Ladymuck

;-)

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...whatever way you > look at it I think well meant but ill thought out > socialist engineering towards the goal of > 'equality' in education wrecked the education for > the among very poorest and especially the > brightest among them. Thus we need to be very > carefull with this loose, ill defined, > 'progressive', value full mantra 'equality'....but > idealism over practicaility always looks so much > 'better'/nicers, etc whatever its effects > ....*sighs. > > *see also overspending on worthy, decent > projects/goals that you can't afford and > bankrupting onesself I can see where you are coming from Quids...we just can't seem to get it right. I am just wondering how other countries might tackle the problem if faced with the UK's dilemma. I must question your use of the term "social engineering" though, which - to me - implies some sort of trickery, or at the very least, manipulation? Where is this apparent to you? As for "*see also overspending on worthy, decent projects/goals that you can't afford and bankrupting onesself", of course you are right. All very well everyone (including me) saying we should do this, that and the other, but at the end of the day it all costs. Unfortunately now is probably not the time for splashing out. (*joins Quids in a long weary sigh*). As to whether "projects/goals" are "decent" (or otherwise), I think DJKQ's anectdote on the EMA scheme above, if true, is rather worrying.

Looks as though VA was merely flitting by...so... back to targets in education. One thing is apparent: as well-intentioned as they might be, it would seem that they have had the undesired effect of increasing inequalities in our education system. The Institute of Fiscal Studies reports: "In this paper, we consider research on links between higher education and family background, focusing particularly on the experiences of two cohorts of individuals born in 1958 and 1970. The findings point to a rise in educational inequality during the period relevant to these two cohorts. Specifically, links between educational achievement and parental income / social class strengthened during this period. Furthermore, a person's actual (measured) ability became a poorer predictor of whether they would get a degree than was previously the case. The expansion of higher education in the UK during this period appears to have disproportionately benefited children from richer families rather than the most able. Furthermore, the labour market success or failure of individuals became more closely connected to their parents' income, revealing a fall in the extent of intergenerational mobility over time." Sound familiar? Regarding the raising of standards, perhaps instead of imposing a super-abundance of targets which appear to be doing little to that end, we should simply be aiming for a system of education which provides teaching of such high quality that the private sector would eventually become redundant. Now wouldn't that be something! Regarding inequalities in education, given that they appear to stem from poverty, then surely the priority should be to deal with the source - i.e. the poverty itself?

Utterly hilarious!!!! Thanks Loz!!!:))

LOL! Perhaps he meant to post on another thread? As you say, can't see where it fits in with education targets. But you never know - there may be some logic behind the apparent madness! Let's see if he returns.

Bastards. Ahem...sorry...but needed to be said.:-$

Eh? You've lost me there vinceayre. Don't suppose you could clarify?:-S Thanks.

Found it! (A bit more than a couple of months old though - how time flies)! The targets culture in schools is missing the point.

*gets camera*

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm a fat cyclist! Doesn't change the fact that I've never seen one.:))

HB? Yooz behavin like one of dem Whiskey Women now. Hussy!

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It begs the question, that for all the good intent > of government to provide incentives, agencies and > resources, if they have any real idea of what is > going on at ground level. There is no point > spending this money if those running these > services worry more about satisfying government > targets than delivering meaningful training/ > education in order to deliver a workforce that > employers can actually use. Yes, I remember reading an article on this a couple of months ago (can't find the article though). But basically, the article demonstrated how, far from raising standards - which presumably is what government targets are aimed at - targets can have a damaging effect not only on the quality of the education itself, but on the education system too.

Sorry DJKQ, I interpreted the ?30 as a one-off payment. Still an unsatisfactory situation though, assuming that what you are saying is true.

Ah! Per week! Thanks Loz!

Ah yes...I discovered some time ago that you cannot use the B-word, so I get around it by posting a silly comment like: "oops, fingers slipped" or whatever! Sorry Admin - am I setting a bad example here?:))

If it's true, then that is an unacceptable waste of time/resources. But one thing doesn't stack up. You say that: "The result is that some courses are filled with young people that are not interested in anything but the ?30 and colleges that are too scared to fail them because of the money they'll lose in turn." I am assuming by this that the students actually complete the course - which, frankly seems like a lot of effort for ?30. Sounds a bit odd to me. I presume also that this sum is paid only upon completion of course?.

A poster recently requested info. on the (employee benefit) Cycle To Work Scheme. I cannot find it. Anyway, amongst other cycling bumph, I received today some info. about the very subject. So thought it might be helpful to pass this on here. Basically it says you can save up to 50% on a new bike and accessories (up to ?1,000). You can choose from a vast range. One call does the job and you could have a new bike within 48 hours (sounds good!). Tel: 0800 652 4745 www.faircare.co.uk

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The full speech makes interesting reading. There > is acknowledgement that the gap of inequality is > the biggest it has been since records began and > that tackling poverty is a fundamental requirement > to a healthy society. But we've heard this kind of > speech before, from all parties and many MPs. > There are plenty of ideas in there to discuss but > as usual no mention of where all the extra jobs > needed are going to come from. There is however > mention of rewarding employers that essentially > employ those they wouldn't normally employ. Is > long term unemployment for example something that > any government can solve? Yep - reducing that in/equality gap is at the heart of a fairer/better society. As for the creation of new jobs, I am sceptical. With the planned cutbacks, I can only see unemployment getting worse. Some people smirk when they hear that - for example - various QUANGOs are going to be axed. But (I can only presume) that these same people lose sight of the fact that many are going to lose their livelihoods as a result of these cuts - not a matter for smirking, in my opinion. Don't misinterpret, I am not suggesting that cuts shouldn't be made, but in terms of un/employment they are certainly not going to help. It's a difficult situation and I am glad I am not a politician having to make decisions in the current economic climate.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Worse still, young school leavers are paid ?30 in > they go to college and the colleges are paid if > they take them. The result is that some courses > are filled with young people that are not > interested in anything but the ?30 and colleges > that are too scared to fail them because of the > money they'll lose in turn. I KNOW this is going > on. Blimey - really? Do you work in the education sector?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Every child who wants to learn should get equally high > levels of education, so some of the fault has to > lie at the general quality of state education. Absolutely DJKQ. And given that the better educated a person the greater the likelihood of them obtaining employment, securing a higher wage, paying taxes, and generally contributing more to society, it seems strange that this unfairness should persist. In these days and times it cannot be right for children to be deprived of the best education simply because they are not from privileged backgrounds.

The latest report by the Office for Fair Access ("OFFA") states that people from disadvantaged backgrounds still find it difficult to enter the best universities. In particular, it notes "there has been no significant change since the mid-1990s" and that "The wealthiest 20% of youngsters are seven times more likely than the most disadvantaged 40% to get places at England's most selective universities". MitchK's favourite writer;-) has come up with, what he thinks, may be a solution to the problem.

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think a few cyclists' fat, sweaty arses on your > face should do the trick. I've never seen a fat cyclist.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *clicks fingers on both hands* Shameless!!!!:))

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what's the fine for knocking a few cyclists up in > the air ? Do you get charged individually or as a > job lot? *"kicks in" Hatchet Boy's car headlights*

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was actually trying to mow down a few irritating > cyclists but I don't think that excuse will wash. Careful...Hatchet Boy!