Why are bad schools always in bad areas?
Discussion
Bad areas + struggling parents = children not being raised properly.
Schools actually get more funding to address social deprivation/special needs/low achievement but it is nowhere near the amount that they need to address the issues. they will also struggle to attract high quality staff. (I'm a big bloke and i found it quite intimidating challenging some of the older students - and the boys were even worse
)
If I was to sum it up I would say giving people rights and benefits without requiring them to take responsibility for their actions has created a feckless underclass which leeches off the Community without any shame.
Schools actually get more funding to address social deprivation/special needs/low achievement but it is nowhere near the amount that they need to address the issues. they will also struggle to attract high quality staff. (I'm a big bloke and i found it quite intimidating challenging some of the older students - and the boys were even worse
)If I was to sum it up I would say giving people rights and benefits without requiring them to take responsibility for their actions has created a feckless underclass which leeches off the Community without any shame.
MM
Forget "educated". It would be a massive boost of parents actually stayed together. Its a hard enough job raising kids when there are two of you - imagine how much harder single parents must find it.
But what's the point of staying together when you get more benefits by separating ?
Forget "educated". It would be a massive boost of parents actually stayed together. Its a hard enough job raising kids when there are two of you - imagine how much harder single parents must find it.
But what's the point of staying together when you get more benefits by separating ?
Stevenj214 said:
Many people who I went to school with (bad school/bad area) now have kids going through the same schools. It's a perpetual sub culture.
This. When the parents are still in the same mindset of "school is s
t, teachers are bds" they had through childhood, what hope do the children have?Countdown said:
Bad areas + struggling parents = children not being raised properly.
Schools actually get more funding to address social deprivation/special needs/low achievement but it is nowhere near the amount that they need to address the issues. they will also struggle to attract high quality staff. (I'm a big bloke and i found it quite intimidating challenging some of the older students - and the boys were even worse)
If I was to sum it up I would say giving people rights and benefits without requiring them to take responsibility for their actions has created a feckless underclass which leeches off the Community without any shame.
Or perhaps supposedly educated teachers prejudge all the students there as "feckless underclass" writing them off before they even get a chance?Schools actually get more funding to address social deprivation/special needs/low achievement but it is nowhere near the amount that they need to address the issues. they will also struggle to attract high quality staff. (I'm a big bloke and i found it quite intimidating challenging some of the older students - and the boys were even worse
)If I was to sum it up I would say giving people rights and benefits without requiring them to take responsibility for their actions has created a feckless underclass which leeches off the Community without any shame.
WHile I actually agree with it, to an extent, I still find it disappointing that someone who has taught them feels like that. THe whole thing seems to be a vicious circle.
blindswelledrat said:
Countdown said:
Bad areas + struggling parents = children not being raised properly.
Schools actually get more funding to address social deprivation/special needs/low achievement but it is nowhere near the amount that they need to address the issues. they will also struggle to attract high quality staff. (I'm a big bloke and i found it quite intimidating challenging some of the older students - and the boys were even worse)
If I was to sum it up I would say giving people rights and benefits without requiring them to take responsibility for their actions has created a feckless underclass which leeches off the Community without any shame.
Or perhaps supposedly educated teachers prejudge all the students there as "feckless underclass" writing them off before they even get a chance?Schools actually get more funding to address social deprivation/special needs/low achievement but it is nowhere near the amount that they need to address the issues. they will also struggle to attract high quality staff. (I'm a big bloke and i found it quite intimidating challenging some of the older students - and the boys were even worse
)If I was to sum it up I would say giving people rights and benefits without requiring them to take responsibility for their actions has created a feckless underclass which leeches off the Community without any shame.
WHile I actually agree with it, to an extent, I still find it disappointing that someone who has taught them feels like that. THe whole thing seems to be a vicious circle.
Teachers have my utmost admiration - I definitely couldn't do it.I worked in LA Schools financing. One of my jobs was to find sources of funding to improve behaviour and attainment. It involved looking at reams and reams of data, observing classes, meeting with teachers, parents, governors and Headteachers, so my comments are not "prejudice" but based on first hand experience.
You say you agree with my comments. What experience do you have ?
ETA : most of the kids in "bad schools" are good kids. unfortunately more and more are "bad" kids who disrupt everybody's education. After all, what's the point of working hard when you can get as good a lifestyle on benefits ?
Most of the reasons for this have already been stated.
The main drivers for poor achievement in less affluent areas are linked though.
It starts with poor parental role models, in their attitudes to schools 'it did nothing for me' being a commonly used phrase, and the low number of adults in employment where their education made a difference. The lack of male role models (single parent families has an effect) as does the lack of a working parent but still having access to luxury items through weekly payment stores/catalogues.
Because of the way children don't understand how education can be linked to success and indeed the benefits of being successful early in their life they develop a very negative attitude to it fairly early on. This is compounded when they hit a secondary school as the prevailing culture in lots of schools in poor areas is one that being clever isn't cool (not a new concept).
When children decide they don't want to learn there is pretty much nothing that the teachers can do, especially once the kids are in Y9 or Y10 if you have lost them by then it is damage limitation until they leave. This means newer teachers are not inspired to try harder because they realise pretty early in the day that no matter what they do it isn't going to work. It also leads to older teachers becoming increasingly frustrated at the difficulty doing their job, again causing a drop in performance.
I have spent quite a bit of time over the last couple of years in good and poor secondary schools, and the marked difference in them is discipline and pupil behaviour. In the better schools pupils respect teachers and the teachers respect their pupils, in turn these schools are nicer places to be and learning just seems to happen. In the poorer schools the kids are not bothered by any sanctions that could be taken against them, indeed removal from lessons or temporary exclusions are seen as a badge of honour. The kids who have little respect for the teacher or themselves often spout the same reasons such as 'the teachers hate me', 'they can't do anything to me' and 'school is boring anyway, I'm not bothered'. They also have no sense of personal responsibility an attitude that is totally understandable once you meet their parents who suggest they can't do anything about it, that can't be bothered to talk to school and who look like their children were forced upon them by a being they had no control over.
The main drivers for poor achievement in less affluent areas are linked though.
It starts with poor parental role models, in their attitudes to schools 'it did nothing for me' being a commonly used phrase, and the low number of adults in employment where their education made a difference. The lack of male role models (single parent families has an effect) as does the lack of a working parent but still having access to luxury items through weekly payment stores/catalogues.
Because of the way children don't understand how education can be linked to success and indeed the benefits of being successful early in their life they develop a very negative attitude to it fairly early on. This is compounded when they hit a secondary school as the prevailing culture in lots of schools in poor areas is one that being clever isn't cool (not a new concept).
When children decide they don't want to learn there is pretty much nothing that the teachers can do, especially once the kids are in Y9 or Y10 if you have lost them by then it is damage limitation until they leave. This means newer teachers are not inspired to try harder because they realise pretty early in the day that no matter what they do it isn't going to work. It also leads to older teachers becoming increasingly frustrated at the difficulty doing their job, again causing a drop in performance.
I have spent quite a bit of time over the last couple of years in good and poor secondary schools, and the marked difference in them is discipline and pupil behaviour. In the better schools pupils respect teachers and the teachers respect their pupils, in turn these schools are nicer places to be and learning just seems to happen. In the poorer schools the kids are not bothered by any sanctions that could be taken against them, indeed removal from lessons or temporary exclusions are seen as a badge of honour. The kids who have little respect for the teacher or themselves often spout the same reasons such as 'the teachers hate me', 'they can't do anything to me' and 'school is boring anyway, I'm not bothered'. They also have no sense of personal responsibility an attitude that is totally understandable once you meet their parents who suggest they can't do anything about it, that can't be bothered to talk to school and who look like their children were forced upon them by a being they had no control over.
If the state wants to encourage social mobility then the only answer is to pump MORE into education in deprived areas. And I don't just mean "more cash". I mean more effort, more talent, more commitment, more of everything - with a view to delivering more results.
IMO new Labour's greatest sin is to have been in power for 13 years during which no progress whatsoever was made in this area. In fact, probably the opposite of progress.
IMO new Labour's greatest sin is to have been in power for 13 years during which no progress whatsoever was made in this area. In fact, probably the opposite of progress.
Countdown said:
Who said I taught them Teachers have my utmost admiration - I definitely couldn't do it.
My daughter teaches and recently moved from an extremely rough school to an extremely good one. The actual teaching part of her job is way harder in the new school, and (as you probably realise) not helped by the fact that resources are so focused on poorer schools. Teachers have my utmost admiration - I definitely couldn't do it.The old one was mainly riot control so for teachers there's no point in detailed lesson planning etc. Only a tiny number of the kids did homework, so there's very little marking to do. They get paid more, more training etc etc. She's thinking of going back!
Edited by Deva Link on Monday 14th February 15:14
Ozzie Osmond said:
I mean more effort, more talent, more commitment, more of everything - with a view to delivering more results.
I would suggest that more punishment and more responsibility for the actions of those who misbehave placed upon those who are at fault (i.e the person who actually misbehaved) in schools would result in better educational standards.Ozzie Osmond said:
If the state wants to encourage social mobility then the only answer is to pump MORE into education in deprived areas. And I don't just mean "more cash". I mean more effort, more talent, more commitment, more of everything - with a view to delivering more results.
Without shifting responsibility onto parents and teenagers MORE of anything else will be like using a fire extinguisher on a raging bush fire. At the moment lots of poorer schools suffer from issues around discipline, motivation, attitudes and aspiration. You could have the best funded school with the best hand picked teachers, and if the kids don't want to learn and their parents won't support the school you will still end up with poor results.
Is it really any co-incidence that schools where the majority of parents are professionals who work in skilled or meaningful (and public sector) jobs are higher up the league table than the schools on sink estates where few work and non have any real skills? Yes the poor schools often get a good CVA score but it is easy to get that high when your input is low, perhaps GCSE grades aren't a true measure of a schools success but if you live in a society that is based on meritocracy what else can you use to choose one stranger over the next?
Ozzie Osmond said:
If the state wants to encourage social mobility then the only answer is to pump MORE into education in deprived areas.
The answer is to take the kids away at birth and give them to parents in "nice" areas.Double advantage is that we'd save a fortune on benefit payments to single mothers.
for a long time my former secondary school went about trying to award bad behaviour and underachievement
only now they've got the act together and its becoming clear the harder you try the more you'd be rewarded. fail and you get placed on a target list - fail to meet and ur case is escalated. No mountain bike for turning up.
only now they've got the act together and its becoming clear the harder you try the more you'd be rewarded. fail and you get placed on a target list - fail to meet and ur case is escalated. No mountain bike for turning up.
rover 623gsi said:
Deva Link said:
The answer is to take the kids away at birth and give them to parents in "nice" areas.
Double advantage is that we'd save a fortune on benefit payments to single mothers.
I already have two kids. I don't want any more. ThanksDouble advantage is that we'd save a fortune on benefit payments to single mothers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff