nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

steddyeddy

You can't describe a child's academic ability accurately by a socio economic class IMHO. You also can't judge a child by his/her parents attendance or non attendance at college. Yet this is something I see on Boards again and again.

Some threads focusing on education display the mantra "working class children do not want to go onto further education". I sometimes have to demonstrate to students and have some teaching responsibility at third level. Many of these students include working class mature students and as you will be aware many sub mature students come from middle class families. The mature students went to crap schools and were told that they shouldn't aspire to college (code for the teachers didn't want to teach them) and some of the less bright middle class students encountered the opposite upbringing and got to college (and later dropped out/failed).

The simple fact is many working class students should be there and there are many middle class students who shouldn't be there. If working class students aren't getting to college it's because of environment and not academic ability and because they hear some idiots (including their teachers sometimes) "working class students don't want to go to college.

We're approaching 2015 we have to stop defining the academic ability of children by the social class they were born into. This thread isn't my way of saying that middle class parents should stop giving their kids the best start in life I'm simply saying that academic ability is down unrelated to the class you are born into

. We also need to bring up the standards of all schools to match the standards of the better schools in the country.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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

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: »

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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...

Czarcasm

steddyeddy wrote: »

My inference is that it's easier for an low ability child in a good school to get into college than it is for an average ability child from a sh1t school to get into college. I came to that opinion because I see below average middle class children in college and working class mature students go to college much later because (in their opinion anyway) their school is at fault. I'm not blaming good schools for this I'm blaming bad schools.

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.

They're the type that are at the bottom of the ladder, always looking at the people on the top rung of the ladder, and wondering "How did they get up there?". See those rungs in the middle? That's how, but these people don't want to know about the work it takes to get there, they missed it early in life, and now they're trying to catch up, and not only that, trying to pull the ladder up behind them!

[Deleted User]

steddyeddy wrote: »

My inference is that it's easier for an low ability child in a good school to get into college than it is for an average ability child from a sh1t school to get into college. I came to that opinion because I see below average middle class children in college and working class mature students go to college much later because (in their opinion anyway) their school is at fault. I'm not blaming good schools for this I'm blaming bad schools.

Although I don't totally agree with you in some ways thats the important point, academically bright people will always go to college if they want to no matter what their background and in middle class areas the middling will go as well, in areas that are deprived its more mixed for the middle group, but that is a very complex problem to fix. What make a better school anyway.

OldNotWIse

steddyeddy wrote: »

My inference is that it's easier for an low ability child in a good school to get into college than it is for an average ability child from a sh1t school to get into college. I came to that opinion because I see below average middle class children in college and working class mature students go to college much later because (in their opinion anyway) their school is at fault. I'm not blaming good schools for this I'm blaming bad schools.

Perhaps, but more importantly, if there were more teachers that rocked the classroom like Michelle Pfeiffer, I think attendance rates would rocket :P

steddyeddy

By the way if anyone would love to enter science and didn't have the opportunity after school please PM for advice. Part of my Raison d'être in life is to help people rectify this.

steddyeddy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

how exactly does this help?

So sick of the constant inference that working class kids are all undiscovered genii and victims of society, and middle class kids dont actually work they just manage to pass their exams because of their status.

My inference is that it's easier for an low ability child in a good school to get into college than it is for an average ability child from a sh1t school to get into college. I came to that opinion because I see below average middle class children in college and working class mature students go to college much later because (in their opinion anyway) their school is at fault. I'm not blaming good schools for this I'm blaming bad schools.

Piliger

dd972 wrote: »

The dice are loaded in middle class children's favour, bigger quieter houses with a big bedroom they can do their homework undisturbed in,

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 intelligent and broader discourse in the home where they pick up an extended vocabulary earlier ( and with a middle class accent all the better ),

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

access to books in the home, broadsheet papers, better food, better sports facilities in their schools, a nicer environment around the home ( compare Clontarf to Darndale, only 4 or 5 km apart ).

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

Unfortunately there are naturally bright working class kids who could have excelled their middle class counterparts had they had this advantage.

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

OldNotWIse

dd972 wrote: »

The dice are loaded in middle class children's favour, bigger quieter houses with a big bedroom they can do their homework undisturbed in, more intelligent and broader discourse in the home where they pick up an extended vocabulary earlier ( and with a middle class accent all the better ), access to books in the home, broadsheet papers, better food, better sports facilities in their schools, a nicer environment around the home ( compare Clontarf to Darndale, only 4 or 5 km apart ).

Unfortunately there are naturally bright working class kids who could have excelled their middle class counterparts had they had this advantage.

how exactly does this help?

So sick of the constant inference that working class kids are all undiscovered genii and victims of society, and middle class kids dont actually work they just manage to pass their exams because of their status.

dd972

The dice are loaded in middle class children's favour, bigger quieter houses with a big bedroom they can do their homework undisturbed in, more intelligent and broader discourse in the home where they pick up an extended vocabulary earlier ( and with a middle class accent all the better ), access to books in the home, broadsheet papers, better food, better sports facilities in their schools, a nicer environment around the home ( compare Clontarf to Darndale, only 4 or 5 km apart ). The infantilism of being a hard man / smartarse, being able to hold your ale, isn't part of the middle class experience.

Unfortunately there are naturally bright working class kids who could have excelled their middle class counterparts had they had this advantage.

Piliger

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not judging anyone, I stated two facts that when read in conjunction with each other rebut a point made by someone else. Money is not a subsitute for hard work. I was sent to a private school and a certain relative with a chip on her shoulder shrugged off every achievement I ever made with "well when you only have one you can afford to go private cant you?" - as if there was no credit due to me for working my ass off? The fúck with that.

You're 100% right.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the take home point for me is that environment and school are the major factors in college entry and not intelligence and academic ability.

I wouldn't disagree at all, but I'd have thought that this would have been the prevailing opinion anyway, rather than some recently-reached conclusion.

I mean, the alternative is that 'working class' kids are simply less intelligent, and I can honestly say I've never heard that opinion expressed by anybody.

OldNotWIse

steddyeddy wrote: »

Who knows what was going on in her life ONW? What's the point in judging her?

I'm not judging anyone, I stated two facts that when read in conjunction with each other rebut a point made by someone else. Money is not a subsitute for hard work. I was sent to a private school and a certain relative with a chip on her shoulder shrugged off every achievement I ever made with "well when you only have one you can afford to go private cant you?" - as if there was no credit due to me for working my ass off? The fúck with that.

Piliger

steddyeddy wrote: »

We're approaching 2015 we have to stop defining the academic ability of children by the social class they were born into. This thread isn't my way of saying that middle class parents should stop giving their kids the best start in life I'm simply saying that academic ability is down unrelated to the class you are born into . We also need to bring up the standards of all schools to match the standards of the better schools in the country.

Ability is irrelevant when kids don't bother their arses. Unfortunately children from the working class and the professional benefits class have little chance of success in school because of their parents and wider families. Schools in working class areas re just as good as in middle class areas and their biggest handicap is the appalling quality of teachers, who are overpaid and under worked.
I've seen it from several different areas in Dublin where I have lived and no amount of blaming institutions will change the professional benefits culture.

hairybelly

What in the name of jaysus ....

steddyeddy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

snore.... I knew a girl who was sent to the Institute and got 85 points in her leaving.

Who knows what was going on in her life ONW? What's the point in judging her?

steddyeddy

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think it's one of those "In modern times" things where eddy expects we should have equal educational opportunities for all (except the people he deems unworthy of course). The thing about schemes like the HEAR program is that they're funded by the institutions, which are funded by fee-paying students.

Without the fee-paying students that eddy thinks shouldn't be there, there would be no HEAR program, and those students funded by these schemes would have to work harder to fund their third level education... just like the vast majority of third level students then.

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.

Ave Sodalis

It's like a quote I read "what if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of someone who can't afford education" and I think it applies here too. I do think that there are far too many people discouraged from going to third level education and it's not entirely money related. I come from a working class background and rely entirely on the grant but it's achievable. My mother is even going to college in September, which I'm only really mentioning because I'm extremely proud of her, as she fell pregnant with me before finishing her leaving. It's more than possible for someone from a working class background to go to third level education. However, there are obvious barriers there.

I personally think it comes down to two things. The home and the school. Attitude at home is a huge deciding factor in whether a child continues their education. If the whole family is not expecting a child to go on, nor expecting a child to be capable of going on, then it will be extremely difficult to get rid of that mindset.
The school plays another large part, as far back as primary school. Good teachers are very important in the student's drive to succeed academically and, in my own experiences, there's too many (not saying a lot but too many regardless) teachers that don't realize this responsibility and the large effect they have on whether a student progresses or not.

In relation to difference in working class and middle class students. There are none, if given the same opportunity.

OldNotWIse

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes indeed based on the inability to afford the same schools.

snore.... I knew a girl who was sent to the Institute and got 85 points in her leaving.

Annasopra

mariaalice wrote: »

Steadedy I am not saying you are not right in some of you points, however schools have changed, fee paying education is a very Dublin thing there are fee paying schools outside Dublin but its not really an issue for the majority, society is changing work is becoming less traditional and more diffuse. We are becoming a more egalitarian society, we have a very high participation rate at third level as is. Schools could have done a lot better in the past thats true but they cant solve every problem in society.

Your posts come across as a bit old fashioned with the reasoning and argument of 1980s community/ social justice activists.

Are we really becoming a more egalitarian society? I do wonder what evidence there is of that?

[Deleted User]

Steadedy I am not saying you are not right in some of you points, however schools have changed, fee paying education is a very Dublin thing there are fee paying schools outside Dublin but its not really an issue for the majority, society is changing work is becoming less traditional and more diffuse. We are becoming a more egalitarian society, we have a very high participation rate at third level as is. Schools could have done a lot better in the past thats true but they cant solve every problem in society.

Your posts come across as a bit old fashioned with the reasoning and argument of 1980s community/ social justice activists.

Czarcasm

Akrasia wrote: »

It's a cliche about children that they ask the 'why why why why why' question. Some parents say 'Because I said so' or 'Because it just is' and they're missing an amazing opportunity to turn the question back to the child 'why do you think it is?' and let them come up with an explanation on their own and see where that conversation takes you.

I do this with my child all the time, drives him bonkers sometimes :pac:

But, as you say, the conversation does go some interesting and wonderful places, and outside philosophy I would correct him on the more factual things, like structured programming concepts and what not, but concepts like physics I'm a bit more flexible, and he retains information better, when he has a number of perspectives on it from informed sources that he sought out himself, and understands himself.

It's something I taught myself as a child and I always encourage other students not just to stick to the curriculum, but to go outside the curriculum and get a number of different perspectives, read books in other languages (French or German literature for example if they're learning French or German in school), and don't confine themselves to memorising by rote learning just for the sake of passing their exams.

I think sometimes people are too quick to hold the curriculum responsible for the poor educational standards in Ireland, but there's no reason anyone actually has to stick rigidly to the curriculum. In that case, they can only blame themselves.

Arthur Beesley

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

What does the OP even mean by middle class. Historically middle class != middle income. Nowhere near it.

By and large, though I am not a Marxist, I tend to the Marxist definition of working class. The class which has to sell its labour to survive. As opposed to the class which lives off that labour, or the petit bourgeois who are self employed.

So we are mostly working class. Some of the more diligent members of that class send their chikdren to university more than others. And most people in Ireland go to non fee paying schools.

Define 'labour'? Is sitting at a desk as an employer and coding considered labour?

Versus doing the same, at the same desk but as a contractor?

Czarcasm

Temporal Loop wrote: »

Can you just clarify why you point out that we are approaching 2015?

Ten years ago we were approaching 2005 and in ten years time we'll be approaching 2025. Is there something special about 2015?

I think it's one of those "In modern times" things where eddy expects we should have equal educational opportunities for all (except the people he deems unworthy of course). The thing about schemes like the HEAR program is that they're funded by the institutions, which are funded by fee-paying students.

Without the fee-paying students that eddy thinks shouldn't be there, there would be no HEAR program, and those students funded by these schemes would have to work harder to fund their third level education... just like the vast majority of third level students then.

Frank Lee Midere

Rachiee wrote: »

While class doesn't dictate ability it can have a huge impact on ability. Even from before birth children from lower socio economic backgrounds are at a disadvantage.
1.They are more likely to have a low birth weight or for substance misuse to have been a problem during pregnancy which can affect their brain development.
2.Then they are less likely to have access to early education and their parents may not be educated around child development and as such will not be inclined to encourage developmental play.
3.Having not had access to early education they will take longer to settle in to a classroom setting.
4.Once learning begins children are taught to read and spell phonetically.if the child comes from an area or community that does not pronounce words correctly the child is at a profound disadvantage in this respect. 5.They may also not be able to get help or encouragement with homework.
6.they may not have books or learning materials at home.
7.they may not have anywhere conducive to homework if they are living in cold or overcrowded accomodation or are homeless.
8.They are more likely to attend school stressed or hungry affecting concentration.
9.They have fewer encouraging role models. For them to move onto third level education. But by the time they are into secondary school they may already be so far behind other students that that is the least of their worries.
So yeah while where you are from doesn't mean you won't be able academically it means you are starting from way behind and may need a few extra helping hands.

Hang on now. Why do people who sell their labour for money have "substance abuse"?

Is this the Dublin pseud socialist argument that the working classes are people who don't work?

Akrasia

I think the attitude of the parents towards working hard and bettering themselves is the most important indicator for how the children will do in education.

It's about priorities.

Depressingly, there are lots of people out there who have a negative attitude towards learning and critical thinking and science and education.

There are lots of children out there who have never been read to. Children whose parents never ask their children to think about how the world works and explore it.

Richard Feynman, who comes close to being my personal hero (if i had one) always used to talk about his father and how his father's love of finding things out inspired him. Feynmans father wasn't formally a highly educated man, but he had an amazing attitude towards knowledge.

"[My father] knew the difference between knowing the name of something, and knowing something."

It doesn't really matter what a bird's latin name is, you can know all of the names of all of the birds but still not know anything about them. You get to truly understand something by observing it carefully, and then asking questions about why it behaves the way that it does.

My own kids are young, my oldest is starting junior infants this year, but I've taken enormous delight in revealing to them some of the most amazing mechanisms for how the world works. The motions of the planets, how life evolves, how the human body works, how energy and matter are all the same, how big the universe is, and how tiny the quantum universe is...

It's a cliche about children that they ask the 'why why why why why' question. Some parents say 'Because I said so' or 'Because it just is' and they're missing an amazing opportunity to turn the question back to the child 'why do you think it is?' and let them come up with an explanation on their own and see where that conversation takes you.

Rachiee

While class doesn't dictate ability it can have a huge impact on ability. Even from before birth children from lower socio economic backgrounds are at a disadvantage.
1.They are more likely to have a low birth weight or for substance misuse to have been a problem during pregnancy which can affect their brain development.
2.Then they are less likely to have access to early education and their parents may not be educated around child development and as such will not be inclined to encourage developmental play.
3.Having not had access to early education they will take longer to settle in to a classroom setting.
4.Once learning begins children are taught to read and spell phonetically.if the child comes from an area or community that does not pronounce words correctly the child is at a profound disadvantage in this respect. 5.They may also not be able to get help or encouragement with homework.
6.they may not have books or learning materials at home.
7.they may not have anywhere conducive to homework if they are living in cold or overcrowded accomodation or are homeless.
8.They are more likely to attend school stressed or hungry affecting concentration.
9.They have fewer encouraging role models. For them to move onto third level education. But by the time they are into secondary school they may already be so far behind other students that that is the least of their worries.
So yeah while where you are from doesn't mean you won't be able academically it means you are starting from way behind and may need a few extra helping hands.