observer Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Seems despite all the dumbing down of our education system, Britain is still lacking "social mobility" - so what's the answer? Are kids born into deprivation socially trapped? Can we all have "the dream" and realise it, even if we all want to become footballers or pop-idols? Or are a large proportion of folk just too thick to progress in society?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 So lowering the standards didn't work then? You can have a realistic dreams and achieve them or pipe dreams and more often than not come up short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Seems despite all the dumbing down of our education system, Britain is still lacking "social mobility" - so what's the answer? Are kids born into deprivation socially trapped? Can we all have "the dream" and realise it, even if we all want to become footballers or pop-idols? Or are a large proportion of folk just too thick to progress in society?! Gosh so many questions. Expecting a simple answer well there isn't one and I don't even accept your premise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 The whole country is full of kids who are victims of the dumbed down education system. It has turned many into Knuckle scraping neanderthals that have no ambition and even less education to drive the ambition. Social security is their right (as they see it) and why should anyone else have something better than what they can afford? is their look on life. Tracksuits, baseball caps and pants tucked in the socks define this "underclass" of potential prison dwellers Go and sit at any cafe in town and watch the world go by and you will see what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Levy Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Tracksuits, baseball caps and pants tucked in the socks define this "underclass" of potential prison dwellers Go and sit at any cafe in town and watch the world go by and you will see what I mean. It would be wrong to assume everyone who wears this type of the clothing commits crime as that is simply not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 I often wonder to what degree social mobility is restricted by parents nowadays. For those that do recognise and take the opportunities that are available how many do not make that connection or are held back by their parent's lack of ambition for their offspring? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Tracksuits, baseball caps and pants tucked in the socks define this "underclass" of potential prison dwellers Go and sit at any cafe in town and watch the world go by and you will see what I mean. It would be wrong to assume everyone who wears this type of the clothing commits crime as that is simply not the case. I called them "potential prison dwellers" merely an observation and nowhere did I say they all commit crimes. However I would be more expectant of them commiting a crime than a similar aged person who did not dress like that. It was an observation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Not my "premise" Geoff; but the conclusion of the Gov's own Social Mobility Task Force. Is it a coincidence, (generally speaking); that the children of say middle class teachers may develope a taste for learning, whilst the children of a chav matriach may struggle to read, write or even speak properly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Missunderstood your many questions. No coincidence between teachers and their children's propensity to learn and realise the importance of learning. Teacher's children will as a consequence of their parent's skills, knoweldege and drive exceed more than those whose parents don't have such a background. I'm involved in several initiatives to try and foster such interest and inspire youngsters to take an interest in helping children to aim higher and realise that they can have greater expectations. This involves poeple coming to school to talk about how they have used the skills learnt at school to get jobs such as rugby footballers, nurses, pilots, managers police man etc. They describe what they do and the rewards that they experience be it money, prestige, car, satisfaction, challenges etc. There are too many children who do have the ability (so are NOT thick) and can succeed if barriers are lowered or removed (parents expectations raised for their chilren). However this isn't an easy process and is a long one. I have written a letter to the reader's column commenting on my recent observations about youngsters who have inspired me and there have been more examples over Christmas. It's easy to sit a in a cafe observing passers by but don't just focus on the young take a look at the rest. We need to push and instill in children that they can achieve at what ever they want to do. As a parent I know how challenging and frustrating that is but then when you see the rewards it makes it all worth while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I note in that one of today's papers it is being reported that top teachers are being offered ?10,000 extra to teach in the more difficult schools. Thankfully, despite reality television, and role models who set a poor example, including their parents in some cases, many of our young people are keen for academic achievement. I still believe the people who Baz describes are a minority, albeit one that is probably increasing and I sense more so females than males. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Give me a child of seven - and I'll give you the man etc: A child born into a "Chav" houshold, even if they could develope realistic and rational aspirations, has to combat the gravity of his/her upbringing, brought up on junk food, eaten while watching some mind numbing TV soap, amidst a fog of tobacco or spliv smoke, and the smell of stale beer cans - a case for some radical intervention to salvage the situation methinks?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Who'd even consider giving you a child to look after with a ststement like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 If you try to improve a child's life by taking it out of its unhealthy environment do you qualify for Mobility Allowance; Subsection Social. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 So are the (albeit extreme) conditions I describe Geoff, not applicable in any houshold? I would suggest they're probably more common than you would wish to concede, hence the problem with social mobility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Yes these conditions do exist in households in Warrington - maybe one of our council officers can quantify to what extent. Improving children's education is just one part of the jig-saw puzzle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 "Quantify" - again?! The Council has already produced an anti-poverty strategy, with an index of deprivation throughout the Borough - alas, this Government didn't supply the funding or the powers to do anything about it. Talk about going round in circles! Seems, on the face of it, that if "the home enviroment" is a major causative factor in restricting ambition and aspiration in the young, then the form of intervention to break this cycle of ignorance, needs to involve less time at home and more time at school? As for the economic differentials, these have continued to widen under 11 years of NuLab, because they totally failed to re-introduce re-distributionary tax rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Isn't a major problem, the fact that they either don't go to school, get excluded or have "don't give a toss" parents who actively encourage them not to be interested. No amount of money will change things if they fodder isn't there to work on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 That's the point I'm making Peter; the problem is one of re-cycling ignorance; the question is, how do you break that cycle? IF parents abuse their kids, Social Services take them into care (in theory at least, although no longer in practise it seems!); so if they neglect their children culturally and educationally, perhaps there is a case for some kind of direct intervention?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.