http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8192234.stm



Personally, I think it's appauling that the only way they can think of improving the grade of poorer students, is to simply give them the grades on a plate. Surely the issue lies within the education system itself, and if not that, then the students.

Being a student myself, I can cleary say that there is a clear correlation between the lack of a good attitude towards working in school, and being from a poor background. Parenting, social groups, crime etc are all factors which need to be addressed to sort this out, and I think giving them grades for simply being "poor" is a rediculous excuse.

Putting this into perspective, a student from a poor background, may get an E at GCSE, which is two grades below the desired C which most employers and some Universities look for. Now, is it fair that somebody in the same class, who worked twice as hard to get a D, doesn't get a grade boost because he was simply from a more wealthy background?

Oh and by the way, Lord Mandleson, is the Darth Vader of the Labour Party. He is apparently being considered to be a candidate for the leadership role. You can really tell that the Labour Party know how to lose an election.

Anyway, discuss, you guys may be able to point out something good about this system that I'm missing.

This idea doesn't work...at all.

It doesn't matter how poor you are, if you give a grade boost to someone who gets bad grades, they could end up in a high end university. That's good and all, but there actual grades would mean that they aren't really capable of going to the schools.

Honestly, they should just grade them how they would grade people that are more up in social classes then they are. It depends on your education, not your social class.

I believe that they're trying to shield themselves on how bad it really is.

Poorer teachers, low standards and an unestablished base make up for a student's shameful grade.

I've been there, and I've seen students screwed in it.

The idea is only a head start for poorer students. If a student can apply himself/herself but simply lack the funds then why should they be deprived of knowledge? I think it's an idea that needs quite a little bit of fine tuning. On the one hand giving poorer students opportunities is all fantastic, but bumping off other students to make way for those poorer isn't good. Being poor shouldn't have that much of an effect towards grades unless there influence is poor because of how wealthy they are. If this is the case for the majority of those who are poor then what we probably need isn't just giving students the opportunity, it's also getting them things like counseling and help to deal with their other issues.

I'm pretty sure it's all reflected on how you keep/lose the grades you get as you are studying. It's going to be quite obvious if someone is not able to keep up with the grades they are at. Most likely they will be moved up or down to suit their learning pace. Although that makes you wonder if it happens anywhere else at the moment because when i was studying it wasn't about getting a grade and staying there, you get the grade if you're good enough and if you can't keep up you go down grades. Unless this kind of thing isn't in the works then just letting those who might lack the capability into high end universities is a waste. They wouldn't let those incapable, study at a pace that they can't keep at no matter how rich/poor.

That might be the case, but I don't think it reflects the majority of people. That's more down to the schools and not taking the student into concern. If it was the majority getting bad grades because they aren't being taught properly then we wouldn't just be seeing poorer people targeted for help. If everyone was getting bad grades the situation would have changed a long time ago. Although, in the UK we have a lot of talk other public schooling and everything, so I really wouldn't be surprised if what you said was correct. Down to the fact that this country is never happy with how things are done.

You have seen the situations people are in? Was this just down to what other people have said to you. Because likewise i could say I've seen students screwed in it. But then when I've been speaking to anyone who gave an opinion it's always been the students and it seems like an excuse being they can't be bothered to apply themselves. If people can't be bothered to apply themselves why should schools and teachers be at the center of the blame.

...And that's how the current party (I'm guessing liberal) fails

I wish I was poor. Ill be getting free healthcare, welfare, I wouldnt have to work as hard in school, etc. Sign me up!

Honestly, just because you are poor, don't use it as an excuse. There are public libraries for internet usage and books. Teach yourself if you feel you aren't learning enough. I am from a middle class area (not poor, not rich, kinda in between) and our teachers still suck. Teachers can still suck without the area being poor.

Look. If their grades are artificially boosted so they can get into college, then the skills they lack will be revealed in their bad grades in college. But they won't. Therefore, they will be sent into the workforce lacking skills, subsequently become fired, and find themselves unemployed. As you can see, artificial grade boosts only cause harm in the long run. If they really want to get into college, they should just work harder.

That really isn't very fair. Maybe I'd agree with teachers being more lenient in grading papers and things from someone who has a job that supports their family, but not two grade boosts. Plus, I always figured teachers were already pretty nice to people who have a harder time at home.

those kids need to learn the hard way..
i work my butt off trying to get good grades...
you cant "spoonfeed them grades"
as my dad would say.

They should be giving the kids academic funds and tools to children who can't afford the proper resources to let them get a fair chance in school, but giving them two grade boosts? I mean how is that helping them, sure they'll get into a college but once they can't do the work in their job their going to get fired.

I do agree that certain backgrounds do inhibit their learning environment. For example, when i was at school there was this guy, A student till his last year. His mother lost her job, couldn't afford the mortgage payments/bills so he found work. He was doing 40 hours a week on top of school. He dropped from a A student to a 'below average' student. Perhaps here a grade boost would have helped, and even been justified.

However handing out grades just because of your families income bracket is stupid, there has to be a reason and proof the kid isn’t just trying to find the easy way out.

Actually the Labour Party isn't liberal. They are close to being right wing at the moment, with some left wing policies.

I'd agree with extra support for those who need it, but not spoon-feeding. It seems that they are avoiding the real problem, which is the quality of facilities/teaching that for some kids is the only option.

What constitutes as a bad grade? Quebec's standards are pretty low as it is, so failing low standards can't possibly be followed by reducing minimal standards, it's stupid, and it won't prepare kids for the future. So, they just had an educational reform on grading. It's stupid, because they aren't even tackling the problem. I'll elaborate on this. (Look below)



Idk how it is in the UK, but I'll give a personal story on how it is in Quebec.

I haven't really realized how bad I was until I moved to California in the eighth grade. I was literally finished learning basic arithmetic, which I realized wasn't adequate for Algebra I. I was essentially failing until the end. I ended the year with a B+, when I started D or C-. It's not bad, but I really learned how powerful their teaching was until I returned.

9th grade math was a joke. Kids couldn't even do basic algebra, so I excelled. Listen, I'm not motivated to learn, but I do well because I work hard. I've seen people who don't even bother with class, they just didn't come. I've also seen people being proud to get a 70. There is nothing wrong with that, because those were the highest marks in the class.

The thing is, my teachers knew, but didn't care. They offered tutorials before a test, and a lot of people attended. This was a testament to how bad they were teaching us, but it didn't make a difference because they lacked the fundamental skills required to do the work. I've been there when they taught those types of fundamental skills, the "base". I've seen how my teachers taught us throughout the elementary years, and when I look back, they didn't build up on anything.

They lacked basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills, and I could have been one of them if I hadn't moved to California.

I guess you guys are saying this because you've never really experienced this problem.

It's like what they say happens to cheaters. You may be able to get through school because you got a free grade boost, but when it comes to actually getting a job and performing it, you'll be lost. Giving kids leniency because they're poor won't help someone in the real world, it will just give them a disadvantage.

yea ok so you fail at high school but since your poor you get into a good college and do amazing right? absolute fail it completely undermines the educational system put in place to keep morons out of college.

Can't you see though, If you don't get the grades you aren't going into a college until you do have them. It doesn't matter if they gives boosts to those who are essentially not as well off. If they can't succeed because of money then why should they be declined the right to more knowledge. It's not harming anything because the poor kids, are still smart kids. They aren't their own little race of people, they have the same right as any to attend a decent college. So no, it doesn't exactly undermine the educational system, but I suppose that is your opinion and I have my own .

That might be the case but every learning environment is different. If you give the kids a chance to excel further with better prospects ahead of them, how many are going to say, "no actually, i can't be bothered.". I seriously doubt there are many who would, but that might depend on how poor you are. Because especially for those who are poor, they are going to probably want to succeed a little more than say a little rich kid who gets everything handed to them on a plate. Besides if they can't hack being at a higher grade, what is stopping them from going down a grade or pushing themselves? It's not a crime to want to help people out a bit, y'know?

It is a crime to help people out at the expense of others.

What? No it's not.

And anyway, there's a difference between helping people out at the expense of others, and helping people out at the expense of others' undue privilege.

We seem to live in a backwards soceity nowadays where everyone has to get an A, everyone must get a degree (be it in knitting studies or Astrophysics, they all look the same when counting) and people then wonder why no one gets a job - there aren't enough high-end jobs around for 80% of people to get one.

We need to start treating people on merit rather than background - that does include giving those from poorer backgrounds the chance to prove themselves but it doesn't mean they should get easier exams. That's just insane.

Did anyone hear about that case at Harvard recently where a woman is sueing the university because she can't find a job after spending a huge amount on her degree (which was in fact knitting studies or something)?

Where has the common-sense attitude gone?

OK, so someone with a B- should be allowed to go to a better college than a kid, say, with an A+ average?

Grades are, and should always be based on success. Nothing else.

Did you read what I said, where is the expense of others? I don't see it anywhere, all i see is that those who are poor are given the chance to prove themselves worthy of better?

at the expense of people whom have already done so.

For example, d average Paco lives in a small poor town. He gets this god damned grade boost and knocks b average john out of his spot in college. d Paco slacks off in school and is kicked out. b average john just got raped by liberals.

d average paco always had the chance to prove himself. There are other ways to learn then school.

Can you please not make jokes comparing failing school with being raped.
And also, is it really necessary to give the bad student a mexican name and the good student an English name?

It wasn't a joke. Rape is serious, and so is this.

And about the mexican name. What if it was D average John and b average Paco? Why give the d average kid a 'white/american/whatever origin' name? it works both ways.

No it's not. Programs to help poor people are not the same as rape.

"I think the word raped gets thrown around far too casually. You ever listen to a bunch of guys playing video games with each other online? It's like, 'Ah man you shot me in the back dude. You raped me dude!' I'm pretty sure if I talked to a woman who's been through that horrific situation and I said, 'What was it like, you know, being raped?' she's not gonna look at me and go, 'Have you ever played Halo?'"—Dane Cook

It put's emphasis on it. THIS program is societal rape. Putting things where they shouldn't be, just like normal rape.

And your Paco/John remark clearly showed racial subtext. It wouldn't have been so bad if it were Paco and Raul, or John and Geoffrey.



No, it's not. That's an insult to rape victims. I don't care if you're emphasing something. Rape is the unwanted penetration of the vagina or anus with any object, or of the mouth with the penis. That is what rape is. Rape is not when you don't get into college and you think you should have, or when you lose at Halo. Rape has a specific meaning.

Words only have the meaning we give to them. Figuratively, B average guy got raped. Hows that?

And my Paco john remark showed racial subtext eh? You saying something about mexicans? Why do both of them have to be white?

That's like me saying in a thread about drug addicts my totally colorblind tale of shaniqua getting cracked up and pregnant aged 15, while Mary led a model life of purity.



He figuratively was unwantedly penetraded in an orifice by a penis or other object. Yes that's totally it.

Penis = D average. Orifice = College.

College should have had B average, but the liberals shoved D average in there.

anyways, your forming some sort of a double standard or whatever. You are saying that Paco or Shaniqua or whatever ethnicity is more likely to have this happen to them, and then yell at me for making it obvious?

let me tell you something. Names are names. YOU give them ethnicity and backgrounds.

Paco is a Hispanic name. Shaniqua is an African American name. This is statistical fact. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

If you want to make a remark about poor persecuted white student, here are some expressions you can use:

Lost out
victim of circumstance
got screwed over
got shafted
got cheated

etc

And none of them offend rape victims or minimise rape! It's amazing

Also I don't know why you even felt the need to racialise underachievement in schools, considering this plan is for the UK, and ther are hardly even any Mexicans or Americans here at all.

Because a plan in UK could be adopted here, I was fighting idea. Also, are you saying that african americans are more likely to be crack whores? Isn't that a little racist wilbur?

And got screwed over and shafted sould alot like rape to me.

Don't try and do the old pointing out racism makes you yourself a racist thing. The fact is that you used a racialised example based on stereotypes of mexicans as lazy / stupid when it was unnecessary. And stereotypes of black people are an equivalent, and you know that, but surprise surpise, you're being deliberately obtuse again.

Getting shafted is not rape, get it into your head. I have posted the definition of rape, I have posted what rape is not, I have posted alternate phrases for you to use, I have posted why it is offensive and demeaning for you to use the word as you have and I have posted a comedic example of the misuse of this word and why it is offensive. Deal with it.

The fact that you had these little racist dispositions shows that you are racist.

Shaft = Penis.
everything can offend someone, why bother?

Wilbur, get over yourself. You're taking this way too far. You completely ignored the point he made and instead decided to criticize him for giving the failing student a Mexican name and using the word rape.

1. Bad grades in school usually means bad grades in college.

2. You're still saying that a kid with a B- should go to a better college than a kid with an A+.

Yeah, when your poor you don't have to work, all fo your needs are supplied to you.

Yeah, there's a neighborhood of poor people nearby that don't have time for homework and study. However, they seem to scrape up enough time for 3 hours of Halo 3/other Xbox games.

This is un-right! When students are poor you give them school supplies! God could I qualify? I'm middle class does that mean I get a smaller grade boost?

This is condescending and insulting.

I am from a broken background, never had any money or anything but not performing in school was my problem, not anyone elses and if my scores are really that bad how the hell do these jobsworth ministers think I would be able to keep up with someone in Oxford who has spent a long time actually trying??!

Far better would be apprenticeships in a field we are interested in, obviously without sciences and other stuff I would never be a vet, but what is wrong with getting me a trainee job as a lab tech that is simply there?

This is ridiculous, I mean I don't even think poor students have a disadvantage (unless they work), even then they are given free laptops which is used mostly to play games lol. If we are going to spoonfeed kids good grades then they are obviously aren't gonna work hard. If they don't work hard let them fail, government should stop bailing out these kids who just don't try. Let them live on the street if they don't care. >_<

Plus, if the university wanted to give poorer students a substantial advantage, they can do it themselves.

The stupidest idea I've heard in a long time!

We need to instead spend more money on bettering the education for everyone who wasn't born into an easy life. Cut those advanced classes and spend more time trying to help people who didn't win the lottery. I'm guessing that wealth is definitely correlated to academic success, so they need to improve the education for these people.

On one hand I hate people who succeed without hard-work, and on the other I hate people who don't work hard and expect to succeed.

Wtf? Cut honors classes? Wtf? Wtf? Wtf?

For our country to succeed scientifically and technologically, we need our top 5% smarter than other countries' top 5%.

Btw, I didn't win the lottery. Help me.

"On one hand I hate people who succeed without hard-work, and on the other I hate people who don't work hard and expect to succeed. "

You seem to think that most rich people didn't work for their money.

The only ways to succeed without any hard work is to a) win a lottery b) get a huge inheritance c) be a mafia boss. Do you know how Bill Gates (and most other millionaires/billionaires) succeeds even though he just sits in a chair? He studied hard in his youth, worked hard making computers later, then worked hard managing his fledgling company into a industry giant.

And no, he was not uber-rich in his youth, so don't give me that BS.

This is dreadful, the poorer the student is does not affect their learning, education in ANY way shape or form. The only reason that they could not be doing well is because their parents wont set them a good example, which makes them lack in effort.

Basically, if they get a grade boot, then EVERYONE should get a grade boost.

This is an awful idea, as stated in nearly every post before me. I am in the middle-ish class (not rich, not poor). I feel that if a person cares enough to want to go to a better univeristy, anyone can try hard enough to make it happen, you may not graduate with honors, you may even be just squeaking by. Yet still, i am a firm believer that it is all in how you look at it.

Our school is having some problems now too...

First a teacher of 30 some years has now been ruled a too tough marker. Bullshizzle. The problem is the students don't try in the class, then the parent sees the report and ask their child about it. Of course the child isn't going to say that they fool around, never do their homework, and get on the teacher's nerves.

So then the parents complain to the school because in younger grades their child got decent marks, now all of the sudden they are struggling with some subjects. It's time for them to grow up, learn the different teachers f****** boundaries, pull their heads out of their a**es and DO THEIR GOD D*** WORK!

A while ago in my Grade 8 year I had a sort of slack teacher, but I still learned easily enough. The transition into grade nine took nme a couple trips to the office and some parent involvment, but by grade 10 I was used to the different teachers and I knew what I could and could not do. Throughout this whole time period, i continued to get high marks because I (Well, my parents first) realized that it was in fact me that needed to change.

Wow that's stupid. The only reason they aren't passing is because they were just too lazy to try. People need to realize that they actually need to try in school. Everything wont be handed to you on a silver platter. They need to apply themselves because if they do this and they do get into a university, and they don't know their stuff, they could potentially get dropped from the classes and the school itself. Not a smart idea.

Actually he had autistic traits that gave him a little headstart on everyone else math probably came natural too him as would fact memorisation. I've read stuff on him he doesn't seem much like the hard working type.

And to add to your list theres.

Get lucky and get signed to some record label [despite having no talent]
Parents buy the kids way into university [yes you can do that with good connections]
Kids born gifted and gets 90+ averages without ever studying [i'm an example atleast with math and sciences]
Parents have good connections and gets kid a job.
Parents send kids to private schools increasing their chances of being accepted into College.

The list goes on and on.


As for the topic at hand, poor students already get aid from schools that may indirectly boost there grade so this is just silly.



I have friends who couldn't afford there textbooks, didn't have computer access at home or even had to skip days to go to work so they could eat breakfast tommorow so that statement is false.
Still raising there grades isn't a good idea.