a tailored education to fit their needs and aptitudes. Putting students in a classroom and exposing them all equally to the same curriculum is the highest form of torture. All it breeds is failure. One component of the class is unable to cope with the standards of lesson offered whilst another is bored by the simplicity of it all. The result of this is to hold back working class children beyond anything that Butler might have done. One result of abandoning Butler completely has been the suspension of social mobility as all the evidence (that you claim to cherish) has shown.
Equality of educational input does not breed equality of outcome or of opportunity. As a simple analogy, it would be foolish to put an unskilled footballer in the same skills set as (say) Paul Scholes and Suarez. All this would do is cause Scholes and Suarez to yawn for the universe whilst a donkey like me would have a complex a mile wide. To get some sort of equality, certainly some sort of equality of outcome, the answer is to tailor the education to the abilities and aptitudes on display.
Now that’s just common sense@thewayneinspain 6642 wrote:
Glyndwr Uni Art dept is in the old hospital that used to be the art college.
On that subject, it might be a question of someone trying to shuffle the pack to place education where a building is covenanted and offload where it is not
@Welsh Dresser 6616 wrote:
If the building is expensive to upkeep and is not needed for education purposes then why not let it go?
That’s where the Covenant bites in. That said, there might be a case to allow the site to revert if it is Covenanted. At present, the site is a white elephant and it is only the tantalising thought that it could provide some advantage to the Community that stands between retaining and retroceding
@wrexview 6592 wrote:
If it was England then it would probably become one of the new Free Schools.
And wouldn’t that be a positive step
I still can’t work out why the Council didn’t try and persuade St Joseph’s to stay on this site after 2006 given the need at that time to give St Joseph’s a major overhaul. I believe the Covenant allows the land to revert to the Cunliffe family if attempts are made to remove the Educational input (though I may be wrong). If we were in England, I would suggest that a group of Entrepreneurs or local organisations be launched to provide some sort of choice at Secondary level- the town surely needs it!!
@michellecook 6446 wrote:
Snobbery exists everywhere, I have it in my own family. They live slap bang in the middle of Caia yet choose to send their offspring to schools miles away as the local schools are “deprived”. No difference in education, just don’t like the label.
My 3 boys are for all intent and purposes “estate kids” as we also live in Caia. All 3 either went or attend the local Junior school and then onto Rhosnesni. My eldest is 18 in a few weeks, he left Rhosnesni with 10 GCSE’s mostly A & B grades and is now studying A Levels, he is Autistic and went through the school system with no help. Middle boy is a bit of a loose cannon, struggled his way through Junior school, now diagnosed with ADHD and medicated his grades have shot up and is in the highest group for most subjects, he is also on the Autistic spectrum. Youngest is currently in local Primary, again on the spectrum is showing promising results.
At the end of the day, unless the child is academically inclined and/or willing to work hard, it doesn’t matter where they came from or whichever school they attend. The same problems that estate kids face exist everywhere, its just the likes of Caia and Plas Madoc are publicised more.
You are turning the logic of the situation on its head here Michelle. Nobody would try to make the case that children off an estate can’s do well, can’t learn effectively, or any other negative that you might use. The fact is, however, that across the country there is some level of correlation between behavioural and learning patterns and social background. If the schools that handle a broad mix of students are themselves well organised and have strategies in place to deal with issues that arise, this is not a problem. In Wrexham it is.
Parental choice is an excellent thing. The problem in Wrexham is that there are no actual differences by design between Comprehensives. The only choices lie between Faith and Language alternatives or between mirror image Comprehensives. Invariably [parents will use crude criteria for making their own choices about the schools involved. Whilst this might involve Results or stats on (say) bullying or absenteeism, it might be a simple question of which schools have the most estate children.
Choice should be about more subtle criteria based on the child’s abilities and aptitudes but politics have got in the way of this kind of thing
That is exactly right and if you check out the stats on Wrexham Schools you will see how horrendous the flight has been from Clywedog.
@thewayneinspain 6414 wrote:
that’s too tory and too master and servant for me.
For me: the public say how public services are run.
Much too simple Wayne. This assumes consensus and that is the whole point of the problem. How on earth can the public, including Labour and Conservative voters (amongst others) say how a school might be run. One group might want a Grammar, the other an Academy, the 3rd a Comp. Democracy at least allows some sort of majority to determine outcomes.
