Chris Woodhead= Cnut

[mixed_biscuits]

You do? You believe that everyone starts out with equal life chances and equal access to the resources required for success?

Of course not - I haven't said that at all!

The 'premise' I was referring to was only that there are intrinsic differences between individual specimens that, other things being equal, decide to what extent they might flourish.

 

[matt b]

Of course not - I haven't said that at all!

The 'premise' I was referring to was only that there are intrinsic differences between individual specimen that, other things being equal, decide to what extent they might flourish.

the point is, then that other things are not equal. In fact they are so unequal, as to leave any discussion of 'intrinsic differences' essentially irrelevant at the present time.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

the point is, then that other things are not equal. In fact they are so unequal, as to leave any discussion of 'intrinsic differences' essentially irrelevant at the present time.

What would 'equality in education' look like? How would *you* set things up?

 

[matt b]

"given equally rich soil, one seed will grow into a stronger plant than the other..."

however at the moment, some seeds get all the fertilizer leaves can buy, are talked to by time rich older plants, or even by other species of plants in return for a twig or two, get watered regularly and kept warm at night. They are often taken to entirely different fields to broaden their mulch experience, not to mention structural issues like the potcode lottery.

sorry

 

[mixed_biscuits]

"given equally rich soil, one seed will grow into a stronger plant than the other..."

however at the moment, some seeds get all the fertilizer leaves can buy, are talked to by time rich older plants, or even by other species of plants in return for a twig or two, get watered regularly and kept warm at night. They are often taken to entirely different fields to broaden their mulch experience, not to mention structural issues like the potcode lottery.

sorry

Yes, I agree with all that BUT there are limits to the improvements that one can make. However much some children are helped, they will always struggle with some or all subjects at school. Environmental manipulation is not the panacea.

I appreciate the pun.

Anyway, how would you 'equalise' education?

 

[matt b]

What would 'equality in education' look like? How would *you* set things up?

well, you have to start by recognising the inequalities that exist at present. Until that point is reached, there's no point in discussing it

 

[matt b]

Yes, I agree with all that BUT there are limits to the improvements that one can make. However much some children are helped, they will always struggle with some or all subjects at school.

No one has said otherwise. That is not the topic of the thread

 

[mixed_biscuits]

well, you have to start by recognising the inequalities that exist at present. Until that point is reached, there's no point in discussing it

Surely people already do recognise the inequalities, they just accord them different weightings when judging their influence.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

No one has said otherwise. That is not the topic of the thread

In a way, it is: working class children struggle at school not just because of social inequalities but because of innate deficiencies. Isn't that what Woodhead said?

 

[DannyL]

the point is, then that other things are not equal. In fact they are so unequal, as to leave any discussion of 'intrinsic differences' essentially irrelevant at the present time.

nailed it.

 

[matt b]

Surely people already do recognise the inequalities, they just accord them different weightings when judging their influence.

one person doesn't:

In an interview with Education Guardian, [BLANK] says government ministers have convinced themselves that they can make all children "brighter than God made [them]". A child's "genes are likely to be better if their parents are teachers, academics, lawyers", he says

I wonder who it is?

 

[matt b]

In a way, it is: working class children struggle at school not just because of social inequalities but because of innate deficiencies. Isn't that what Woodhead said?

oh yeah, but woodhead is A CUNT

 

[mixed_biscuits]

one person doesn't:

In an interview with Education Guardian, [BLANK] says government ministers have convinced themselves that they can make all children "brighter than God made [them]". A child's "genes are likely to be better if their parents are teachers, academics, lawyers", he says

I wonder who it is?

So you think that Woodhead thinks that all children have access to an equally good education? Is that why he was OFSTED boss and bangs on about declining standards all the time?

In any case, you have agreed with his thesis: that environment is not all-determining and that innate differences exist, a few posts back. The only thing is now is to tie innate differences to heredity and you're in the same place as he is.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

oh yeah, but woodhead is A CUNT

ad hominem?

Anyway, the main object of Woodhead's ire appears to be the Labour government ministers and their utopian policies.

 

[DannyL]

In a way, it is: working class children struggle at school not just because of social inequalities but because of innate deficiencies. Isn't that what Woodhead said?

It is what Woodhead has said and it's wrong, because it leaves out so many other factors that affect learning and life chances, and falls back on an ill-defined (and I suspect ill understood) genetic intelligence. The problem with this is that it shows no awareness of the history of these statements, how they have been made throughout history to perpetuate and justify inequality - cultural privelege given a genetic explanation as part of a wider ideological project.

As I'm sure you must be aware, similar statements have been made for hundreds of years about Black people. How would you feel if I tried to explain the inequalities experienced by black people on the basis of their inferior genetics?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

As I'm sure you must be aware, similar statements have been made for hundreds of years about Black people. How would you feel if I tried to explain the inequalities experienced by black people on the basis of their inferior genetics?

The working classes aren't a 'race' AFAIK, nor really particularly persecuted in the UK (votes too valuable)

 

[john eden]

The working classes aren't a 'race' AFAIK, nor really particularly persecuted in the UK (votes too valuable)

Black people aren't "a race" either, are they?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Black people aren't "a race" either, are they?

That's why I put scare quotes around that.

All I'm saying... is that equating the historical struggle of black people with the present-day struggle of the British working class might be a bit of a 'stretch'... No?

I would also hazard a guess that one has more chance of ceasing to be working class than ceasing to be black.

 

[DannyL]

Well, races aren't "races" either in the sense that they are normally used by agents of prejudice i.e. distinct, easily measurable, scientific catergories with inate characteristics. What they are is social/cultural constructions, which are often employed for ideological ends.

Which is exactly similar to how you're discussing the working classes in this instance.

 

[DannyL]

That's why I put scare quotes around that.

All I'm saying... is that equating the historical struggle of black people with the present-day struggle of the British working class might be a bit of a stretch... No?

X post.

I'm not trying to equate the two. I'm pointing out both groups are subject to ideological manoeuvres that justify inequality and reinforce the status quo.

I would also hazard a guess that one has more chance of ceasing to be working class than ceasing to be black.

One may not cease to be black but the status and perception of that group are cetainly subject to huge change. Ideological subjects as I wos saying.

X