There's no academic difference between working class and middle class children

Ave Sodalis

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ahh, that changes things massively. You should educate your students in selective perception bias. There are no such thing as bad schools, only bad students - those unwilling and lacking the ambition and discipline to better themselves and their circumstances.

Not sure if serious...

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'll enlarge on this post later but you are 100% on the money in my experience. I would be in the school of science. The drop out rate is amongst the highest of any course. There are far too many students who simply shouldn't be there and are only there because they feel entitled to be there or their parents pushed them in (the latter is quite cruel on kids imo).

There are many working class mature students who return to college and get firsts. In fact these students are over represented in students who get firsts.

Uni should be about one thing, your interest in your chosen subject. Unfortunately it's currently about what social group you belong to followed closely by your interest in your chosen subject.

Out of interest, how do you decide who "simply shouldn't be there" and who should? Is it solely down to what grades people get or is it down to how much interest a student has? Regardless of class, does a student who tries really hard but struggles to get 50% in exams deserve to be there more or less than a lazy student who manages to get 50%+ without much effort?

On paper I was probably what you would call a working class student; my parents never had a lot of money and I went to a HEAR school with traditionally low progression to university (most students going into a trade). However I never wanted for anything and was never discouraged by my parents (both of whom left school after their Inter Cert); I certainly never felt like I was a class below others. I did really well in my Leaving Cert, and based on that am probably what you'd describe as "talented working class student", however my undergraduate years didn't go so well (I've mentioned this in other threads) and if you were supervising my labs or marking my exams (without knowing that I was from a HEAR school) you'd probably have written me off as that "middle class waster who doesn't deserve to be there". So where does the distinction between worthy and unworthy student come, and how much of that is down to what perceived class the student is?

I know I'm probably taking what you're alluding to a bit too personally but to me it seems that every third level student on a course, whether they end up getting an honours degree, getting a pass degree or dropping out, is there because they have met the minimum requirements and as such should be judged as good enough to merit their place there.

Czarcasm

sup_dude wrote: »

Not sure if serious...

I'm absolutely serious, see my earlier post re: the difference between those students who stick rigidly to the curriculum and rote learn only the required material to pass their exams, and those students who go outside and beyond the curriculum to gain a broader understanding of a subject.

Self-motivation can be taught, but it's harder to teach a student who doesn't have it naturally.

Ave Sodalis

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm absolutely serious, see my earlier post re: the difference between those students who stick rigidly to the curriculum and rote learn only the required material to pass their exams, and those students who go outside and beyond the curriculum to gain a broader understanding of a subject.

Self-motivation can be taught, but it's harder to teach a student who doesn't have it naturally.

Bad teachers and bad schools most certainly exist. Bad schools are generally those who have many bad teachers. I agree that the student needs to take a certain amount of responsibility... but the want and desire to take responsibility can be lessen from primary school upwards. There are teachers who simply can't explain things very well, there are teachers who get angry more than actually teach, there are teachers who really don't care and just hand out sheets. Teachers aren't teachers unless they teach and there are teachers who cannot teach. These are bad teachers. Every single student is different. Yet there are teachers who blanket teach and assume everyone is the same. These are bad teachers too. You aren't teaching if students aren't learning.

Czarcasm

sup_dude wrote: »

Bad teachers and bad schools most certainly exist. Bad schools are generally those who have many bad teachers. I agree that the student needs to take a certain amount of responsibility... but the want and desire to take responsibility can be lessen from primary school upwards. There are teachers who simply can't explain things very well, there are teachers who get angry more than actually teach, there are teachers who really don't care and just hand out sheets. Teachers aren't teachers unless they teach and there are teachers who cannot teach. These are bad teachers. Every single student is different. Yet there are teachers who blanket teach and assume everyone is the same. These are bad teachers too. You aren't teaching if students aren't learning.

Where our approach differs from the outset is that I would place full responsibility on the child, that it would be in their best interests to want to learn, whereas you seem to be blaming teachers. I'm sure everyone is aware of teachers who simply had no passion, nor will, to engage with their students, but those teachers are by far in the minority.

The students who don't want to learn are also by far in the majority, and some teachers break their balls to motivate these students, at the cost of the students who are there to learn. The student that is either naturally, or taught from an early age to be self-motivated, will spot this inefficiency a mile off, and will take it upon themselves to self-teach themselves.

I'm not for a minute suggesting it's as flippantly easy as that. Of course it's that much harder to teach oneself when one is used to being taught, and one has no guidance or checks and balances in place from a higher authority, but it's certainly far from impossible for the person who is self-motivated, disciplined, and dedicated enough to do it.

That way, their teachers teaching ability doesn't have a negative impact on their individual learning capacity, and doesn't hold them back, as opposed to the students who waste time in class while the teacher is spending time with the least motivated students.

I understand where eddy is coming from, and I understand where he wants to go (rather than just preaching, the guy is commendably and ridiculously passionate about education), but I genuinely think he's going arse about face in his methodology. Rather than try to garner sympathy for his mature students, while at the same time running down other students who have just as much right to be there (we've had the merit vs financial means discussion before), I would say eddy should go right back to where education begins (I've been involved in primary education right up to third level for a number of years now, my mother still wants me to be a teacher like she was, never gonna happen!), because at third level if they haven't got it by then, they're unlikely to at any rate.

Ave Sodalis

Why do you think students don't want to learn? The vast majority of children love learning and love finding out things. They ask and ask and ask. It's completely within our nature to be curious... and yet, as you say, students who don't want to learn are the majority in schools. Where, in that time, did people lose the interest in learning? How did they lose it? Why do some schools work and others don't? Why do some teachers get consistently good grades from students and others don't?
The teacher's job is to teach. I put the majority of blame on the teachers because somewhere along a child's education, a child loses interest in learning. Primary school students are much too young to be expected to take full responsibility of their formal education. It is up to the teachers and parents to make sure the children are getting the fullest out of school. Bad teachers in primary school will affect secondary school. Bad teachers in secondary school won't help that and by the time third level comes around, the chances are they won't go.
I'll give you an example of what I mean. I love the Irish language. It was a subject I really wanted to do well in, but because none of my family could speak it or had any interest in it, I didn't have support that way. We come from a working class background and could not afford grinds, nevermind the Gaeltacht. I did mediocre in Irish for my Leaving Cert, but could have done much better, but the teacher focused on the students who could already speak Irish really well and practically ignored those who couldn't speak it that well. Opposing that was our English teacher. She had one of the highest pass rates in the school because she gave a damn. She encourages those doing well to do better and for those not doing too well, she put on extra classes and dedicated her time to helping.
I mean, yeah. Students do have to take responsibility for their learning and those who don't want to learn, won't but teachers have to facilitate those who do want to learn, whether they are doing well or not. As for the students who don't want to learn, you have to ask why. Why don't they want to learn? What happened to them that they lost interest in learning...?

Mardy Bum

steddyeddy wrote: »

C I'm at work but I'll stop you there. I'm not talking about bringing the top schools down I'm talking about bringing the rest up to match them.

DEIS schools receive far more government funding than other schools.

steddyeddy

Mardy Bum wrote: »

DEIS schools receive far more government funding than other schools.

Do they have more funding than all other schools?

sup_dude

sup_dude wrote: »

Why do you think students don't want to learn? The vast majority of children love learning and love finding out things. They ask and ask and ask. It's completely within our nature to be curious... and yet, as you say, students who don't want to learn are the majority in schools. Where, in that time, did people lose the interest in learning? How did they lose it? Why do some schools work and others don't? Why do some teachers get consistently good grades from students and others don't?
The teacher's job is to teach. I put the majority of blame on the teachers because somewhere along a child's education, a child loses interest in learning. Primary school students are much too young to be expected to take full responsibility of their formal education. It is up to the teachers and parents to make sure the children are getting the fullest out of school. Bad teachers in primary school will affect secondary school. Bad teachers in secondary school won't help that and by the time third level comes around, the chances are they won't go.
I'll give you an example of what I mean. I love the Irish language. It was a subject I really wanted to do well in, but because none of my family could speak it or had any interest in it, I didn't have support that way. We come from a working class background and could not afford grinds, nevermind the Gaeltacht. I did mediocre in Irish for my Leaving Cert, but could have done much better, but the teacher focused on the students who could already speak Irish really well and practically ignored those who couldn't speak it that well. Opposing that was our English teacher. She had one of the highest pass rates in the school because she gave a damn. She encourages those doing well to do better and for those not doing too well, she put on extra classes and dedicated her time to helping.
I mean, yeah. Students do have to take responsibility for their learning and those who don't want to learn, won't but teachers have to facilitate those who do want to learn, whether they are doing well or not. As for the students who don't want to learn, you have to ask why. Why don't they want to learn? What happened to them that they lost interest in learning...?

That a good point but you are only looking at one issue, for example say two students are studying Shakespeare both find it boring and uninteresting, however one has an eye on the prize and know they have to study it, so they buy in to system and its head down and study despite not liking or being interested in the subject, the other just think why bother its boring.

Mardy Bum

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do they have more funding than all other schools?

Apart from private schools yes they do and have greater access to resources.

steddyeddy

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Apart from private schools yes they do and have greater access to resources.

I'm going to disagree with you there. They certainly don't have the best teachers. They can't compete with private schools for the best teachers and they need them to counter balance the affects of environment and the lack of parental aid.

Ave Sodalis

mariaalice wrote: »

That a good point but you are only looking at one issue, for example say two students are studding Shakespeare both find it boring and uninteresting, however one has an eye on the prize and know they have to study it, so they buy in to system and its head down and study despite not liking or being interested in the subject, the other just think why bother its boring.

Which is a fault that lies more within the education system than the teachers. However, that doesn't stop the teacher from teaching it in an engaging and interesting way, and adapting the system to suit those in her class. Not everyone is going to be good at everything in school, nor is everyone going to be interested in everything but the chance to like something isn't always there, nor is the chance to actually want to find out whether or not someone likes something.


I mean, here's just a number of TED talks which illustrate how much actually relies on the teacher;
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms
http://www.ted.com/talks/ramsey_musallam_3_rules_to_spark_learning
http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_emdin_teach_teachers_how_to_create_magic
http://www.ted.com/talks/rita_pierson_every_kid_needs_a_champion
http://www.ted.com/talks/timothy_bartik_the_economic_case_for_preschool
http://www.ted.com/talks/jok_church_a_circle_of_caring
http://www.ted.com/talks/tyler_dewitt_hey_science_teachers_make_it_fun

Bourdieu is interesting on this if are in to Marxists thinkers.

For Bourdieu, formal education represents the key example of this process. Educational success, according to Bourdieu, entails a whole range of cultural behaviour, extending to ostensibly non-academic features like gait, dress, or accent. Privileged children have learned this behaviour, as have their teachers. Children of unprivileged backgrounds have not. The children of privilege therefore fit the pattern of their teachers' expectations with apparent 'ease'; they are 'docile'. The unprivileged are found to be 'difficult', to present 'challenges'. Yet both behave as their upbringing dictates. Bourdieu regards this 'ease', or 'natural' ability—distinction—as in fact the product of a great social labour, largely on the part of the parents. It equips their children with the dispositions of manner as well as thought which ensure they are able to succeed within the educational system and can then reproduce their parents' class position in the wider social system.

Mardy Bum

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm going to disagree with you there. They certainly don't have the best teachers. They can't compete with private schools for the best teachers and they need them to counter balance the affects of environment and the lack of parental aid.

Resources as in resource classes. Access to extra support, behavioural management support, learning support etc. There are a tiny amount of private schools in Ireland compared with normal schools. Are normal schools also at a disadvantage? Teachers come in all shapes and sizes and the idea that all teachers in private schools are superior is misguided. Students from areas of social deprivation receive a lot of support. The biggest issue as I have said is parenting.

It is not just those from inner city Dublin who don't go to college there are many rural parents who would say there son will take over the farm and has no need for good grades in school or in some cases attend school. This is also misguided but it has nothing to do with teachers, grants or the government. It is the danger of engrained thinking and can effect anyone regardless of social class.

Skill Magill

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Jesus all the nerds are out tonight!.

Judging your avatar they haven't got a thing to wear?

Piliger

sup_dude wrote: »

As for the students who don't want to learn, you have to ask why. Why don't they want to learn? What happened to them that they lost interest in learning...?

Yes. Do that. And stop looking to the government to fix it. Look to their parents and their families. And next you can look to the teaching unions. They are the ones who block every bit of progressing development in teaching and who are responsible for schools not being able to fire incompetent teachers. The only reason private schools get better teachers is nothing to do with money. It is because they can fire crap teachers and employ competent ones.

Piliger

Piliger wrote: »

Yes. Do that. And stop looking to the government to fix it. Look to their parents and their families. And next you can look to the teaching unions. They are the ones who block every bit of progressing development in teaching and who are responsible for schools not being able to fire incompetent teachers. The only reason private schools get better teachers is nothing to do with money. It is because they can fire crap teachers and employ competent ones.

Why do you think fee paying schools have different employment conditions than non fee paying schools in Ireland, and as has been pointed out fee paying schools are a tiny percentage of schools in Ireland.

dd972

Piliger wrote: »

Nonsense. I grew up in a three bed, middle class house with four siblings and two parents. My son grew up in a three bed with no siblings and never studied for five minutes at home. These are just excuses.

More nonsense. My parents left school at 13. I brought the vocabulary into the house by reading.


More silly excuses. Libraries with free newspapers, Both of my managing directors over the last ten years had broad Sheriff street accents.


Wrong. Most of them get hammered by parents and family who don't give a sh1t.

oh really, and lest we forget, the other big determinant of life chances €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€

steddyeddy

I have two pages of comments to reply too and I promise I will reply to them. The first thing I have to say is I agree 100% that a parent should foster a child's natural curiosity. Any who don't need a kick in the privates.

Now I think we can all accept that there are sh1tty parents out there who don't care about their children's education or even feel jealous of the child or threatened by it (it does happen). Right so based on that do we just accept that fact and say "Ah well their parents don't care so we don't and it's not the school's fault because all schools are good". Just because a kid has crap parents doesn't mean that the kid isn't academically bright.

Now you might say to me that the schools are doing the best and no matter how good the school bad parents are to blame. That hypothesis makes perfect sense to me and I would believe it if not for the following contradictions:

• I hadn't got parental support due to family breakdown. I went to a DEIS school. The teachers literally didn't give a monkeys whether we went to college or not. In fact it was never suggested to us. When one kid asked about college he was asked how he would afford it and told college is very hard. We have a problem of teachers in some schools who don't expect the kids to go to third level and this carries on to the students.

• I might have been alone in that experience had I no eventually got to college through scholarship and rose in rank to have some teaching and researching responsibility in the college. I have met tons of mature students and HEAR students who tell me the exact same thing. This is happening again and again. People regardless of their parents have an interest in history, science literature and the teachers don't foster that interest. Student thinks he/her is useless and leaves school or doesn't fulfil their true potential.
• I meet students who shouldn't be there. What do I mean by shouldn't be there. I only mean they lack interest. That's it. I think interest is followed by academic ability and then brain remodelling and then intelligence.
• Finland is a country like any other. I mean that it has sh1t and good parents. In the last few years Finland restructured it's schools , the student-pupil ratio in each school was standardised and the gap literacy and science rate between the rich and poor in Finland shrunk to nearly nothing. The more scientific minded of us will recognise that if you change one variable and new results appear it's usually down to the variable.

In short yes there are crap parents but schools can rectify that to a large degree. Currently they're not trying hard enough.

Czarcasm

steddyeddy wrote: »

• Finland is a country like any other. I mean that it has sh1t and good parents. In the last few years Finland restructured it's schools , the student-pupil ratio in each school was standardised and the gap literacy and science rate between the rich and poor in Finland shrunk to nearly nothing. The more scientific minded of us will recognise that if you change one variable and new results appear it's usually down to the variable.

In short yes there are crap parents but schools can rectify that to a large degree. Currently they're not trying hard enough.

This is probably going to sound like a stupid question then, but, the one variable (or catalyst if you will), that you're missing in your formula above is a chemical called money. It's not an organic chemical, doesn't grow on trees, and can only be refined from finite sources...

Where's the money going to come from to pay for your reform plan?


I think you're being very unfair tbh saying schools aren't trying hard enough. They absolutely are, but without parental support, they might as well be pissing into the wind. You go straight for the children, and you inspire them, and in 10, 20 years time, that's when you'll start seeing results, rather than trying to change the attitudes of the current generation.

Mardy Bum

steddyeddy wrote: »

In short yes there are crap parents but schools can rectify that to a large degree. Currently they're not trying hard enough.

Ireland has one of the highest third level participation rates in the EU and each year more and more are applying to the CAO. That is a fact and no matter how much you try to disparage teachers working in difficult areas you can't get away from that fact.

Piliger

mariaalice wrote: »

Why do you think fee paying schools have different employment conditions

because they do.

steddyeddy

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Ireland has one of the highest third level participation rates in the EU and each year more and more are applying to the CAO. That is a fact and no matter how much you try to disparage teachers working in difficult areas you can't get away from that fact.

The same old all teachers are great because they have a difficult job attitude.

steddyeddy

Piliger wrote: »

because they do.

And I agree with you there. All schools should model themselves on private schools if possible.

Piliger

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Ireland has one of the highest third level participation rates in the EU and each year more and more are applying to the CAO. That is a fact and no matter how much you try to disparage teachers working in difficult areas you can't get away from that fact.

Except its nonsense. Most kids achieving success are on grinds. Either to compensate for the huge percentage if carp teachers or to get to an elite level that few teachers here can take them.

Mardy Bum

steddyeddy wrote: »

The same old all teachers are great because they have a difficult job attitude.

Are you avoiding my fact and going straight for the insult on purpose? If Ireland has one of the highest participation rates in the EU does that mean teachers in most other countries are worse?

Mardy Bum

Piliger wrote: »

Except its nonsense. Most kids achieving success are on grinds. Either to compensate for the huge percentage if carp teachers or to get to an elite level that few teachers here can take them.

Facts are nonsense...
Attendance rates at third level has nothing to do with grinds.

Piliger

Piliger wrote: »

because they do.

Do you want to explain how they have different contracts of employment in fee paying schools or are you talking about grind schools like the institute of education?

steddyeddy

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Are you avoiding my fact and going straight for the insult on purpose? If Ireland has one of the highest participation rates in the EU does that mean teachers in most other countries are worse?

Correlation and causation until we know all the facts. I had absolutely terrible teachers. I made it to be a scientist now with external help so in hindsight the problem clearly wasn't me. There are children all over the country saying their teacher doesn't want to teach them and it's ignored again and again.

Cantremember

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course and we still have to look at why certain schools send very few people to universities.

There are many reasons that can be posited; generational poverty and unemployment, a culture of exclusion within the universities, a culture within the working class communities of not going to university, schools in middle class areas being better resourced in terms of numbers of teachers and range of subjects, families in middle class areas better off financially and able to afford grinds etc.

Kathleen Lynch has written quite a lot on educational equality

Missing from your list: monkey do what monkey see. Kids tend to emulate what they see promoted in the home. And some kids have no wish to go to 3rd level. They want to work with their hands. They want to be mechanics and hairdressers and they should never be forced to follow some idiotic social policy devised on the premise that everyone should aspire to academia. The boss in Aer Lingus got it right: there should be far more respect for technical education in Ireland up to technical universities.