This is going to cause ructions, isn’t it?

Schools with 20 per cent or more of pupils from poor backgrounds see lower attainment for all children, a global study has found.

Research by Lancaster University found that attainment for all pupils in a UK school falls if as few as one in five students are classed as disadvantaged.

The study, which compared educational attainment across nine countries, concluded that pupils in the UK are more affected by the social background they come from than any other factor.

Researchers said the figures showed that the “tipping point” at which a school became a “sink school” which holds its pupils back was based on “quite a low proportion of disadvantaged students going to that school”.

“As soon as you’ve got a lot of disadvantaged students in a school, that is going to cause a drop-off in the performance of a randomly picked student from that schools,” said Geraint Johnes, a professor of economics at Lancaster University Management School, and co-author of the study, published in the European Journal of Operational Research.

Letting the chavs in degrades outcomes for everyone.

What’s really going to be amusing is watching them sorting out what the party line should be on this? Do we insist upon chavs in every school so all are equal? I’m sure someone will use that argument. But what is going to emerge as that party line interpretation of this research?

28 comments on “This is going to cause ructions, isn’t it?

  1. What’s new? The whole reason why grammar’s are considered bad is because it isolates the more able from the less able. We were told the education of bright kids has to be degraded to improve the education of dim kids.

  2. Presumably it is because a small number of disruptive students can prevent everyone else learning. Given that the Education system will not confront or punish such students, it does not take many before no one is learning.

    The solution is quasi-Borstals. Special schools where the disruptive can go with a lot of physical activity before class, gates and fences so they can’t cut, and what we might politely call facilities for boarding.

    All good preparation for their future careers as prison rapists.

  3. Presumably it is because a small number of disruptive students can prevent everyone else learning

    This. And because the UK schooling system insists on giving the squeaky wheel all the grease.

  4. My high school has the bright idea of accepting expelled students from the nearby sink school so that the good learning environment will rub off on them so they can unlock their true potential

    Result? Their disruption rubbed off on several kids who got dragged them down with them as classrooms became a near war zone.

  5. if as few as one in five students are classed as disadvantaged

    …that’s an interesting use of the word “few”.

    pupils in the UK are more affected by the social background they come from than any other factor

    …so the study propagates the offensive idea that people who are less well off are necessarily rowdy and disruptive.

    The ‘party line’ will be that the state must spend more money the only nuance between the parties will be where the money should be wasted.

  6. JuliaM said:
    “I’m with TMB, how the hell is ONE IN FIVE just ‘a few’?”

    Depends on their definition of “disadvantaged”. If that includes 20% of pupils, then they’re talking about an average class. Wouldn’t surprise me if even more than that were officially classed as “disadvantaged”.

  7. This is not an accident. The creation of morons has long been a pillar of Left wing politics – looking at demographic trends as well the future belongs to them. Resistance may well be futile. Your culture will adapt to service theirs.

  8. I was in the percentage of kids in my school classed as disadvantaged. My parents were not paying anything like the fees charged.
    The disruptive kids I can recall from my year – sons of lawyers (both parents being lawyers), a surgeon, a judge, a businessman.
    Tended to be the disadvantaged kids who tried to get on with learning.
    Around 30% were on assisted places and another 10% on scholarships.

  9. RichardT :Depends on their definition of “disadvantaged”

    Just so. In the snippet above, “disadvantaged” seems woolly and means having a “poor” background or alternatively a “poor background”.

    On top of that, pupils whose learning is disrupted are also being disadvantaged but that’s an entirely different form of “disadvantage” once again.

  10. ‘Schools with 20 per cent or more of pupils from poor backgrounds see lower attainment for all children’

    A victory in the war against inequality.

  11. This research falls in to the category of: “shit that is already known, but not admitted by politicians and educators”.

    I’m surprised they were allowed to conduct the research in the first place and even more surprised they published the results.

  12. the type of borstal school described did used to exist, I had family that worked at one for many years before it closed down (At least 15 years ago) and the land sold off, not sure what if anything it was replaced with.
    Seem to recall that a basic education and turning out a functioning adult were the key goals

  13. Thick people tend to be poor (usual boring caveats apply). Thick people tend to have thick kids. Thick people tend, all else being equal, to be worse-behaved and more feckless than the average (the bad behaviour and the fecklessness are major contributors to their poverty, of course.) So lumping poor, thick kids in with everyone else will have insalubrious outcomes.

  14. “Thick people tend to have thick kids.”

    Yep. That’s cultural inheritance – people learn their work ethic from parents and peers, and it’s the work ethic/work culture that leads to “thickness”.

    That’s why it’s transmissible. If it was purely genetic/inherent, then introducing 20% thick kids would only result in a 20% failure rate. But when the “thick culture” spreads, the result is far more than 20% failures.

    The idea, of course, was to get the cultural transmission going the other way – so the 80% spread their smart culture to the thick kids. The interesting question is why it doesn’t. Why does “thick culture” dominate to such an extent?

  15. Because it’s easier and likely they are the ones drinking and having underage sex (another link) so compared to working hard some will take that option, especially those that are scraping by and having to work hard to even keep up with others

  16. Why? Well, you’re pushing on an open door, for one thing. Doing all the non-feckless, deferred-gratification stuff is boring, even for people with the mental wherewithal and environmental circumstances to make a go of it. You can, of course, but why bother? We prevent the thickos from reaping the full harvest of their lack of feck, so if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. It’s like Gresham’s Law of socially desirable outcomes.

  17. Roué le Jour: reason why grammar’s are considered bad

    Classic! I salute you, sir (© Gorgeous George Galloway lest we forget).

  18. NiV – “That’s why it’s transmissible. If it was purely genetic/inherent, then introducing 20% thick kids would only result in a 20% failure rate. But when the “thick culture” spreads, the result is far more than 20% failures.”

    That would only be true if the Schools were measuring intelligence – as opposed to compliance with some minor intelligence thrown in. When you are measuring compliance, one disruptive boy can disrupt the entire class no matter how smart everyone else is.

    The reason for the one-way transmission is that schools do not care about discipline. They do not impose it. They do not support their teachers imposing it. The children learn it at home or not at all.

  19. As Bloke in Costa Rica says, increasingly SES is a proxy for IQ. But it is still far from a fixed rule. Martin has anecdotal evidence that says SES is not a good marker for social IQ.

    To sit at the cool table, a kid has to be a lawbreaker.

  20. “That would only be true if the Schools were measuring intelligence – as opposed to compliance with some minor intelligence thrown in.”

    Agreed. “Thick” is the wrong word for it.

    “The reason for the one-way transmission is that schools do not care about discipline. They do not impose it.”

    The most important discipline needed is self-discipline, which by its nature has to be self-imposed. That’s a lot harder to teach.

    “To sit at the cool table, a kid has to be a lawbreaker.”

    Yes, that’s often the problem.

    Although depending on the laws in question, that’s not always a bad lesson to teach.

  21. “Thick people tend to have thick kids.”

    Yep. That’s cultural inheritance – people learn their work ethic from parents and peers, and it’s the work ethic/work culture that leads to “thickness”.

    Work ethic and intelligence are mutually exclusive.

  22. (i) So stream the bloody schools, then.

    (ii) How did they rule out confounding effects? Such as … eh, I’d rather not be arrested but you can probably guess some pretty likely confounding effects.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.