Scucca

Come on, at least give me a proper source. I'm not interested in inane bias

__________________

new coup for you

oh god, the unbelievable irony!!

__________________
And why does your tone suggest that you do not care about children?

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike.

Scucca

Given your understanding of irony, I have to assume that you are indeed Alanis Morissette.

Don't worry about the autograph, I've never liked your stuff

gunner

You cant just disregard a Link due to it not meeting your quality control standards!! You need to come out of that bubble Succa there's a whole world outside.

Poorer children at grammar schools gain better GCSEs| News | This is London



Paul.

__________________
Always judge a lady by the contents of her mind, never by the shape of her bum.

Scucca

That isn't a cunning comment! Of course quality control standards should be employed (indeed, best practice warrants reliance on published work that has gone through a peer refereeing process). Would you use a BNP site to learn about immigration effects? I hope not.

The Atkinson and Gregg stuff (which has been kicking about since 2004) isn't really a good one for you to use. First, it finds that "overall there is little or no impact on attainment" (advertising the invalidity of your "wrong, to judge a Grammar school is to judge “that” school by its performance in isolation" comment). Second, we have significant differences in the characteristics of student backgrounds. Thus, whilst they have 12% in non-grammar schools entitled to free school meals, its only 2% in grammar schools. The paper therefore confirms the consequences of inequality of opportunity (where 'poorer children in selective LEAs are only half as likely to attend a grammar school as other children with the same underlying ability')

Happy Days

Of course there was fairness. You really miss the point that educated parents will lead to educated children. Most people who have a higher education will have a high regard for education and they will pass this on to their children. Those children will work harder at school and therefore will do better in school. That is why the middle and upper classes dominated the universities. Those children from poorer backgrounds had parents too busy working low paid jobs to spend time teaching them and encouraging them to work hard at school. The fact stands that university places were granted on educational ability and not on the ability to pay. Seems that was fairer to poor people than anything else I've seen.


Young lads who left school at 16 were able to be employed by tradesmen who taught them the trade. That is how Britain trained its plumbers, woodworkers, electricians, etc. It was an excellent system.

Happy Days

I agree with you, Paul. I think that children from lower income families who make it into grammar school will strive to succeed. They have the intelligence to be there and with the work ethic will outperform children from higher income families who have been helped along by their parents. The key is getting into the grammar school in the first place, which is easier for children from higher income families. I have friends who had their children tutored in order to help them pass the entrance exams. This is not something that many low income families can afford to do.

Scucca

Its actually more involved than that. We have to factor in the consequences of wealth concentration. Indeed, as your hubby will be able to tell you, the human capital model predicts that (after controlling for ability differences) youngsters from a richer background will invest more in education. We also have to factor in basic inequalities at the secondary education stage, where the probability of achieving entry standards is hindered.

The impact of the increase in university places demonstrates nicely the inequities. Those places tended to go to low ability students from a middle class background, leading to reductions in social mobility.

Apprenticeships? Our system virtually collapsed in the 70s/80s. However, it failed to eliminate our skill shortage problem and made little in-roads on our low skill equilibrium. Also the modern system is essentially modeled on the German system (which we lag behind)

Happy Days

I'm seriously wondering why you made it sound as if you disagreed with me when in fact you basically just reiterated what I said?

Sorry, but wha? Why would universities give places to low ability students? Unless, of course, those students paid more than the government would for the same spot. This indicates that a free market economy system was probably what was actually required, as it usually is.


Why did the old system fail and need to be replaced? It worked well. More emphasis is being placed on certificates these days than actual training and experience.

Scucca

Then you didn't understand what I said. You typed "of course there was fairness" whilst I described why inequities were rampant.

Given those inequities I've referred to, there is a lower probability of a high ability student from a poor background attending university. Thus, the extra places are more likely to be taken up by lower ability workers from a rich background.

There were numerous reasons. A mundane explanation is structural change in the economy with informal on-the-job training preferred (particularly in the service sector). However, we also have to refer to the consequences of the "free market". There was a move towards labour market flexibility which encouraged non-traditional forms of employment (particularly part time and temporary contracts). This reduced the value from employers investing in training and therefore further hampered our skills base. The return to apprenticeships is a reaction against that (and of course your hubby would know that the free market fails to deliver because of the distinction between "specific" and "general" human capital)