Education Spending - best to focus on schools in "good" areas?

Sleepy

This one won't be popular but there's an element of devil's advocate to my thinking in this thread... More curious about the maximisation of utility issue here than the moral high-ground...

As present, under the Scheme of Assistance to Schools in Designated Areas of Disadvantage schools in 'disadvantage' areas get an extra €38 capitation per student.

Is this a wise use of state monies? Given that these schools are by definition in areas where the students are statistically likely to continue their parents' trend of being life-long welfare recipients are we not just throwing that money away?

While you'll have exceptions to the norm both at individual student and/or family levels, no realistic amount of extra funding for these schools can negate an upbringing in a home where education is more likely to be looked upon with scorn than aspiration. (Personally, I think the level of funding required in many of these cases would be that needed to pay for the student to attend boarding school place).

Would this funding (perversely from a moral standpoint) be better focused at additional funding for schools more likely to provide the tax-payers of tomorrow? Or (certainly better from a moral point-of-view) used towards the promotion of the maths / science subjects we need to improve our teaching of in order to foster a modern service-based economy?

johnnyskeleton

Sleepy wrote: »

This one won't be popular but there's an element of devil's advocate to my thinking in this thread... More curious about the maximisation of utility issue here than the moral high-ground...

As present, under the Scheme of Assistance to Schools in Designated Areas of Disadvantage schools in 'disadvantage' areas get an extra €38 capitation per student.

Is this a wise use of state monies? Given that these schools are by definition in areas where the students are statistically likely to continue their parents' trend of being life-long welfare recipients are we not just throwing that money away?

It's a relatively small amount used to ensure that there is some additional funding to these schools. Please bear in mind that if the students are likely to leave school early and sign on as you seem to suggest, then towards leaving cert level there will be fewer and fewer students in the class. It is obviously easier financially to run a 6th year class with 30 students in the class than one with 6 students, so this money essentially ameliorates the difficulties caused by the lack of students. Were it otherwise, some schools might have to cut out leaving cert years due to lack of funds.

Would this funding (perversely from a moral standpoint) be better focused at additional funding for schools more likely to provide the tax-payers of tomorrow? Or (certainly better from a moral point-of-view) used towards the promotion of the maths / science subjects we need to improve our teaching of in order to foster a modern service-based economy?

The flaw in your argument seems to be that you think that the children of wealthy parents go on to become income generators and entrepeneurs etc. However, there are many examples of people starting off poor and going on to much greater things. This money is necessary to reduce the risk that highly intelligent people from disadvantaged areas get disillusioned with school and drop out. It also discourages a situation where schools become polarised into very good and very bad schools with little middle ground.

I suspect this idea comes from the "Libertarian" school of thought (not saying you are one of them, but it sounds like one of their ideas). What they fail to appreciate is the long term effects of such policies which have proved over the course of history to concentrate power in the hands of an aristocracy who are born into wealth, continue in that wealth, and if they fail in managing that weath, usually can obtain more wealth from elsewhere, while those who are born poor are given little opportunity to better themselves.

Essentially, there is a whack of "you're the child of dole-scroungers, so don't get above your station by doing the leaving cert" about this type of policy.

murphaph

I don't agree with the notion either, BUT I think we DO need to do something about life long welfare types having loads of kids in the first place.

This is the root cause of the problem. We "decent" members of society, should NOT be paying "less decent" members of society money to support multiple children, children that will in all likelihood go on to do the same. We'll have no taxpayers in the future if this continues.

People should have kids if they can afford them, not if the taxpayer can. I would scrap child benefit payments in cash completely and replace with school meals, books, uniforms etc. to be provided free to CHILDREN (not their sometimes alcoholic, drug dependent, gambling addicted parents).

This would disincentivise people from having children as an income generator (and yes, plenty do see it that way).

Lone parents allowance should be restricted to 1 child except in cases of death of a spouse. If a couple split up, divorce etc. that's no reason for the non-present parent not to pay their share. If they refuse to, then their pay/welfare should be garnished by court order.

Sleepy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's a relatively small amount used to ensure that there is some additional funding to these schools. Please bear in mind that if the students are likely to leave school early and sign on as you seem to suggest, then towards leaving cert level there will be fewer and fewer students in the class. It is obviously easier financially to run a 6th year class with 30 students in the class than one with 6 students, so this money essentially ameliorates the difficulties caused by the lack of students. Were it otherwise, some schools might have to cut out leaving cert years due to lack of funds.

I'm not arguing against the rational behind the payment, just wondering if it's an optimally efficient use of resources.

Primary schools wouldn't face that same numbers issue but still receive this extra funding.

The flaw in your argument seems to be that you think that the children of wealthy parents go on to become income generators and entrepeneurs etc. However, there are many examples of people starting off poor and going on to much greater things.

My argument is subtly but crucially different: it's that the vast, vast majority of tax revenue paid to state is generated by those that come from outside of the welfare-dependent underclass that makes up the population of these 'underprivileged' areas. Not necessarily the rich, just the normal working and middle class people who raise rather than drag up their children whilst providing a home that's supportive of their education and provides a role-model of at least one parent with a job/work-ethic.

The only way a small, open economy like ours can grow sustainably is via exports. We don't have a large enough population to sustain selling to each other. We don't have the natural resources, ease-of-access to market (geographically) or cost base to make manufacturing goods for export particularly viable so we need to focus on the knowledge economy: the provision of high-end services in IT, Finance etc. to the global market. We need to ensure those citizens who are prepared to work are capable of working in this environment.

Sadly, excepting statistically insignificant exceptions, the average Anto & Jacintha who've never worked a day in their lives don't produce offspring capable of working in high end services: the best we can usually expect is someone capable of holding down an unskilled - semi-skilled position. Thing is, we don't have much need for people to fill those positions (and unless the employed class starts to catch up to the unemployed class's reproduction rates this will only get worse).

This money is necessary to reduce the risk that highly intelligent people from disadvantaged areas get disillusioned with school and drop out. It also discourages a situation where schools become polarised into very good and very bad schools with little middle ground.

Those who succeed from disadvantage areas tend to do so for one of two reasons: They have parents who value education and support them after school / get them into better schools outside of their local area etc. or they're the anomalous individuals who are capable of surmounting a home-life that doesn't value that education and succeeds in life anyway. Extra capitation grant or not, these students will continue to beat the odds.

And again, this isn't about polarisation, I'm not suggesting the extra capitation grant should instead be given to the very top achieving schools, I'm wondering could it be better used either by inclusion in the overall budget (i.e. modest increase of all capitation grants) or in targeting specific problems with the current system (poor maths skills, compulsory Irish, curriculum reform, introduction of programming as a LC subject, teaching a European language at primary level, etc. take your pick). The worst schools performing schools would logically perform even worse by comparison in the former approach, who knows, targeted use of the money might actually improve things for those students that aren't just killing time in the school until they can "sign on".

I suspect this idea comes from the "Libertarian" school of thought (not saying you are one of them, but it sounds like one of their ideas). What they fail to appreciate is the long term effects of such policies which have proved over the course of history to concentrate power in the hands of an aristocracy who are born into wealth, continue in that wealth, and if they fail in managing that weath, usually can obtain more wealth from elsewhere, while those who are born poor are given little opportunity to better themselves.

Essentially, there is a whack of "you're the child of dole-scroungers, so don't get above your station by doing the leaving cert" about this type of policy.

Whilst I agree with Libertarians on many issues, I'd disagree with them on others (my views on gift / inheritance tax would horrify most of them!). I'm don't think there's a label that sums up my politics tbh.

murphaph wrote: »

I don't agree with the notion either, BUT I think we DO need to do something about life long welfare types having loads of kids in the first place.

This is the root cause of the problem. We "decent" members of society, should NOT be paying "less decent" members of society money to support multiple children, children that will in all likelihood go on to do the same. We'll have no taxpayers in the future if this continues.

People should have kids if they can afford them, not if the taxpayer can. I would scrap child benefit payments in cash completely and replace with school meals, books, uniforms etc. to be provided free to CHILDREN (not their sometimes alcoholic, drug dependent, gambling addicted parents).

This would disincentivise people from having children as an income generator (and yes, plenty do see it that way).

Lone parents allowance should be restricted to 1 child except in cases of death of a spouse. If a couple split up, divorce etc. that's no reason for the non-present parent not to pay their share. If they refuse to, then their pay/welfare should be garnished by court order.

I'd agree, the breeding rate of the leeching class being significantly higher than that of the working and middle class is a major problem and unless something is done, it will continue to get worse. When the drains on society reproduce every 16 - 20 years or so whilst the productive members of society do so on every 30 - 40 years or so, we get an escalating problem.

Whilst a totalitarian would suggest mandatory intravenous contraception / chemical sterilisation for all citizens until such time as they can prove themselves financially and morally capable of rearing a child it's utterly implementable in any humane, non-subjective, workable or desirable manner in the real world.

Slightly increasing capitation rates for schools the leeching class attend is, imho, a well-meaning washing of money down the toilet. Even just re-allocating the same budget so that they could be targeted towards the students who could earn access to extra resources (School PC suites etc.) on merit of academic effort would be more likely to yield a return to the society on it's investment imho.

Murdstone

It looks like this thread has died a death, but I’ll add my two cents anyway.

Based on my own experience attending a school in a ‘disadvantaged area’, and that of many of my friends who attended similar schools, only a small proportion of students come from families that are involved in criminality/heavily into drugs/ have never worked etc. They are the real problem cases, and I don’t really know what can be done about them, although I think early intervention is important.

I am not sure there are any schools in the country, even in very deprived areas, where long term unemployment is seen by the majority as desirable or the norm.

Most students, even if they have little interest or ability academically, are interested in working and earning money. For these students additional funding is a great help, whether is it is used for one-on-one teaching or helping in getting into suitable employment, or whatever.

Also, although many people in low-paid work do not pay much or indeed any tax, they do vital jobs which are required to keep the country running. (the wheels of commerce would grind to a halt without cleaning staff, delivery men and so on.)

So to answer your question, I believe that the €38 capitation per student in ‘designated areas of disadvantage’ is a good thing.

I would go so far as to say that funding should be diverted away from schools in relatively affluent areas, like Clontarf , as parents in these areas can afford to pay for private tuition etc.

Sleepy

Murdstone wrote: »

It looks like this thread has died a death, but I’ll add my two cents anyway.

Based on my own experience attending a school in a ‘disadvantaged area’, and that of many of my friends who attended similar schools, only a small proportion of students come from families that are involved in criminality/heavily into drugs/ have never worked etc. They are the real problem cases, and I don’t really know what can be done about them, although I think early intervention is important.

I am not sure there are any schools in the country, even in very deprived areas, where long term unemployment is seen by the majority as desirable or the norm.

Most students, even if they have little interest or ability academically, are interested in working and earning money. For these students additional funding is a great help, whether is it is used for one-on-one teaching or helping in getting into suitable employment, or whatever.

Also, although many people in low-paid work do not pay much or indeed any tax, they do vital jobs which are required to keep the country running. (the wheels of commerce would grind to a halt without cleaning staff, delivery men and so on.)

Unfortunately, we need an economy where the support staff in such roles are a minority. One of the major problems we face at present is that so many of those on the dole queues can't be retrained to work in any areas where we can provide employment for them.

So to answer your question, I believe that the €38 capitation per student in ‘designated areas of disadvantage’ is a good thing.

I would go so far as to say that funding should be diverted away from schools in relatively affluent areas, like Clontarf , as parents in these areas can afford to pay for private tuition etc.

It already is, it's called a progressive tax system.

murphaph

Murdstone wrote: »

Also, although many people in low-paid work do not pay much or indeed any tax, they do vital jobs which are required to keep the country running. (the wheels of commerce would grind to a halt without cleaning staff, delivery men and so on.)

I suppose the point being made is that you don't actually need a good education to be a delivery man or cleaner, therefore it's a waste of money to spend extra on schools likely to produce such employees.

I'm still undecided really. I think targeted spending in disadvantaged areas (whatever that actually means) to try and break the cycle is possibly a good thing.

ardmacha

I think that in a democratic society that the state has to provide its citizens with competent education, not compromised by things such as political correctness, political posturing by politicians, unions or the like or gurriers in the classroom. There is no doubt that the single greatest improvement in "deprived" schools would be parents who took an interest and this shouldn't cost anything. However, the children who live in these areas whose parents are interested, or who are interested themselves deserve proper service. Even on selfish economic grounds, by increasing the proportion of employable people such measures probably do pay for themselves in the long run.

I think it important that people are conveyed the expectation that they should take care of themselves and that they can, with a bit of effort. High payments can be associated with the attitude that if you cannot earn much more than this then you might as well give up.

Beyond that though there is a danger in a democratic society to argue that rights of individuals should be negated because of where they live. It should not be acceptable to have my house robbed just because I live in a "deprived" area and not in Foxrock.

However, as Murphaph says above, there should be more emphasis on direct provision of services and less on cash payments. (although I would note that the lack of these things compared to other countries contributes to the high proportion of educational expenditure on wages in Ireland).

Sleepy

I believe all children should have equal access to education. Taking budgetary constraints out of the equation, I'd be in favour of the secularisation of the education system with the state being the only legal patron for schools (i.e. the removal of religious and private schools from the system) with schools receiving equal funding for every student in the country and equal entitlement to support resources such as SNA's etc.

Obviously, there is no workable means of removing the availability of grinds services: close the official channels and the black market will fill the void so there'll always be the potential for imbalances in the system. That said, if our education system was adequately funded and professionally managed (accountability for under-performing teachers, a sensible balance of salary costs to other expenditure etc.) would grinds continue to be availed of at the levels they currently are?

Personal experience tells me no, I got grinds in French and Maths. My parents paid for the French grinds because the teacher I had was beyond useless and I paid for the Maths grinds myself because I had a decent Maths teacher, I was only in need of the grinds because of my own laziness / a mental block about needing to understand what I was doing rather than relying on accepted knowledge (e.g. couldn't fathom the use of log books because I was never taught what those numbers represented and how they were calculated etc.). Had there been any level of accountability for my teachers, I still may have required grinds for Maths but having achieved an A in Junior Cert French (and gone on to do it for my first year of college) I think it's safe to say that with a decent French teacher, I wouldn't have required grinds in the subject.

For a fair and meritocratic society, children need equal access to education. There is nothing the state can do (short of removing children from unsuitable parents or preventing unsuitable people from becoming parents) to balance the playing field of the home environment children are born into. Once the opportunity to access equal services is there, I believe the state has served it's purpose. I don't see how we can provide this, however, when we're providing one set of students with more taxpayers money than another.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Isn't that not what the current system is attempting with higher capitation for the "disadvantaged" rather than the use of that money to target the problems equally?

Or, as per the initial OP, taking the extreme view: would we be better served focusing our education spending on those students (regardless of background) that have the potential to be superbly educated?

I don't see any proposals on this thread to address the fact that Ireland now languishes in 26th place out of 34 nations for maths ability, per PISA 2009. Or that one in four 15-year-old Irish teenage males is functionally illiterate. Or that 65 percent of post-primary maths teachers under the age of 35 do not have appropriate degrees to teach maths. Or that 2010 incidental inspections of primary schools reveal that teachers are unsatisfactorily prepared for 25 percent of the English and maths lessons taught, and that their assessment of students is unsatisfactory in 34 percent of cases.

We have a failing educational system, in which many underperforming and underqualified teachers are protected by militant unions. Our national curricula still disproportionately serve the insular interests of nationalism and religion, as opposed to the needs of a modern 21st-century European citizenry. The amount of primary school time devoted to Irish and religion is shameful, given the neglect of science and foreign languages. Our secondary system is oriented around rote learning, memorization, and regurgitation — as Ruairi Quinn recently noted, a "fair" Leaving Cert paper is seen as one where there are "no surprises." A recent Chief Examiner's report on honours maths noted that students don't even attempt problems that do not resemble well-rehearsed examples from class. Apparently, the worst thing that could happen to an Irish student is to be challenged to think outside the box. This is the conformist culture we have created.

I completely agree with you: the entire system needs changing, this thread was initially intended to deal with just one aspect of the changes required.

The answer to education in disadvantaged areas lies with changing the culture of long-term unemployment, welfare dependency, and irresponsible reproduction. Children from homes without a working parent are statistically more likely to become welfare dependents themselves. Daughters of unemployed single mothers are statistically more likely to become sexually active at an earlier age and to become single mothers themselves.

We need to break the cycle. That means attacking the mewling logic of "protecting the vulnerable" that seems to have no issue with entire communities planning their long-term future around welfare dependency. It means forcing the long-term unemployed to seek work. It means creating well-run schools with qualified excellent teachers, rather than schools that simply reflect the surrounding culture of negativity and nihilism.

How do we do that? Leave people starve rather than pay them welfare? Take children away from the long-term unemployed to be raised by the state?

Things can be changed — but "ban private schools" and "stop students from taking grinds" is self-defeating.

Private schools allow for an uneven playing field and this, I guess is where I diverge from most libertarians in my thinking: I believe in attempting to provide our children with equal opportunities, allowing the best and brightest to suceed regardless of their background. Inherited wealth is damaging to an economy and distorts any attempts at a meritocracy imho. And that's before you even consider that these private schools could be used to indoctrinate children were we to finally manage to secularise our schools.

I never suggested stopping students from taking grinds: as I pointed out, it'd be completely impossible. I mentioned their prevalence to highlight the failings of our education system: at present, many parents are having to attempt tp replace the incompetent teachers their child has with grinds. Poorer parents can't afford to do this. So everyone suffers bar the person causing the problem: the child is either left with an education that's lacking or the parents are out of pocket and the teacher gets to sit waiting for his/her valuable and undeserved pension. That is wrong. There's no way to argue that it's not and the best that even the teacher's unions can do is whine about subjectivity of any proposed appraisal method (because, you know, performance appraisals in the private sector are always entirely objective and fair :rolleyes:).

In short, Permabear, I barely disagree with you on anything but the value of equity in our education system. From a purely logical point of view doesn't it make sense to have an equitable education system given that the distribution of talent, ability and intelligence has never in the existence of humanity been predictable? For every Clongowes-educated Michael O' Leary, there seems to be a raised by his own bootstraps Bill Cullen. (Whilepersonally, I've far more time for O' Leary, that doesn't mean a man with Cullen's achievements isn't good for the economy though).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

So privately managed, publicly funded schools are the answer then?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blatantrereg

They face significant issues, and trying to address them would be good for the kids and for society in general. I think pumping a bit of extra cash in is a simplistic - even dismissive approach though. Brand new interactive whiteboards are cool and all but they're completely unrelated to changing attitudes or their environment.

Here's an idea: If some teachers were given specialist training for teaching in those schools, and given some sort of extra compensation or status to make going there desirable rather than somewhere they end up, if you get me. Positive enthusiastic teachers might be a lot more help to those kids than those shiny new whiteboards.

edit: So my conclusion is that reducing spending is not a good idea in this case; but changing the strategy and how the specifics of how the money is used would be something to consider.

Sleepy

The vouchers system goes against my belief in equality as even with subsistence, the majority can't afford private education.

I think while there's definitely merit in what blatantrereg is saying in providing additional training (a qualification in adverse conditions teaching or similar?) and some form of additional reward (a lower percentage pay-cut ) to help balance the playing field for good students in those schools, we'd probably see a better return (but no-doubt left-wing outrage) in streaming schools so that children who want to learn are taught in environments where they will be and the trouble-makers are schooled where they can't disrupt other's educations.

I've not seen Waiting for Superman, Permabear, will look into it.

#15

Sleepy wrote: »

Is this a wise use of state monies?

I would say say yes.

Firstly, it is good practice. Systems that perform well on international comparative assessments all have a system of unequal funding. That is to say, they put more money into schools in disadavantaged areas.
Secondly, it works. Finland has the lowest achievement gap in the world, for example. Even in the Irish context, it is beginning to pay off. Susan Weir from the Educational Research Centre said that Literacy and Numeracy scores have increased over a three year period in DEIS schools.

Sleepy wrote:

While you'll have exceptions to the norm both at individual student and/or family levels, no realistic amount of extra funding for these schools can negate an upbringing in a home where education is more likely to be looked upon with scorn than aspiration.

That's a fair enough point, and it echoes Basil Bernstein's view; 'Education cannot compensate for society'.

Sleepy wrote:

Would this funding (perversely from a moral standpoint) be better focused at additional funding for schools more likely to provide the tax-payers of tomorrow?

If you do this, there will be two consequences IMO.

1) The achievement gap will continue to increase
2) The lowest achievers will not be able to function in society if they receive a substandard education.

As there is a lag between education and educational outcomes, the consequences of the above wouldn't be felt for possibly twenty years.

There was some research carried out at Stanford a while ago that touched on this. Basically, there is a risk of decreasing social mobility and creating a very divided society.

Other research in the UK found that education gaps appeared before children had even started school, with cognitive development disparities occuring along socio-economic lines, as early as the age of three.

Also, the much cited PISA report had some very interesting details.
Parental engagement with children at an early age, regardless of socio-economic background, is correlated with higher test scores for their children.

PISA follow-up wrote:

• Fifteen-year-old students whose parents often read books with them during their first year
of primary school show markedly higher scores in PISA 2009 than students whose parents
read with them infrequently or not at all.

• The performance advantage among students whose parents read to them in their early
school years is evident regardless of the family’s socio-economic background.

• Parents’ engagement with their 15-year-olds is strongly associated with better performance
in PISA.

Two US economists, Richard Murnane and Greg Duncan, have also researched educational inequalities and they suggest that the core problem is income inequalities and that school reform can only go so far. They recommend intervention prior to primary schooling.

Similar recommendations were made in IIEP reports, in that they claim a mixture of interventions at school level and home level are needed to lift childen out of poverty.
They also state that home background is the biggest factor in influencing educational outcomes and that education policies can only go so far (although there are some policies that go much further than others in mitigating the effects of poverty).

Your OP is interesting. Overall I would say that DEIS funding is a good thing, as long it is not allowed to go to waste and backgound support is also provided for children at the home and preschool levels. Without those supports, then yes, DEIS is somewhat limited in what it can do.

I would also recommend you watch 'The Finland Phenomenon' on Youtube.

Also, check out anything by Pasi Sahlberg and Ken Robinson, if you are interested in education reform. They are very informative and offer more solutions than other documentaries, IMO.

Links here if you want them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR9_zy2FVS8

Do schools kill creativity?

Learning revolution

What can the world learn from Finland?

Experimental Research on child driven education. Pretty cool.

Debtocracy

Sleepy wrote: »

I've not seen Waiting for Superman, Permabear, will look into it.

In the interests of balance, see the following article by Rick Ayers, Professor of Education, University of San Francisco.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-ayers-/an-inconvenient-superman-_b_716420.html?view=print

An Inconvenient Superman: Davis Guggenheim's New Film Hijacks School Reform

Davis Guggenheim's 2010 film Waiting for Superman is a slick marketing piece full of half-truths and distortions. The film suggests the problems in education are the fault of teachers and teacher unions alone, and it asserts that the solution to those problems is a greater focus on top-down instruction driven by test scores. It rejects the inconvenient truth that our schools are being starved of funds and other necessary resources, and instead opts for an era of privatization and market-driven school change. Its focus effectively suppresses a more complex and nuanced discussion of what it might actually take to leave no child behind, such as a living wage, a full-employment economy, the de-militarization of our schools, and an education based on the democratic ideal that the fullest development of each is the condition for the full development of all. The film is positioned to become a leading voice in framing the debate on school reform, much like Guggenheim's An Inconvenient Truth did for the discussion of global warming, and that's heartbreaking.
I'm not categorically opposed to charter schools; they can and often do allow a group of creative and innovative teachers, parents, and communities to build schools that work for their kids and are free of the deadening bureaucracy of most districts. These schools can be catalysts for even larger changes. But there are really two main opposing positions in the "charter movement" -- it's not really a movement, by the way, but rather a diverse range of different projects. On one side are those who hope to use the charter option to operate effective small schools that are autonomous from districts. On the other side are the corporate powerhouses and the ideological opponents of all things public who see this as a chance to break the teacher's unions and to privatize education. Superman is a shill for the latter. Caring, thoughtful teachers are working hard in both types of schools. But their efforts are being framed and defined, even undermined, by powerful forces that have seized the mantle of "reform."

The film dismisses with a side comment the inconvenient truth that our schools are criminally underfunded. Money's not the answer, it glibly declares. Nor does it suggest that students would have better outcomes if their communities had jobs, health care, decent housing, and a living wage. Particularly dishonest is the fact that Guggenheim never mentions the tens of millions of dollars of private money that has poured into the Harlem Children's Zone, the model and superman we are relentlessly instructed to aspire to. Those funds create full family services and a state of the art school. In a sleight of hand, the film magically shifts focus, turning to "bad teaching" as the problem in the poor schools while ignoring these millions of dollars that make people clamor to get into the Promise Academy. As a friend of mine said, "Well, at least now we know what it costs."

It is so sad to see hundreds of families lined up at these essentially private schools with a public charter cover, praying to get in. Who wouldn't want to get in? Families are paraded in front of the cameras as they wait for an admission lottery in an auditorium where the winners' names are pulled from a hat and read aloud, while the losing families trudge out in tears with cameras looming in their faces.

After dismissing funding as a factor, Superman rolls out the drum-beat of attacks on teachers as the first and really the only problem. Except for a few patronizing pats on the head for educators, the film describes school failure as boiling down to bad teachers. Relying on old clichés that single out the handful of loser teachers anyone could dig up, Waiting for Superman asserts that the unions are the boogey man. In his perfect world, there would be no unions -- we could drive teacher wages even lower, run schools like little corporations, and race to the bottom just as we have in the manufacturing sector. Imagining that the profit motive works best, the privatizers propose merit pay for teachers whose students test well. Such a scheme would only lead to adult cheating (which has already started), to well-connected teachers packing their classes with privileged kids, and to an undermining of the very essence of effective schools -- collaboration between teachers, generous community building with students.......

ardmacha

Two US economists, Richard Murnane and Greg Duncan, have also researched educational inequalities and they suggest that the core problem is income inequalities

I believe this is misleading. I do not think that income inequality is the main issue, at least to extent that inadequate income prevents people having a good education. There is an element of this, to be sure. But I think the bigger issue is that organised responsible and educated people tend to get jobs with reasonable income in a modern society and it is these attributes that give their children an advantage more than income.

Parental engagement with children at an early age, regardless of socio-economic background, is correlated with higher test scores for their children.

Exactly. Unemployed parents have most time to engage to with their children, employed people have less. Yet the latter usually manage it and the former seem not to. Money is not the main point here.

I think the education system has to do two important things. Ensure that those from "less fortunate" backgrounds get a solid education. This is less important for other members of society, who will probably do OK anyway, but the education system needs to direct them to useful activities, like engineering rather than useless activities like being solicitors. It is also needs to give them some sense of civic responsibility.

Sleepy

#15 wrote: »

If you do this, there will be two consequences IMO.

1) The achievement gap will continue to increase
2) The lowest achievers will not be able to function in society if they receive a substandard education.

I guess the second part of this was the basis for some of the initial thoughts behind my OP: we already have a significant underclass of lowest achievers who are unable to function in society. It's unlikely their offspring will be any better since, as ardmacha pointed out, these are the exact parents that spend least time supporting their children in their education and often actively discourage their involvement. Why bother throwing good money after bad?

ardmacha

Why bother throwing good money after bad?

1. Because you want to give the children the opportunity to choose differently.
   
2. Some of them will so choose and these will increase the productive capacity of the economy.
   
3. The very fact that some can choose differently and do well will provide role models and increase the proportion who do this.

#15

ardmacha wrote: »

I believe this is misleading.

Yeah, and that is partly my fault. I didn't mean to suggest that the authors claim there is a direct causal link. I think they just pointed out the strong correlations that exist. And as you point out, it is probably the underlying attributes that matter more in educational terms.

Sleepy wrote:

we already have a significant underclass of lowest achievers who are unable to function in society. It's unlikely their offspring will be any better since, as ardmacha pointed out, these are the exact parents that spend least time supporting their children in their education and often actively discourage their involvement. Why bother throwing good money after bad?

Firstly, because it is in our interest to help people break out of the 'underclass'. Doing nothing will only condemn more people to joining the ranks of the 'underclass'. And we all know the social problems that can accompany poverty.
Secondly, there is evidence that their offspring can improve their educational performance with targetted interventions at different levels. It is less likely, sure, but not so unlikely that it is impossible. If Finland, Ontario, Japan and others can decrease their achievement gaps, then we can too.

nice_guy80

I do believe that schemes such as the breakfast and dinner clubs run in schools should be cut

you either do it in all schools, or in none

the parents of children who benefit from this already get a children's allowance payment to feed their children.
What are they spending the money on? if the school is then providing a free breakfast and lunch to get them into school each day??