FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Top state schools 'dominated by richest families'

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Is this fair? Isn't this normal policy for conservatives party.

Top state schools 'dominated by richest families' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39076204

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is this fair? Isn't this normal policy for conservatives party.

Top state schools 'dominated by richest families' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39076204"

Life is not fair! but ask youreself would you not send you're childrent to the best school you could if you had the means ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Is this fair? Isn't this normal policy for conservatives party.

Top state schools 'dominated by richest families' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39076204

Life is not fair! but ask youreself would you not send you're childrent to the best school you could if you had the means ?

"

Haha. Depends on the definition of best. I wouldn't send them to a school that teaches them to pass tests. I prefer a school that teaches the foundations of living a great life. I went to bad schools with low grades and violence. Luckily, I was smart enough to survive and got into higher education.

What is a great school for you? Who deserves a greater education?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

I would have thought that you'd find the children of "the richest" families at Eton, Harrow and Cheltenham??

Not read the link but are they talking about more affluent families?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

its more about catchment areas, saying poorer families can not afford to stay in the catchment areas for the higher graded schools

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•

just the fact that there are 'deprived areas' is unfair really.

i think children should be taught 50/50 at school and at home but do get how our economical system wouldn't really allow that because this would mean less people going out to earn money if they have to invest time on their family.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

From memory I think the OP is referring to recent research that found that, when accounting for the socio-economic profile of the 'top performing' state school catchment areas in England, children from poorer backgrounds were still under-represented in those schools suggesting that (not necessarily consciously) social selection either by the school, or by parents, or a combination of both, was in operation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby


"just the fact that there are 'deprived areas' is unfair really.

i think children should be taught 50/50 at school and at home but do get how our economical system wouldn't really allow that because this would mean less people going out to earn money if they have to invest time on their family."

It takes 5 minutes to read a bedtime story to a child. It tales 5 minutes to help a child with some reading, writing or maths....or any other subject for that matter.

However, it takes no time at all to let a child play on their x-box, watch TV, Facebook, etc.

One of our daughters is a teacher, and she can tell almost immediately if a child's parents care about their children's education.

She's even had various parents tell her that the school should be teaching their children how to;

Tie shoelaces

Eat with a knife and fork

Clean their teeth

Queue

Amongst other things....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•

all my kids could read the alphabet before they started nursery, and write their own names, count, were toilet trained. none were allowed on electronic devices before the age of 7, i noticed they strop when having to come off them so that's why. my youngest 2 have no interest in fb yet and both are teens.

i just think parents should teach more than school teaches them because you're not a set criteria and can teach them outside set subjects. i do get how some parents don't have time to but think we should create a system that allows that, not sure why they wouldn't teach their own kids how to use a fork though or clean their teeth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"just the fact that there are 'deprived areas' is unfair really.

i think children should be taught 50/50 at school and at home but do get how our economical system wouldn't really allow that because this would mean less people going out to earn money if they have to invest time on their family.

It takes 5 minutes to read a bedtime story to a child. It tales 5 minutes to help a child with some reading, writing or maths....or any other subject for that matter.

However, it takes no time at all to let a child play on their x-box, watch TV, Facebook, etc.

One of our daughters is a teacher, and she can tell almost immediately if a child's parents care about their children's education.

She's even had various parents tell her that the school should be teaching their children how to;

Tie shoelaces

Eat with a knife and fork

Clean their teeth

Queue

Amongst other things....

"

Let's be honest too many people are allowed to breed and have children without a care or though as to how they will pay for fund and raise their children

If you can't afford to raise your

Kids you shouldn't be allowed to have them. If your not going to take responsibility for there up bringing welfare education or future again you should not be allowed to have them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"just the fact that there are 'deprived areas' is unfair really.

i think children should be taught 50/50 at school and at home but do get how our economical system wouldn't really allow that because this would mean less people going out to earn money if they have to invest time on their family.

It takes 5 minutes to read a bedtime story to a child. It tales 5 minutes to help a child with some reading, writing or maths....or any other subject for that matter.

However, it takes no time at all to let a child play on their x-box, watch TV, Facebook, etc.

One of our daughters is a teacher, and she can tell almost immediately if a child's parents care about their children's education.

She's even had various parents tell her that the school should be teaching their children how to;

Tie shoelaces

Eat with a knife and fork

Clean their teeth

Queue

Amongst other things....

Let's be honest too many people are allowed to breed and have children without a care or though as to how they will pay for fund and raise their children

If you can't afford to raise your

Kids you shouldn't be allowed to have them. If your not going to take responsibility for there up bringing welfare education or future again you should not be allowed to have them"

Would you say your view is a capitalist view. So we should scrap all benefits and help. Sure. Makes it cheaper and easier. We can shop the poor elsewhere.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"just the fact that there are 'deprived areas' is unfair really.

i think children should be taught 50/50 at school and at home but do get how our economical system wouldn't really allow that because this would mean less people going out to earn money if they have to invest time on their family.

It takes 5 minutes to read a bedtime story to a child. It tales 5 minutes to help a child with some reading, writing or maths....or any other subject for that matter.

However, it takes no time at all to let a child play on their x-box, watch TV, Facebook, etc.

One of our daughters is a teacher, and she can tell almost immediately if a child's parents care about their children's education.

She's even had various parents tell her that the school should be teaching their children how to;

Tie shoelaces

Eat with a knife and fork

Clean their teeth

Queue

Amongst other things....

Let's be honest too many people are allowed to breed and have children without a care or though as to how they will pay for fund and raise their children

If you can't afford to raise your

Kids you shouldn't be allowed to have them. If your not going to take responsibility for there up bringing welfare education or future again you should not be allowed to have them"

"Allowed" how?

Means-tested sterilsisation? From now on, men and women earning below 14K should be chemically castrated?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think anyone has a right to have children if they wish.

But to expect the rest of us to pay towards them? No thanks. Nobody else pays for my car, mortgage or hobbies, why should I pay for their kids?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"I think anyone has a right to have children if they wish.

But to expect the rest of us to pay towards them? No thanks. Nobody else pays for my car, mortgage or hobbies, why should I pay for their kids?"

My thoughts exactly and delivered in a much better way, than the way I tried to deliver it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•

well once finances are distributed more equally amongst all workers i will agree that nobody should pay for anyone else.

the problem is governments pretty much don't want equality so don't arrange a more equal financial system in the first place and anything we (the populous) ask for we have to sort out amongst ourselves and is why the higher level tax payers are basically paying for everything.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"just the fact that there are 'deprived areas' is unfair really.

i think children should be taught 50/50 at school and at home but do get how our economical system wouldn't really allow that because this would mean less people going out to earn money if they have to invest time on their family.

It takes 5 minutes to read a bedtime story to a child. It tales 5 minutes to help a child with some reading, writing or maths....or any other subject for that matter.

However, it takes no time at all to let a child play on their x-box, watch TV, Facebook, etc.

One of our daughters is a teacher, and she can tell almost immediately if a child's parents care about their children's education.

She's even had various parents tell her that the school should be teaching their children how to;

Tie shoelaces

Eat with a knife and fork

Clean their teeth

Queue

Amongst other things....

Let's be honest too many people are allowed to breed and have children without a care or though as to how they will pay for fund and raise their children

If you can't afford to raise your

Kids you shouldn't be allowed to have them. If your not going to take responsibility for there up bringing welfare education or future again you should not be allowed to have them

Would you say your view is a capitalist view. So we should scrap all benefits and help. Sure. Makes it cheaper and easier. We can shop the poor elsewhere."

Not a capitalist view, but the view of some one who has worked in the houses of the scroats who breed whilst on benefits whilst having never worked. Who then expect the state to provide for them and their off springs

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•

the lower level tax payers are paying a higher proportion of wages into the system but obviously as they have fuck all in the first place they're not paying for much. it's like some kind of punishment for them for working, sadly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

None mentioned catchment areas. Isn't it the cause of this pattern? Or are the poorer areas creating poorer schools?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Problem is they seem to be trying to run schools like businesses with targets on performance and having to reach certain pass rates to be able to get funding.

So schools only want high achievers and push the slower learning kids to the back which is wrong as we all learn at different rates.

Take it from one who was put in the scrap heap in secondary school because it too things longer to sink in

Ended up further and further behind and eventually just gave up trying!!

Ended up leaving with nothing no qualifications at all luckily have manage to make my own way through most of my life and have done ok

We should be putting more rescourses into the schools we have now not making more.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"None mentioned catchment areas. Isn't it the cause of this pattern? Or are the poorer areas creating poorer schools?

"
Exactly this is the issue .To get my kids into an outstandingly good school rated by ofsted i had to pay premium property prices..You wont get anything under half a million to buy in my catchment.House Builders also prefer building in good catchment areas to get higher returns.Its a useful way for the middle classes to buy a better education for their kids.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Now throw in grammar schools.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Now throw in grammar schools."
Parents have to spend a few thousand a year from about 9 to get their kids into grammar school.Plenty of my friends do this.You can pay your way into good education.Its natural selection.I am not against grammar schools.We need a highly educated population.Schools need good management at the top to bring in the money and parents who give a shit and are educated themselves.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Now throw in grammar schools.Parents have to spend a few thousand a year from about 9 to get their kids into grammar school.Plenty of my friends do this.You can pay your way into good education.Its natural selection.I am not against grammar schools.We need a highly educated population.Schools need good management at the top to bring in the money and parents who give a shit and are educated themselves. "

Now throw in Ofsted?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Now throw in grammar schools.Parents have to spend a few thousand a year from about 9 to get their kids into grammar school.Plenty of my friends do this.You can pay your way into good education.Its natural selection.I am not against grammar schools.We need a highly educated population.Schools need good management at the top to bring in the money and parents who give a shit and are educated themselves.

Now throw in Ofsted?"
A selection system of control.We all think we play the system to our advantage .We all have the illusion of control .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby


"Now throw in grammar schools.Parents have to spend a few thousand a year from about 9 to get their kids into grammar school.Plenty of my friends do this.You can pay your way into good education.Its natural selection.I am not against grammar schools.We need a highly educated population.Schools need good management at the top to bring in the money and parents who give a shit and are educated themselves. "

I went to a grammar school. Didn't have any extra tuition, no schooling in how to pass the eleven plus, and certainly my parents wouldn't have been able to afford to pay for it.

We lived in a council house. As did a lot of my friends who also went to the grammar school.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Now throw in grammar schools.Parents have to spend a few thousand a year from about 9 to get their kids into grammar school.Plenty of my friends do this.You can pay your way into good education.Its natural selection.I am not against grammar schools.We need a highly educated population.Schools need good management at the top to bring in the money and parents who give a shit and are educated themselves.

I went to a grammar school. Didn't have any extra tuition, no schooling in how to pass the eleven plus, and certainly my parents wouldn't have been able to afford to pay for it.

We lived in a council house. As did a lot of my friends who also went to the grammar school."

We're talking about now. It may have been different years ago.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The 11+ exam today contains non verbal reasoning which isn't really taught in many junior schools to the level grammar schools require .Unless you go private there is a big gap in knowledge for many kids at state schools.This is why extra tuition is essential today to access grammar school.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top