We talk about gender discrimination but we often ignore bigger discrimination

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

So many people seem to be against equal schooling for children. Can I ask is there a downside to this?

Could you quote one person who has said this?

What would be great a Phd for someone in the humanities: To look at socio economic status and educational out comes in a large urban area where there are no fee paying school Galway maybe. That would be interesting.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

kids are also influenced by their peers. If for instance parents choose a fee paying school or try to get into a school in an affluent area they are trying to get their kids into an environment where its easier to teach and where the values of the kids are similar

That's my experience. There was fierce competition for 'class clown' in the state school I attended and little tolerance for disrupting class in the private school I attended.

Maybe we should spread the class clowns around to the private schools to ensure that the children there never get a chance to get ahead if the state school students.

I think the OP is earnest in their intention but the chip on their shoulder about their terrible school, turns this thread into a car crash when they start this very same thread every couple of weeks.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If that's the case, don't you think the children have been held back by the poor education in school, prior to transfer, rather than cognitive development among family? The former seems to be the much stronger factor, if what you say is true.

In fact, that actually backs my point. That shows the importance of the school kids go to, and how bad schools early on, can greatly negatively affect things down the line.


There's plenty of room to be discriminatory/selective for students outside of the DC Opportunity Scholarship - seeing as these would presumably only make up small percentage of students.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I support equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome. I think the best way to improve education is to remove the corrupt and inept Irish state save for a few core regulations about literacy and maths and let the market handle the rest.

And here is where we get to you just ignoring replies to your challenges, becoming a problem - from a previous post, in the context of what would happen to peoples finances, after privatization:

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What if the cost can be reduced by innovations and efficiency measures? Sure then the cost will be less than the taxation required.

My argument in that post was misinterpreting PB as putting forward a wider argument in favour of fee paying schools in general, so am assuming you're going along with that interpretation, for sake of argument - which is fair enough.

We'll take tax contribution as roughly proportional to eduction funding. The bottom half of the population pays ~10%, the upper half ~90%:
http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/04/10/paying-tax-in-ireland-where-the-richest-and-poorest-pay/
http://www.ronanlyons.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/tax-by-decile1.png

Upon switching overnight to fee paying schools, the bottom half's cost will rise ~90%, requiring an efficiency increase of the same amount, to result in less cost. How do you envisage an efficiency increase of ~90%?

So you want to impose potentially up to a 90% increase in schooling cost for some people?

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Which isn't possible here due to Irish welfare and entitlement culture.



How so?

What is an 'entitlement culture' exactly? If people are legally entitled to something, what exactly is wrong with having a sense of entitlement about it? People should, after all - seeing as it's a basic matter of self-respect and upholding what they legally are entitled to...

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We'll take tax contribution as roughly proportional to eduction funding. The bottom half of the population pays ~10%, the upper half ~90%:
http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/04/10/paying-tax-in-ireland-where-the-richest-and-poorest-pay/
http://www.ronanlyons.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/tax-by-decile1.png

Upon switching overnight to fee paying schools, the bottom half's cost will rise ~90%, requiring an efficiency increase of the same amount, to result in less cost. How do you envisage an efficiency increase of ~90%?[/indent]

So you want to impose potentially up to a 90% increase in schooling cost for some people?

Why would the bottom half's cost rise 90% exactly?

By the way, this isn't evidence, it's yet another blog which happens to support your agenda.

KomradeBishop

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If anyone has said that the quality of school doesn't matter, then I would disagree with them. But if all schools are equal you will still have factors which will mean more engaged parents will have higher achieving children. More engaged parents are more concentrated in the higher SES group. So even if all schools were equal, the schools in affluent areas will still tend to have higher achieving students because their parents will tend to be more engaged.

I'm all for improving schools in poor areas but I don't want to diminish the efforts of parents who spend more time engaging with children. Parents in poor areas have the same responsibilities in this. If they don't engage with their children, they can't expect the same outcome as parents who do engage with their children.

You're ignoring what has been said before, again:
Many of the less-well-off parents are not able to engage with their children, or pay others to engage with their children - to the same degree as those who are better off, and who can either afford the time or afford to pay someone else to do it (and also additional issues, such as work having a negative effect on their personal wellbeing, due to stress etc. - and less well off people having less of a choice about this, if stuck financially) - this ties into issues of economic inequality/injustice.

Some people have downplayed the role of schooling.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What is an 'entitlement culture' exactly? If people are legally entitled to something, what exactly is wrong with having a sense of entitlement about it? People should, after all - seeing as it's a basic matter of self-respect and upholding what they legally are entitled to...

Because it hinders progress and development along with being incredibly expensive. I didn't think that this warranted an explanation.

KomradeBishop

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So what's the big problem if the private schools aren't actually much better than state schools? So what if they select in favour of children who are engaged in education and parents who are willing to go the extra mile in the name of educating their children? It concentrates those who want to be educated in one place. The teacher can teach the children and not spend half the class convincing the children to behave themselves.

Nice - you're labelling disadvantaged students, as those who don't "want to be educated" - more of the shifting of responsibility/blame onto individuals/families, even when they are the victim of wider macro-scale problems in society and the economy...

Some pretty staggering generalizations you're throwing around there.

If a private school wants to receive any public funding, the first thing that should be done, is to ban any private schools from receiving public funding, until such discriminatory measures are removed from their enrolment process, until they are equal to public schools in this regard - otherwise they are just shifting the costs of troublesome students, and more expensive to teach students, onto the public school system.

Yet that is precisely how private schools game the stats - accept the 'cream of the crop' that help them boost their stats, and keep their costs lower per student - and let the rest fall on the public system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's my experience. There was fierce competition for 'class clown' in the state school I attended and little tolerance for disrupting class in the private school I attended.

Maybe we should spread the class clowns around to the private schools to ensure that the children there never get a chance to get ahead if the state school students.

I think the OP is earnest in their intention but the chip on their shoulder about their terrible school, turns this thread into a car crash when they start this very same thread every couple of weeks.

You went to private school and public school. It's funny how wanting people who want to learn to have the same chance you had constitutes chip on my shoulder.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why would the bottom half's cost rise 90% exactly?

By the way, this isn't evidence, it's yet another blog which happens to support your agenda.

The bottom half's costs would rise 90%, because they presently pay only 10% of the cost for public schools (through progressive taxation) - i.e. for public schools, the top half pays 90% of the bottom half schooling costs.

Eliminate public schooling, and assuming the same quality of schooling, the fees would be 90% higher than the original cost in taxes for these people.

The stats in the this picture stand, irrespective of source:
http://www.ronanlyons.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/tax-by-decile1.png

That 'blog' is from an economist in Trinity, who is pretty well regarded - unlike garbage rags like The Economist, which is known to have a very conservative bent.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Because it hinders progress and development along with being incredibly expensive. I didn't think that this warranted an explanation.

That isn't a reply to my post though, as it's not answering anything I asked - it's just regurgitating the usual free market garbage.

I'll take 'entitlement culture' as just another meaningless soundbite then.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So wait - poor schooling wouldn't hold children back from taking advantage of a better school (i.e. years and years of prior poor education, not giving the children skills they need in later years and private school), but poor cognitive development within family will?

You've got that backwards, for sure - especially when you were using measurements of reading/math skill as a base - which is primarily going to be affected by poor schooling.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That 'blog' is from an economist in Trinity, who is pretty well regarded - unlike garbage rags like The Economist, which is known to have a very conservative bent.

Venerated, established publication vs blog with no sources. Which to choose....

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That isn't a reply to my post though

Yes it is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So what's the big problem if the private schools aren't actually much better than state schools? So what if they select in favour of children who are engaged in education and parents who are willing to go the extra mile in the name of educating their children? It concentrates those who want to be educated in one place. The teacher can teach the children and not spend half the class convincing the children to behave themselves.

Why did you switch school and pay fees? For a laugh?

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What, temporarily unemployed, or long-term, or permanently unemployed?

Unless these people are unemployed for such a long period of time, that it covers a significant portion of their childs schooling, and are not doing anything else - i.e. are at home all the time - then that's not a valid sample.

Also lets remember that many of the unemployed have all of their time taken up with education schemes and internships etc. too.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Venerated, established publication vs blog with no sources. Which to choose....

To give people an idea of how extreme The Economist can be: It advocated not sending aid to Ireland during the famine, and cheered free-market policies that saw food being shipped from our shores.

It still has a history of being very conservative - it's very much a neoliberal rag.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

To give people an idea of how extreme The Economist can be: It advocated not sending aid to Ireland during the famine, and cheered free-market policies that saw food being shipped from our shores.

It still has a history of being very conservative - it's very much a neoliberal rag.

Last time I checked, this isn't the 1840's. You're making the error of presentism, ie applying moral standards of the present day to people and opinions of long ago. The Irish weren't viewed favourably in Britain at the time and it wouldn't surprise me if less restrained versions of this position were put forward.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What you cited doesn't back your argument though - because as you said, the poor public schooling in DC was a factor.

Effectively, you're trying to blame a portion of the public schools failure on the parents now too, without any backing.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Last time I checked, this isn't the 1840's. You're making the error of presentism, ie applying moral standards of the present day to people and opinions of long ago. The Irish weren't viewed favourably in Britain at the time and it wouldn't surprise me if less restrained versions of this position were put forward.

I see you're going to do your 'hit and run' tactic again, of shirking responding to a counterargument - even though you can't find any credible complaints with the source (remember: Ad Hominem against a source, is only valid/non-fallacious if you can find a valid well-argued problem with the sources reputation/credibility).

Are you going to reply, to the argument I put foward, noting the likely increased costs - should education be privatized?

Also, The Economists rep (and note: I responded to an argument with The Economist as a source earlier; I don't dismiss it without argumnet), is pretty heavily known as being elite-subservient and conservative leaning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Criticism.2C_accusation_and_praise

Maguined

So only left leaning sources are permitted into debate?

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No I'm pointing out you're views are in accordance which some sexists in science. You start of with a hypothesis "kids don't achieve more or less exclusively because of lack of cognitive development and not other factors" and find every small piece of evidence to try and support it.

You're also putting a massive slight on the work that people involved in gender equality do.

for citing the Nature Neuroscience study showing the impact of poverty on brain development. As Nature summarizes:

Yes brain atrophies with poverty. So you're hypothesis is lack of engagement causes that. It's not what the science says I'm afraid. It's stress and the link between childhood poverty and stress are well defined by Evans et al.

Studies in animals showed that stress is associated with changes in hippocampal function and structure, an effect mediated through decreased neurogenesis, increased glucocorticoids, and/or decreased brain derived neurotrophic factor. Antidepressants and some anticonvulsants block the effects of stress and/or promote neurogenesis in animal studies. Patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been shown to have smaller hippocampal volume on magnetic resonance imaging and deficits in hippocampal-based memory. Symptom activation is associated with decreased anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal function, which is proposed as the neural correlate of a failure of extinction seen in these patients. Treatment with antidepressants and phenytoin reverse hippocampal volume reduction and memory deficits in PTSD patients, suggesting that these agents may promote neurogenesis in humans.

I'm suggesting we mitigate these stress responses via smaller class sizes and better qualified teachers.

The findings of this study are consistent with the large body of multidisciplinary research into socioeconomic disadvantage in education. You keep acting like it's just a matter of getting all these brilliant young disadvantaged kids into better schools so that they can thrive. It isn't. By the time low-SES children are of school-going age, major differences in brain structure and cognitive skills are already evident. This militates against future academic success.

You're linking to a paper, citing the theory of brain atrophy and connecting it to education.

By the way Pbear the paper you cited says this:

Researchers have long suspected that children’s behaviour and cognitive abilities are linked to their socioeconomic status, particularly for those who are very poor. The reasons have never been clear, although stressful home environments, poor nutrition, exposure to industrial chemicals such as lead and lack of access to good education are often cited as possible factors.

In sum, the research is clear: It is the home environment in early childhood that acts as the major determinant of future success, not what kind of school someone attends later in life.

Except the Nature paper you cited says this:

Researchers have long suspected that children’s behaviour and cognitive abilities are linked to their socioeconomic status, particularly for those who are very poor. The reasons have never been clear, although stressful home environments, poor nutrition, exposure to industrial chemicals such as lead and lack of access to good education are often cited as possible factors.

As for sexism, you've stated in your OP that "there's no gender discrimination in science." You tried to pooh-pooh earlier in this thread a peer-reviewed study by Yale researchers showing that science faculty evaluated otherwise identical CVs dramatically differently depending on whether the candidate was "John" or "Jennifer." This is consistent with other research showing that elite labs hire more men than women. As noted in that article, women make up more than half of all PhD graduates in biological sciences, and yet only 18 percent of full professors in the field are women.

How many professors are from low income families. that proves discrimination by your metric.

While regularly demanding proof of other people's assertions, and then accusing them of arguing from authority when they provide it, you offer no evidence whatsoever for your own assertions, other than meandering, contradictory posts based on your own personal experience, and vague promises to "dig something out on that" (unsurprisingly, the evidence never materializes).

Actually Pbear you're linking abstracts in order to back up your hypothesis which don't have anything to do with your post.

If you want to disagree with any of the points I've made in this thread, you're free to do so by posting counterarguments and evidence of your own. But trying to counter my points by calling me a racist or sexist doesn't cut it.

No I'm saying your views have farther reaching implications than just socioeconomic status.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear's been supplying better sources than I could muster.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Also, The Economists rep (and note: I responded to an argument with The Economist as a source earlier; I don't dismiss it without argumnet), is pretty heavily known as being elite-subservient and conservative leaning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Criticism.2C_accusation_and_praise

I'm trying, really trying to understand your train of thought here. You provide a Wikipedia link where one person, Andrew Sullivan said it serves elites and you say that this equates with being "pretty heavily known".

This is the one of the daftest things I've ever read anyone post on this site.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Maguined

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I doubt it is a coincidence that asian americans are the highest earning demographic in the US far surpassing "privileged" whites while also having a culture of demanding parents. I have never heard of "tiger mom" from any other culture and is even so prevalent it is represented in memes.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/high-expectations-asian-father

ancapailldorcha

Incidentally, I find it noteworthy that the newspaper published a harsh criticism of George Osborne's proposed cuts to tax credits (a tax rebate for the low paid in the UK). Hardly an establishment line...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

El_Duderino 09

KomradeBishop wrote:

You're ignoring what has been said before, again: Many of the less-well-off parents are not able to engage with their children, or pay others to engage with their children - to the same degree as those who are better off, and who can either afford the time or afford to pay someone else to do it (and also additional issues, such as work having a negative effect on their personal wellbeing, due to stress etc. - and less well off people having less of a choice about this, if stuck financially) - this ties into issues of economic inequality/injustice.

You're assuming that wealthy people have more time than poor people. Rich and poor are proxies for spending time engaging with children because wealthy people TEND to spend more time engaging with children. Wealthy people tend to spend more time with children. If it was simply down to time available, unemployed people's children would be in a great position. I don't now why you assume that rich people have so much more time than poor people. Most rich people are rich because they work hard in one way or another. Most middle class people work hard but they spend more time engaging with their children.

There's no way to say a fella who stacks shelves in Tesco for 50 hours a week, has less time than a civil engineer who works 50 hours a week.

Busy rich people and busy poor people have the same responsibilities. The state can help and it should make sure all the schools are good, but the state can't take over from sh1tty parents whether those parents ate sh1tty due to lack ok interest or lack of time

El_Duderino 09

KomradeBishop wrote:

Nice - you're labelling disadvantaged students, as those who don't "want to be educated" - more of the shifting of responsibility/blame onto individuals/families, even when they are the victim of wider macro-scale problems in society and the economy...

Nope. That's not what I said. I said they can concentrate the children who do want to learn in their school. I didn't elaborate for brevity but I think that most children don't really care one way or the other because they're children and aren't all that concerned about exams etc. A few children really like education and really enjoy school, a few would do anything to get out of school and can end up being disruptive. The majority aren't that pushed one way or the other and will learn without being disruptive.

Private schools can select in favour of the ones who really want to learn and select against those who don't want to be there.

I didn't say put all these explanatory notes in my last post because I asumed you would understand the point and explaining every detail is boring to write and boring to read and distracts from the point I was making - and you agreed with the point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood by accident.

Exlanatory note finished, the Point I made was that private schools can select in favour of the children they want. I wasn't generalising that all children in poor areas are disruptive. Hope his helps

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

You went to private school and public school. It's funny how wanting people who want to learn to have the same chance you had constitutes chip on my shoulder.

You want everyone to go to private school or to go to a school with a culture of not tolerating messes?

I'm not certain where the chip on your shoulder comes from but it manifests in a replica of this thread every few weeks.

I'm not certain what exactly you want. Would you lay it out really simply for me?

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You want everyone to go to private school or to go to a school with a culture of not tolerating messes?

I'm not certain where the chip on your shoulder comes from but it manifests in a replica of this thread every few weeks.

I'm not certain what exactly you want. Would you lay it out really simply for me?

Define what part of wanting everyone to get a good education corresponds to "chip on shoulder".

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh I see, anyone who gives the slightest toss about issues of economic injustice/inequality is a 'social justice warrior' :rolleyes:

This has more than a smack of the idiotic term 'entitlement culture' about it - where the person using it doesn't actually know what's meant to be bad about the term - what exactly is wrong with viewing issues of 'economic justice' as a concern?

It sounds exactly like just another "your views disagree with my political views, therefore I'll usage a disparaging term against you, to try and get you to shut up" type of term - where the person doesn't have any actual argument against what you said, but just wants to disparage it.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Except it exactly does, by explaining how some are held back. I don't state that is the sole or primary factor here either.

Permabear wrote: »

I mentioned previously the example of Jewish families, many of whom arrived in other countries impoverished, persecuted, and discriminated against, but who have achieved remarkable success, despite all odds. I could also mention poor Asian immigrants to the United States, whose children go on to successful professional careers at far higher rates than other groups.

It's not all down to macroeconomic injustice, or what have you. I know we're unlikely to knock you off that particular soapbox -- but children's educational and professional success is linked to growing up in a nurturing culture that values strong family bonds and imparts discipline and work ethic. These cultural and behavioral factors appear to be a much stronger determinant over the long run.

Nobody said it was all about macroeconomic injustice - yet you are moving towards discounting issues of economic injustice/inequality altogether, as a focus.

If you want to talk about the US, how about black people and hispanics? You seriously think black people aren't the subject of widespread social and economic injustice - on a macroeconomic scale - including in their education?

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Permabear's been supplying better sources than I could muster.

Oh this is your tactic of 'oh somewhere in the last 60 pages...' again, like the last thread, where you lie about something having been addressed already.

You are directly lying here, show me anything that addresses the argument, where I point out how progressive taxation could mean - upon privatization - a ~90% cost increase for the bottom half of the population.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm trying, really trying to understand your train of thought here. You provide a Wikipedia link where one person, Andrew Sullivan said it serves elites and you say that this equates with being "pretty heavily known".

This is the one of the daftest things I've ever read anyone post on this site.

Ya and is known, among other things, for backing the Iraq/Aghanistan Wars - and it counts among its owners, the Rothschilds Family, among other members of the international financial elite - not 'elite subservient' at all...

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

Why did you switch school and pay fees? For a laugh?

My parents moved me so I would be in a school that selects in favour of students who want to learn. I was responding to the poster who said private schools aren't necessarily better than state schools but they can play with the stats by selecting their students. Why do you ask?

steddyeddy wrote:

Define what part of wanting everyone to get a good education corresponds to "chip on shoulder".

I'm not you're counsellor. I'm asking what the thread is about and you're gone way off the nominal topic of equal education and onto your hobby horse of private schools.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can you find some criticisms of nakedcapitalism.com, that actually shows it as discreditable?

The only argument I have ever seen anyone provide against that site, is it's name - Naked Capitalism - and not one person who has taken issue with the sites name, has been able to even explain what is meant to be bad about that name.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Can you find some criticisms of nakedcapitalism.com, that actually shows it as discreditable?

If I were to link an Economist or Financial Times piece doing just that, would you read it? I doubt it somehow.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The only argument I have ever seen anyone provide against that site, is it's name - Naked Capitalism - and not one person who has taken issue with the sites name, has been able to even explain what is meant to be bad about that name.

The problem isn't the name, it's that it's a blog set up and run by one person. Why would the name cause issues?

KomradeBishop

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're assuming that wealthy people have more time than poor people. Rich and poor are proxies for spending time engaging with children because wealthy people TEND to spend more time engaging with children. Wealthy people tend to spend more time with children. If it was simply down to time available, unemployed people's children would be in a great position. I don't now why you assume that rich people have so much more time than poor people. Most rich people are rich because they work hard in one way or another. Most middle class people work hard but they spend more time engaging with their children.

There's no way to say a fella who stacks shelves in Tesco for 50 hours a week, has less time than a civil engineer who works 50 hours a week.

Busy rich people and busy poor people have the same responsibilities. The state can help and it should make sure all the schools are good, but the state can't take over from sh1tty parents whether those parents ate sh1tty due to lack ok interest or lack of time

You're ignoring the part of my post, where I explicitly pointed out that better off people can afford to pay others, to take up some of the parenting/educational slack - this seems to be a point that posters are making a notable effort to avoid.

Better off families also tend to be happier in their jobs, leading to less of a negative effect on personal wellbeing than less well off people - which can have an effect on peoples ability to engage with their children after work as well.

Better off families will also often have the finances needed, to get by on a single income, with just one parent working, whereas less well of families may need the income of both parents working.

Effectively, you are precisely trying to shift the blame onto families, for a set of issues that are partly macroeconomic in origin.

KomradeBishop

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nope. That's not what I said. I said they can concentrate the children who do want to learn in their school. I didn't elaborate for brevity but I think that most children don't really care one way or the other because they're children and aren't all that concerned about exams etc. A few children really like education and really enjoy school, a few would do anything to get out of school and can end up being disruptive. The majority aren't that pushed one way or the other and will learn without being disruptive.

Private schools can select in favour of the ones who really want to learn and select against those who don't want to be there.

I didn't say put all these explanatory notes in my last post because I asumed you would understand the point and explaining every detail is boring to write and boring to read and distracts from the point I was making - and you agreed with the point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood by accident.

Exlanatory note finished, the Point I made was that private schools can select in favour of the children they want. I wasn't generalising that all children in poor areas are disruptive. Hope his helps

For the children that genuinely are troublesome, where exactly should they go? The public system? i.e. just fúck away all the problem students onto the public system, for the rest of society to deal with.
I suppose the private schools should still be able to receive a portion of public funding too, despite offloading the cost of these students onto the public system?

thattequilagirl

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're ignoring the part of my post, where I explicitly pointed out that better off people can afford to pay others, to take up some of the parenting/educational slack - this seems to be a point that posters are making a notable effort to avoid.

Better off families also tend to be happier in their jobs, leading to less of a negative effect on personal wellbeing than less well off people - which can have an effect on peoples ability to engage with their children after work as well.

Better off families will also often have the finances needed, to get by on a single income, with just one parent working, whereas less well of families may need the income of both parents working.

Effectively, you are precisely trying to shift the blame onto families, for a set of issues that are partly macroeconomic in origin.

It's primarily in the middle classes that both parents work. In well off families, it's often the case that they don't need a second income, whereas in less well off families, it makes more sense for a parent to stay at home than pay childcare. In both cases, there's a parent at home.

Wibbs

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya and is known, among other things, for backing the Iraq/Aghanistan Wars - and it counts among its owners, the Rothschilds Family, among other members of the international financial elite - not 'elite subservient' at all...

I leave the tennis match for a while and… Fcuk me. We've gone off piste here a tad.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This makes me a 'Social Justice Warrior', how exactly? What is wrong with giving a toss - even caring quite a lot - about issues of economic injustice/inequality?

The same could be said about your own relentless Free Market Fundamentalism - you could be argued as having the same focus as me, just with arguing perpetually in favour of promoting massive economic injustice, rather than the opposite.

Permabear wrote: »

When another poster tried to point out that the family environment plays a significant role in outcomes for disadvantaged children, you responded that "people are just downplaying the wider macro-scale problems in our societies/economies - so that the lions share of the responsibility can be placed at a micro/family/individual level."

In short, you accuse anyone who wants to talk about the role of parenting, families, culture, and so on, of "downplaying" the economic injustice issues that you want to bang on about in every single thread. Even though parenting, families, and culture are crucial to outcomes for children.

No actually, I welcome discussion of that - but you said earlier in the thread, that the family issue was the majority of the problem, not wider macroeconomic etc. issues - I'm pushing for a more balanced discussion, inclusive of the wider issues.

If you acknowledge those macroeconomic root issues, why the sole focus on families, rather than also correcting some of the macroeconomic injustice/inequality problems?


You do realize that the entire thread started as a discussion of wealth in relation to education, right? That this directly ties in with the macroeconomic issues being discussed?

You're pursuing your own economic agenda here as well PermaBear - defending the advantages of the powerful/wealth, in the current economic system (which in other threads, is closely followed by advocating policies to expand their power - while claiming the opposite).

Permabear wrote: »

I think it's interesting that some groups in this country, such as Jews and Asians, thrive largely under their own steam, while others, such as blacks and Hispanics, continue to flounder no matter how much support they get from the state. Why is that, in your view?

Systematic social/political/economic discrimination (especially drug laws and the penal system), massive entrenched generations-long economic injustice/inequality, and a lack - not abundance - of state resources; among more.

steddyeddy

I think there's some confusion about what everyone is saying here. First of all for the umpteenth time complaining about the gap in quality of education does not mean you hate the top or the bottom or that you blame the wealthy.

I'm simply stating that the fact that there is a division of quality of schooling is tipped in favour of the children of higher income families via smaller class sizes ect. I completely agree that parents play the pivotal role in education but look at it from my point of view. My adjacent role is in equality in sciences. I have zero control over what the parents do. What I have been able to do is teach kids of all backgrounds to love science. I have also been able to be a very small part of a movement which enables some very disadvantaged children (fostered and abused mainly) who often have zero contact with a parent into some fantastic private schools.

Once there (sometimes they only get in after there first year in a subpar school) they usually flourish. I see the change in a lot of disadvantaged people once they enter a constructive environment and that's what i want more of.

Now If private schools are the one thing that are actually helping these kids enter third level then how exactly are people coming to the conclusion that I want to abolish them?

As has mentioned previously culture matters tremendously and private schools have a fantastic culture where they expect success. This is imperative in education IMO and the other thing they often provide is a good role model. My role model was Tony Scott the UCD physics prof and inventor of the smoke alarm. All it took for me to realsie I could do well in science was one person. Believe me I'm not the only one.