Jump to content

The Attainment Gap ---- Just incompetence or do they really not give a stuff?


gdevoy

Recommended Posts

With the "attainment gap" widening by the year between offspring from financially well off backgrounds against those from limited means, are the politicians just hopelessly unable to do anything about it or do you think they really don't give a f**k because after all its only poor people, it's not like they are one of us? 

Higher education institutions are quite rightly complaining that they are being pressured to "produce the goods" while being obliged to take on less qualified new students from less well off backgrounds. Clearly kids from homes with books, access to computers and professional tutoring are going to be far ahead when it comes to university entrance and no matter how intrinsically bright and motivated kids are from sink estates they will just never catch up.

The problem starts way, way back with the environment kids are born into. You cant compensate for wealth and connections but you can encourage less well off parents to tae an interest in their offspring. I not saying that because you are poor you don't care but lower quality "parenting" can take root in poverty in the same way malnutrition disease can. 

You could say the Scottish Government have woken up to this with the "Named Person". IMO they have started to get their head round the problem but there is still roop for improvement with their solution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G,

The problem is there is no easy answer to the problem.

It is multi-faceted and every penny spent on one facet is a penny that cannot be spent on any others.

This does not mean there is a lack of concern it means that it shows the limits of power of our elected officials.

I actually think that the SNP are as socially conscientious as any other party but the best will in the world cannot solve this problem completely.

It is not a matter of more money either since one has to look around the world to see that.

Have you ever seen the film Idiocracy? Watch the opening credits!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandman396 said:

G,

The problem is there is no easy answer to the problem.

It is multi-faceted and every penny spent on one facet is a penny that cannot be spent on any others.

This does not mean there is a lack of concern it means that it shows the limits of power of our elected officials.

I actually think that the SNP are as socially conscientious as any other party but the best will in the world cannot solve this problem completely.

It is not a matter of more money either since one has to look around the world to see that.

Have you ever seen the film Idiocracy? Watch the opening credits!!

Well said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zorro said:

To quote the Inspiral Carpets; no one ever said it was gonna be easy. 

You are absolutely right, but my point is this is where the government should be focusing.

Never mind extra teachers for deprived areas, or skewing the selection criterion for tertiary education. A campaign to "encourage" parents, particularly those with irresponsible parents themselves to take their "parental responsibility" seriously.

This would help close that attainment gam more effectively than any of the arty farty ideas they have tried so far.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Zorro said:

If having a child doesn’t focus your mind, I’m struggling to believe a government campaign would. However, as I firmly believe parental support is the greatest indicator of future attainment, anything is worth a try. 

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

"having A child" (my capitalisation) is not the issue. The families in question I do not believe are single child groups.

There are IMHO usually 3 or more kids in these families. Despite my "liberal" leanings I find myself annoyed at the funding of a people to have squads of kids they cannot afford nor are willing to properly care for. 

On the other hand my wife and I waited till we could financially and mentally afford to have kids.

We need to stop paying Child Benefit for 3rd or more kids for future births. If people want more than two kids then fair enough but the state is not going to fund them.

I would not go as far as taking away the childcare provisions for these kids nor the free school meals up to P3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What on earth makes you think that threatening to restrict the benefit entitlement of some very irresponsible people is going to make them behave more responsibly?

I know many hard working low paid responsible people are loath to furnish feckless wasters with a never ending supply of funds to peruse their 24/7 party lifestyle. Unfortunately any attempt to choke back on their money supply is only going to firstly have a very negative effect on their offspring long before they let it slow down the party.

You might as well suggest amputation to treat brain cancer. The problem is much more difficult to tackle than that.

You have to get these people to perceive some benefit to themselves in taking responsibility for their weans. Or as Zorro says "focus their minds", as becoming a parent in itself clearly has not worked.

Carrot or stick? Some people have a moral problem with feeding a lazy, stubborn donkey carrots but if the stick is not working then just whacking it harder until the stick breaks could be counter productive.

Maybe it's the wrong question. I say forget about morality, find out what works, maybe tickling the donkey on the effin nose, who the feck knows, and do that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sandman396 said:

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

"having A child" (my capitalisation) is not the issue. The families in question I do not believe are single child groups.

There are IMHO usually 3 or more kids in these families. Despite my "liberal" leanings I find myself annoyed at the funding of a people to have squads of kids they cannot afford nor are willing to properly care for. 

On the other hand my wife and I waited till we could financially and mentally afford to have kids.

We need to stop paying Child Benefit for 3rd or more kids for future births. If people want more than two kids then fair enough but the state is not going to fund them.

I would not go as far as taking away the childcare provisions for these kids nor the free school meals up to P3.

I would argue these people having 'squads of kids' do so with the best intentions. I think they have them to try and fill a spiritual hole that isn't filled with phones, clothes or stuff. But it doesn't. And they get so f**king depressed that they end up the same way as their own parents and are neglectful and struggle to raise them. And so the cycle remains. 

Proper mental health support for kids and parents would go a long long way

I think these are the last people money should be taken away from. I'll never understand the belief that punishing children because their parents are not 'willing to properly care for them' is ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Zorro said:

I don’t believe there’s a solution that’s both logical and ethical. I think it would have to be one or the other. 

Fully agree.

I am aware that my logical suggestion is completely heartless.

A decent society should be able to "carry" the less able and less capable.

We can bump our gums about scroungers and benefit cheats but it is a small price to pay for living in a country that is one of the best in the world.

There are few places I would rather live and most of those would require me to have won the lottery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs...Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward”

This abridged quote from Einstein, pretty much sums up where I am re my social responsibilities and civic duty. The question I cannot seem to square is should I have sympathy for people who will not try to help themselves? In an ideal society with infinite resources, the answer should be yes. However, we have finite resources and my natural tendency would be towards supporting those who try to help themselves,

i understand their can be many complex reasons why people become “feckless wasters” and children being punished for the irresponsible actions of their parents doesn’t sit well with me, but we do seem to be spending a disproportionate amount on people who feel they have no social or moral obligation towards the rest of us. We have tried the carrot (with ever larger sized carrots) but the problem has grown rather than receded. So where next? 

Logically the most obvious choice would seem to be to remove the child/children from an environment where they seem to suffer neglect verging on abuse, but statistically this leads to poorer outcomes, as well breaking social ties and ignoring the child’s/children’s emotional needs. Again the child/ children are effectively punished for the actions of the parents. So that’s another dead end for me 

Solomon would probably conclude the state has responsibilities to the body and mind, while the family holds authority over the heart and emotional needs  To that end; breakfast clubs, free school meals, free after school clubs, free access to physical activities and free education seems to be about as far as society can intervene, in trying to close the attainment gap. Whether individuals feel the Scottish government is doing enough in these areas will depend on their political views. Personally I’d prefer they did a bit more. But none of that tackles the deeper underlying issue of a fractured society, and only by tackling that will there be a opportunity to resolve these issues once and for all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Scooby_Doo said:

"but we do seem to be spending a disproportionate amount on people who feel they have no social or moral obligation towards the rest of us" 

That comment could be equally well directed at the cost of Welfare or the amount of cash lost to HMRC through the inventive tax arrangements of the rich and shameless.

Clearly the cash amount lost in tax avoidance is many 100s or even 1,000s of times greater  than the cost of Welfare cheats. It really just depends on what produces more moral outrage in the individual as to which area should be cracked down on hardest.

Edited by gdevoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Fudger said:

The last thing the SNP want is an educated electorate. 

What nonsense! 

They'd rather we were all people who sow discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for Richard Leonard's amusement.

Edited by RAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, RAG said:

What nonsense! 

They'd rather we were all people who sow discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for Richard Leonard's amusement.

Schrodingers Cybernat - Both smart enough to troll effectively and stupid enough to believe in the SNP.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...