The evil quota system

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by butchering lee

but a wrong that is not righted makes two wrongs, which can't be right.

So your idea of "righting" is to rob Peter to pay what you owe Paul?

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

So your idea of "righting" is to rob Peter to pay what you owe Paul?

or to take back half of what Peter took from Paul and return it to him.

not a perfect means of 'righting' - for Paul; this is (aiming for) equal rights , not justice - but it is an attempt.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by batoutofhell

I agree that affirmative action is necessary for the upliftment of underprivelleged of the society but not at the expense of MERIT

But this is a contradiction in terms. Affirmative action is an act of social engineering of which the notion of merit is excluded.

Look at the definition of discrimination in Websters

the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

So you see that affirmative action flies in the face of anti-discrimination. Affirmative action is discrimination pure and simple.
Just because i am a white male does not mean i am superior to every other person on this planet. If i happen to run rings around others (or have rings run around me), it is because of who i am underneath the flesh.

I am sick of people using the excuse of their skin colour, or what happens to be between their legs, as an excuse for their shortcomings.

You lay down anti-discrimination laws to make it a level playing field and leave it at that. Until i receive irrefutable evidence that non-white people or women are physically or mentally handicapped ( which is of course is a plainly rediculous notion) and deserving of handicap status, i will never accept "affirmative action"

[batoutofhell]

seamer
i have no two opinions about level playing field
i too endorse similar to what you said about affirmative action
but unfortunately not many will openly support it(at least on the political level)

don't get me wrong i am not a pro quota fella(i am already fed up with my country's reservation policies on education and employment)no way i will ever support quota based on skin or ethnicity or caste or religion(but on economical background that too for primary education and more opportunities at professional level by increasing number colleges/universities)

In sports - STRICT NO NO only Merit should be the criteria for selection

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by batoutofhell

don't get me wrong i am not a pro quota fella(i am already fed up with my country's reservation policies on education and employment)no way i will never support quota based on skin or ethnicity or caste or religion(but on economical background that too for primary education and more opportunities at professional level by increasing number colleges/universities)

Spot on there, batoutofhell.

Education is very important, and one factor i left out. Every person in society should have access to good education.

Give everyone the opportunity to be educated, have strong anti-discrimination laws, then everyone gets an equal chance.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Give everyone the opportunity to be educated, have strong anti-discrimination laws, then everyone gets an equal chance.

Not really. The primary care and education of any child comes from parents / primary carers, and to say that the quality of care and education is variable would be putting it mildly. Even in what we call the "foundation stage", parental /carer support and extension of each child's development is limited in both commitment (either of time or effort) and competence to deliver.

What's also variable is the parental / carer commitment to working in partnership with teachers and other professionals, and almost invariably the partnerships are strongest where they are least needed: primary school teachers all too often have extensive communication only with the parents /carers have worked hard at helping their child develop as a competent learner who is already resillient, capable, confident and self-assured - and that's a pattern that's quite visible from antenatal classes and post natal classes through stop and stay "toddler groups" and pre-school continues: the parents / carers of the children who could most benefit from the working in partnership with professionals are least inclined to do so (and are often least inclined to even read to their youngster each day).

Compounding all of the above.... those parents / carers best placed to ensure children get an equal start in school tend to do the most to ensure they are in a school with other like minded parents / carers (and tend to be the most capable of affording the costs of relocating to within the catchment area of a better school, or of buying into independent education)... leading to a ludicrous situation where those who commit to trying to improve a "failing" local school (as a parent governor, local community governor or staff member) face almost insurmountable obstacles.

Giving children an "opportunity" to become educated is meaningless unless you can also offer each unique child some encouragement towards a positive outlook on his/her own learning and development and some support in staying committed to education - and in this country at least, that's far from the case.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Not really.

Beg to differ Rachel, but yes really.

Originally Posted by Rachael

The primary care and education of any child comes from parents / primary carers, and to say that the quality of care and education is variable would be putting it mildly.

In Australia, we have a national standardised curriculum. There is no variables when it comes to the core subjects (Maths/English/Science). All education is free from preparatory year (4yo) right up until senior. And by law all parents are required to make their kids attend school. All Australian children have access to this education. The curriculum is neither race or gender specific.

That is equal opportunity. If some fail to take advantage of that opportunity, then they are the ones who dig the ditches, and do the cleaning.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Giving children an "opportunity" to become educated is meaningless unless you can also offer each unique child some encouragement towards a positive outlook on his/her own learning and development

It's quite simple. Teach them to read and write, and ensure they have reasonable mathematical and computer skills. It's not a matter of encouraging. It is a matter of persisting. It's not that hard, but if a child is not up to the task then you pack them off to a special school. From there, you try to at least teach them enough so they are able to accomplish menial tasks for which they are obviously only suited to.

Originally Posted by Rachael

and some support in staying committed to education - and in this country at least, that's far from the case.

If someone is not committed, then they have decided there fate. If someone is not committed to go to cricket training for example, then they have no right in complaining that they are not in the test team 20 years later. If someone has little cricketing skill, they can't complain about that either.

The opportunity was there. They were either unwilling or unable to make the most of that opportunity.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Even in what we call the "foundation stage", parental /carer support and extension of each child's development is limited in both commitment (either of time or effort) and competence to deliver.

The foundation stage should be limited to, basically, play. Doing this gives them the opportunity to learn hand/eye co-ordination, basic problem solving, and social skills. Putting some paper, pens and paint in front of them, some puzzles, or let them run in the park is enough.

That said.

This is merely suggested, and not crucial. If a half-assed parent decides to chuck their kids some food and whack them in from of the telly for the first three years of their life, it usually does not matter.

Now my 4yo girls can write the letters of the alphabet, do basic addition and subtraction, and tie there shoelaces while other kids in their prep year likely can not. So what? They don't need to know that at their age. When they are six, then these things become important. If the kid with the half-assed parents have ability in Maths and English, they will invariably pick it up and catch up with the rest.

Originally Posted by Rachael

What's also variable is the parental / carer commitment to working in partnership with teachers and other professionals, and almost invariably the partnerships are strongest where they are least needed: primary school teachers all too often have extensive communication only with the parents /carers have worked hard at helping their child develop as a competent learner who is already resillient, capable, confident and self-assured - and that's a pattern that's quite visible from antenatal classes and post natal classes through stop and stay "toddler groups" and pre-school continues: the parents / carers of the children who could most benefit from the working in partnership with professionals are least inclined to do so (and are often least inclined to even read to their youngster each day).

Compounding all of the above.... those parents / carers best placed to ensure children get an equal start in school tend to do the most to ensure they are in a school with other like minded parents / carers (and tend to be the most capable of affording the costs of relocating to within the catchment area of a better school, or of buying into independent education)... leading to a ludicrous situation where those who commit to trying to improve a "failing" local school (as a parent governor, local community governor or staff member) face almost insurmountable obstacles.

All this falls under the "if if's and but's were candy and nuts" category Rachel. The fact is that the opportunity for an education is there ( or should be - certainly is in Australia in any case) if you wish to take advantage of it.

I will give an analogy.

You are a lion. This is Africa. There are the gazelles and there are the buffalo's. Every lion has an equal chance to get them. To get them, you need to learn to stalk your prey and execute the kill. Every lion has the chance to learn these skills. Learn to do this, you eat well and live a good life. If not, then you will be forced to gnaw on the scraps left left for you by the ones that learned those crucial skills.

You are a human. This is society. There are the nice houses and there are the nice cars. Every human has equal access to them. To get them, you need to learn written, mathematical, and computer skills. Every human has the chance to learn these skills. Learn these skills and you eat well and life a prosperous life. If not, then you will do menial tasks and rely on pitiful welfare payments to eke out an existence.

Now i come to affirmative action.

Imagine if the lion, who's mummy and daddy did not teach them these skills, or was unwilling to learn these skills, or was unable to learn these skills, was offered a free meal every time from the skilled ones in their pride who did learn?

It would prove a disincentive for the learned ones, who would in turn feel inclined to lie in the sun and wait for a free meal from another. Eventually, all the lions in the pride would feel like a free meal. Then they would lose their skills and become lazy. Then they would all sit and look at each other, wondering who was going to catch there food for them. Then they would start to starve. Then a more dynamic pride, who lived by the Darwinian rule of survival of the fittest would move in, dominate them, then take over.

This is what is wrong with affirmative action. If the cream of society is unable to rise to the top, then society becomes inept and weakens.

This is why anti-discrimination and the opportunity for all to acquire an education is important. It ensures that the cream does rise to the top.

[batoutofhell]

Excellently put in words Seamer

i will have you anytime as our PM(current one sucks big time)for your progressive view(unlikely from current Indian politicians)

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by Seamer

You lay down anti-discrimination laws to make it a level playing field and leave it at that.

Totally agree. That one sentence says it all. It might take a while for the previously downtrodden to catch up, but at least they'll do it on their own steam and will not use a system that swaps one kind of discrimination to another and tries to justify it with meaningless phrases like "affirmative action".

I am a coloured man living in a predominantly white society and have had more than my share of discrimination in my time. For all that, I would not let myself down by even considering a post that was "tailor-made" for me at the expense of a more deserving local.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Seamer

The opportunity was there. They were either unwilling or unable to make the most of that opportunity.

I'm as averse to "affirmative action" as anyone... but:

1. Providing the environment / context of the development and education of under 16s is first and foremost the responsibility of parents / carers, and whilst schools should work in partnership with the child's parents / carers.... hopefully to great effect... the biggest determinant of educational outcomes will almost always be the attitude to learning that is nurtured in the home / community (which should be where most learning and development takes place).

2. Whilst the child should be taking ever more responsibility for his/her own learning and development from being an under 3 to reaching his/her late teens... each child is unique, children have a wide variety of learning styles and aptitudes and providing an "equal opportunity" for all children (even within one class) means differentiating appropriately through constant formative assessment on the part of the teaching staff (to cater for diverse needs). Providing the "same" education to children who are all different is NOT providing "equal" opportunity.... as what's right for the first child is rarely right for the second - one size does not fit all!

3. With the best will in the world, even a superb teacher in an otherwise excellent school can FAIL to give a child the above if the parents / carers will not work in partnership to help cater for those needs: at one extreme you have parents who are basically guilty of abuse (including neglect, as with parents who do not offer their child a balanced diet and reasonable opportunities for sleep)... through the negligent (who choose not to read to their children, or who effectively fail to provide emotional support by leaving the child with a nanny who either does not or cannot even converse with the child)... to those who simply haven't got the ability to (for example) read to their youngster and those over-protective families who simply don't allow the child the freedom to explore, develop initiative and become an independent learner.

Originally Posted by Seamer

The foundation stage should be limited to, basically, play. Doing this gives them the opportunity to learn hand/eye co-ordination, basic problem solving, and social skills. Putting some paper, pens and paint in front of them, some puzzles, or let them run in the park is enough.

Learning through play is certainly critical to the Foundation Stage... but the point of the Foundation Stage is providing planned play (either adult directed, or with scope for adult support and extension) that reflects the individual needs of the children in the setting: my staff plan every session of every day around the children registered to attend and engage in an endless cycle of observation, reflection, planning and implementing to ensure (amongst other things) that each child is working towards stepping stones towards early learning goals in each of six areas of learning and development (and in a manner that gives equal significance to each area).

Note: the six areas of Learning and Development comprise (together) just one part of what's involved in the Foundation Stage (which extends to the start of Key Stage One: in many cases beyond the first year of primary school). They (together) constitute one of four themes associated with one of four principles - see The Early Years Foundation Stage

Originally Posted by Seamer

If a half-assed parent decides to chuck their kids some food and whack them in from of the telly for the first three years of their life, it usually does not matter.

I'd concede that children are by and large more resillient than we commonly assume... but the EPPE project in this country has already shown a clear correlation between high quality Foundation Stage provision and educational outcomes for children up to the age of 10. Why? Principally because the children who go through a high quality pre-school tend (on the whole) to develop a more positive outlook on learning and education and more accomplished as independent learners.

Originally Posted by Seamer

If the kid with the half-assed parents have ability in Maths and English, they will invariably pick it up and catch up with the rest.

You may occasionally come across the exceptional child who has found ways to excel despite, rather than because of, the opportunities he/she has had in life... but whilst only a relatively small proportion of bright children in this country face what might be termed almost insurmountable odds... the notion that all children have an "equal" opportunity is nonsensical.

Note: this is NOT a justification of "affirmative action". The point is simply that providing an "equal" opportunity in the midst of some of the less affluent areas of rural Britain, in the midst of a "sink estate" dominated by drugs and gangs and in an expensive district of a prosperous university town is going to be rather more difficult to achieve than you suggest!