We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Revealed: papering over the cracks does not actually repair them More than 50 years of education reforms ‘have not helped social mobility’, “reveals” the Guardian
That is because the reformers’ response to observing the problem of underachievement among poorer children was not to cure it, nor even to explain it, but to conceal it.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Not just to conceal it but also to reward it. When esteem (and more practical benefits) goes to failure (‘victims’) and is taken from success (‘the privileged’), it’s no surprise that members of the rewarded group avoid leaving it, either personally or for the group. No surprise except to the Guardian of course.
Niall, I was going to say that they wanted to punish the achievers.
Whoa, whoa, whoa –
Be sure to measure your extended bungee cord before you jump at this one.
The LSE approach on Social Mobility has not been focused on the singular role of education (though they do seem to rely on the idea that “certification” equates with qualification).
In fact, it seemed to me from what I saw over the past two years LSE was pushing for a broad based approach to get away from the politically popularized notion that “education” was the “answer.”
That said, I am one of those highly skeptical of the concept that a whole bunch of other, addded “policies” (co-ordinated?) can be designed (let alone implemented) to counteract trends that seem more likely result from changes in motivations [causes of the changes we save for another day]of various sectors (strata??) of the social structures.
Underachievement amongst poorer children?
How about lower achievement amongst children farther left of the bell curve.
This is also the issue in “higher” education, where quotas equal “special” grant funding.
Oddly, when the number of candidates “suddenly” with somebody’s cash to spend, appear on the market,
the standards go down, “administrative expenses” go up, and nobody wants to hire a “certificate of attendance” (even an ADVANCED certificate) holder right out of school.
As CaptDMO suggests, all this social mobility grinding to a halt stuff is based on a little learning of statistics being a dangerous thing. If “social mobility” were 100% efficient, ie anyone of 76th percentile ability naturally moved to the 76th percentile of adult success / status, there would still be rather a small amount of social mobility. Because genes already sort people towards their target adult success percentile – not unerringly, but in a bell curvey sort of way. On average poor and unsuccessful parents are poor and unsuccessful because they are dim, and their children have a correspondingly higher chance of being dim too. (Immigrants being an occasional exception to the rule – immigrants may be poor because they are moving from a poor country, but can be bright.)
You will only get a large amount of social mobility – such as seen between say 1945 and 1990 – when society moves from a less meritocratic structure (eg where adult status is very class based rather than meritocratic) to a more meritocratic structure. The cream held at the bottom by the class structure rises to the top. But once you’ve got a more or less meritocratic system in place, all you’ll get is the minor reshuffling of thick children of clever parents (a minority) drifting down, and clever children of thick parents (another minority) drifting up. Hence observed social mobility will slow down, even though it has not in fact become harder for people to move about in the social rankings.
Though Natalie is of course right that the lunacies of the state education system have helped arrest the upward floating of clever children of thick parents. Thanks Tony Crosland.
“…trends that seem more likely result from changes in motivations [causes of the changes we save for another day]of various sectors (strata??) of the social structures.”
What does this mean? What “trends”, appearing to result from what “changes in motivations”?
mike : What does this mean?
It’s quite straightforward. It means that when advancing tosh in the guise of science (or social “science”) it is necessary to ensure that your propositions are sufficiently vague as to be incapable of refutation by inconvenient facts. Hence the need for decorative verbiage, preferably in a special gobbledegook* that you have invented so as to be able to claim that the unconvinced lack the requisite expertise to criticise your notions.
This just Social “Science” 101.
* good gobbledook majors on abstract, long winded, complex circumlocution. Simple concrete examples are a total no-no.
Is ‘social mobility’ ever openly encouraged on a downward trajectory? Yes we know that in their hearts, the socialists would love to see Dukes work as dustmen, perhaps on a ‘Lenin Saturday‘, before being shot, but if it is the State’s business what job you end up doing, that cuts both ways.
The entire concept of ‘social mobility’ as a process to be managed is sinister, as opposed to the natural florescence of talent that comes from decent parents being able to do and get the best possible for their decent offspring. The State in the UK, having corrupted education, now seeks to camouflage its crime with a sinister, bogus concept.
Upward social mobility occurs in those who have the brains and gumption to get going.
The problem with the education, education, education system is it is rooted in the now mostly discredited, but still promoted, notion that equal inputs give equal outcomes because educational success is entirely based in nurture.
It is in fact inherited, which is why if little Johnny has not very bright parents, little Johnny will most likely not be very bright. Which is why kids from ‘poor’ homes perform badly because their homes are poor because their parents are on low incomes because they do not have the brights to get jobs with higher incomes.
Upward social mobility ALSO has background in “marrying up”. Simple breeding, and all that.
Modern feminism has certainly helped dampen:
1. Marrying
2. Families from the “up” side of that equation allowing “meaningful access” to their coffers, and estates, by more simple minded, uneducable, and easily duped “social justice” activists.
“Mummy, Daddy, meet Amanda! She’s a feminist Scientologist, with a history of civil suits in lieu of criminal justice discovery! I met her at a college mixer! isn’t she JUST top drawer? “
The selective state Grammar Schools only lasted about 20 years.
Before World War II the Grammar Schools were private – and from the 1960s the state Grammar Schools (taken over by the Butler Act of 1944 – put into effect after World War II) were already under attack from “Progressive” government.
Certainly the “bog standard” Comprehensive Schools have been a disaster – but we do not know what would have happened to the Grammar Schools had they remained in operation, but under government control.
However, to be fair, the selection state education system in Bavaria seems to work fairly well – although the ban on Home Schooling is an outrage.
Still the “bottom line” is simple.
The “Comprehensives” and “mixed ability teaching” have been a disaster for the poor – not only has it not helped, the last 50 years of “reform” has actually undermined Social Mobility.
The people who control the Guardian newspaper (and the rest of the Progressive Elite) should hang their heads in shame.
@ Mike (and any curious):
The “trends” referred to are those which are the subject of the LSE inquiries (the basis of the Gdn wordsmithery); to-wit- the congealing of the stratifications (principally social & economic) in our (U K & U S) social orders.
It does appear that there may be increasing “fragmentation” (identifiable group differentiations and separations) in which commonalities of objectives no longer provide cohesion.
Commonalities of objectives are usually derived from commonalities of motivations.
Among the changes in motivations of the members in various sectors of our social structures have been the assumptions of “victimhood” (from circumstances beyond control, or caused by pernicious others); deserving based on “need” or desire.
In other sectors the motives of “defense” of economic and intellectual positions have assumed greater priorities (possibly resulting in some exclusions).
Those who you don’t like to consider that our societies may be fragmenting (possibly disintegrating) along the lines noted by Ortega y Gasset and Oakeshott, will not be attracted to consider the function of individual motivations in the cultural compositions of our societies.
@Lee Moore:
Apologies, if that attempt to summarize came across as “gobbledy gook;” but there are firm examples behind every term.
@ Mike:
The last clause of the second paragraph above might be better stated:
. . . in which cohesion is no longer provided by commonalities of objectives.
OK; Lee ?
More than 50 years of subsidizing one parent familes ‘have not helped social mobility’, “reveals” the Guardian
More than 50 years of mass migration ‘have not helped social mobility’, “reveals” the Guardian
More than 50 years of spending like retarded howler monkeys ‘have not helped social mobility’, “reveals” the Guardian
Yes , but think how many Ministry of Education bureacrats made it into retirement in those 50 years.
Because, that is what they’re working towards, isn’t it?
Paul,
I have read a bit on post war education and my take is that the Grammar schools were nationalised as a bribe to the parents that used them, Labour never had any intention of implementing Butler’s tripartite education system.
Also, as I have said elsewhere, comparing Comprehensive to Grammar schools is incorrect, the comparison should be between the comprehensive and selective education systems. In this comparison comprehensive education performed well because when you aggregate the Secondary Modern results with the Grammars they are poorer than the comprehensives.
Roue : comparing Comprehensive to Grammar schools is incorrect, the comparison should be between the comprehensive and selective education systems
Quite right.
In this comparison comprehensive education performed well because when you aggregate the Secondary Modern results with the Grammars they are poorer than the comprehensives.
Quite wrong. In fact the average results of pupils in secondary moderns are – astonishingly – virtually indistinguishable from the average results of pupils in comprehensives, despite the fact that the brighter pupils have been weeded out of the former and left in the latter. A comprehensive is, on average, a secondary modern in which the bright pupils have been equalised downwards to the performance level of the rest. Overall, selective areas do far better than comprehensive areas. The brighter, grammar, pupils do far better* in the selective system, and the dimmer, secondary modern, pupils do much the same in both systems. (In fact, since it is impossible to believe that the brighter pupils in the comprehensive systems don’t actually do a bit better than their dimmer fellow pupils it follows, as a matter of arithmetic, that the dimmer pupils in comprehensive systems must do a bit worse than the average for those systems, and hence a little bit worse than the dimmer pupils in selective systems.)
Comprehensives are therefore an equal opportunity disaster. They screw bright children AND they screw dimmer children.
* this is visible in exam grades, but the extent of the overperformance is obscured by the levelling of top grades in A level – ie A levels no longer distinguish fairly good from very good performance. You get an A for either. However, this aspect of overperformance is made visible by university and in particular Oxbridge entrance, where grammar schools outperform comprehensives, by an enormous, and by an amazinglysuperginormous margin respectively.
How do “commonalities of objectives” differ from “common objectives” ? And if it’s that important that we should understand this fine distinction, shouldn’t we be offered an illustration ?
Lee,
I’m not sure why you are speaking of Secondary Moderns in the present tense when they were closed decades ago, but it depends on the time frame. At the point where the decision was made to abolish the Grammars and go comprehensive, Secondary Modern schools produced very few exam passes. The school leaving age was only 14 in those days and I recall most of the Secondary Modern pupils left at that point.
There remain some selective areas which retain both grammars and secondary moderns (whatever the latter happen to be called these days.) These vestigial secondary moderns turn up in the governments charts and they do almost exactly as well as the average comprehensive.
Of course the poster child for selective education was Northern Ireland, poorer than any of those Northern Labour “deprived areas” but comfortably outperforming leafy Tory shires in school exam results and university entrance. Hence the last labour government abolished the selective system in Northern Ireland. It had become a major embarrassment.
Lee Asks:
For this discourse, “common objectives” might be those sought in common by more than one in a group (each one’s reasons for attainment possibly differing).
In a “commonality of objectives,” the objectives may differ or not, but their are commonalities in the reasons for attainment.
Example: Two may both have the common objective of attending a political rally; one to cheer, the other to jeer.
But, I don’t think I have used the term “common objectives” in discussing or considering the factors that may congeal the stratifications in the respective societies.
Example: A group may determine to hold town meetings to resolve differences in views of actions that affect the daily objectives (which vary) of each. The resolutions may come by determinations of what each of those objective may have in common with the other objectives.
I don’t know if the “difference” is “that important” to the point of the discussion, unless one decides to make it so, which I did not, since the term common objectives was not used.
That’s very simplified; but is it adequate?
Well starting at the end, is it adequate ? If your objective was to demonstrate your skill at writing obscure gobbledegook it was entirely successful. if your objective was to explain what you mean, then not so much.
First, if “commonalities of objectives” is intended to capture some important meaning not captured by “common objectives” it ought to be possible to explain clearly what the distinction is. Your first example seems to demonstrate how common first order objectives (to attend the rally) might be held by people with different second order objectives (to cheer and to jeer) but it doesn’t tell me anything about what “commonalities of objectives” is intended to capture.
“In a “commonality of objectives,” the objectives may differ or not, but their are commonalities in the reasons for attainment”
According to my dictionary “commonality” means “possession of common features” or “a common feature or attribute.” Neither of these fit your statement at all. If the objectives differ then there aren’t common features or attributes of objectives. There are common features or attributes, or commonalities, of the “reasons for attainment.”
Second, what was the town hall example intended to be an example of ?
If no difference of meaning is intended, why use the long, complicated, unfamiliar word in preference to the shorter, simpler, familiar one ? (And likewise for stratification and strata and so on.) Folk who write like you (or what may be your spoof) :
1. are so immersed in jargon of their field of interest that they are unable to write in clear English, or
2. do not wish to write in clear English, because they wish to appear more intellectually exalted than they really are, or
3. wish to conceal their ideas rather than explain them, or
4. are just blowing the froth off other people’s beer, for fun
In charity, i will assume you’re a 4.
Lee,
Sorry for my inadequacies, but you seem to have found suitable answers:
As to the ad hominem, you may be on to something with #2.
I very probably struggle with expressing ideas because I do not want to express intellectual incompetence. Thank you for your overview.
BTW, while I read a bit in the fields, I am not engaged in either education or sociology.
Lee,
I really had thought to let this effort drop – but;
If the Town Hall example comes up short for you:
Go back to something like the rural U S.
There are a number of families.
Each has an objective of obtaining some level of education for their child (children).
The reasons for attaining those separate objectives differ from family to family and as to the children (M&F and by abilities) within the family.
There is among the families a commonality of objectives that leads to cooperation in the creation of a facility for learning.
The objectives were separate. There was not a common objective that all children should have a learning facility.
Lee,
I feel we’re talking at cross purposes. I have no doubt what you say is true. The point I am making is that it was the performance of Secondary Moderns at the time the decision was made to abolish them that matters.
I support selective education myself. The point I am making is that which is made in the Crowther report and I believe it to be correct.
The Crowther report says :
No English comprehensive school is old enough to have completed Sixth Form courses with pupils who, joining at 11, have spent the whole of their secondary school life in a comprehensive school, and few of the schools have yet completed a fifth year on this basis. It is impossible, therefore, as yet to form a valid opinion about the effect that comprehensive schools will have on the education of their pupils in the ages covered by our terms of reference.
and at the time there were about 15,000 pupils in England in comprehensive schools. So it may well have been the case that secondary moderns were shockingly bad. But it’s hard to see how they could have been unfavourably compared with comprehensives, since comprehensives barely existed.
Only Lee Moore has mentioned immigration, but that could well be a factor. Immigrants certainly can be bright, but are they equally bright, on average, compared to natives of the UK? It’s known that inbreeding lowers IQ, and it’s an unpleasant fact that much of the Muslim world is quite inbred due to cousin marriage. (Hey, Muhammad did it, and he’s the “perfect man,” so it must be a good thing!)