NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23552199-details/Lee%20Jasper:%20black-only%20schools%20will%20beat%20gangs/article.do?expand=true

Lee Jasper has returned to the political limelight with a call for the creation of "all black" schools.

The former race adviser to Ken Livingstone resigned after allegations that he had channelled public money to groups to which he was linked personally.

Now Mr Jasper has advocated racebased schooling to tackle gang violence and raise education standards for black Caribbean students.

He said: "The fact is, it's time the black community ran its own schools, devised a curriculum that suited the needs of our children, employed teachers that look like the young people they are teaching.

"Some of the greatest black leaders in the world - Dr Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, to name just two - attended all-black schools and universities."

The ex-City Hall deputy claimed the schools would be a "beacon of excellence" for the black community and accused "liberals" of dismissing the idea while accepting faith-based education for Jewish, Muslim and Hindu children.

Mr Jasper said the schools would be open to all races but would be "focused in terms of their ethos, ethics and curriculum to the needs of our children". He added: "I'm not arguing here for a BNP-style 'apartheid education system'. I'm talking about the vision of establishing inclusive beacons of black academic excellence."

His comments come after a study suggested black Caribbean students are less likely to be entered for higher tier science and maths exams because of low teacher expectations.

Police are still investigating the funding of five organisations, all granted London Development Agency cash, and Mr Jasper's involvement.

Mr Jasper resigned in March from the former mayor's staff after sending sexually charged emails to a married woman, who was also receiving public money.

The former race and policy adviser escaped personal criticism in an LDA audit report in July, but panel chairwoman Patience Wheatcroft said that his actions were part of a police investigation.

The report said it had not carried out "an extended review of the influence exerted by mayoral advisers".

It added that investigators had found "ineptitude rather than corruption" in advisers dealing with the LDA.

Ms Wheatcroft said: "We are not giving Mr Jasper's actions a clean bill of health. That's something that the Met is looking at."

Mr Jasper claimed he had been exonerated and added that he was " gobsmacked" because he had expected the Tory-dominated panel to be critical of him.

They have a word for this. Apartheid. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela only went to black only universities because they had to. I really don't think this'll help at all.

Theres a reason hes the former race advisor

They used to call this "Segregation" here in the good old US. It didn't turn out well.

i dont have a problem with an "all black" school if what that means is a magnet school designed to encourage academic excellence in all students that enroll there.

if a different approach can bring under achieving students up to the level of the rest of british students, whats the big problem?

I wonder how well an all "White School" would go over.....

I wonder how well an all "White School" would go over.....

This.

Anyway, I don't really have a problem with it, as long as there are allowed to be all White schools. Most Whites and Blacks didn't want to be bussed intogether during the integration of the Florida schools anyway.

(Personally, I prefer everyone mixed together in the schools to unite everyone instead of all this "strength through diversity" crap, but that's my opinion and if Black communities and White communities want their own schools, that's their choice)

It should be pointed out that MLK also attended Boston University, which is not an all-black school

I don't know, but segregation does seem to be working in Northern Ireland.

This.

Anyway, I don't really have a problem with it, as long as there are allowed to be all White schools. Most Whites and Blacks didn't want to be bussed intogether during the integration of the Florida schools anyway.

(Personally, I prefer everyone mixed together in the schools to unite everyone instead of all this "strength through diversity" crap, but that's my opinion and if Black communities and White communities want their own schools, that's their choice)

Yea, but you know that as soon as the first "All White" school opens in the states, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, basically the whole black community will be bitching and having an uproar.

Meanwhile the "All Black" school down the road from the "All White" school goes unnoticed. It goes unnoticed because if the white community try to say something about it, they'll be labeled racist, and we can't have that.

I don't know, but segregation does seem to be working in Northern Ireland.
What kind of segregation?

There is evidence that seperating males and females improves grades among both. I've never seen such results with race.

I also think that there are intangibles involved with diversity...be it gender diversity, racial, religious, or what have you.

Yea, but you know that as soon as the first "All White" school opens in the states, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, basically the whole black community will be bitching and having an uproar.

Meanwhile the "All Black" school down the road from the "All White" school goes unnoticed. It goes unnoticed because if the white community try to say something about it, they'll be labeled racist, and we can't have that.

when will the white man ever get a fair shake?

Ask yourself one question. What benefit could a "blacks only" school have? What benefit would a "whites only" school have? Are they the same thing?

The simple fact is, whites are already the benefited population in this society, why would they need a "whites only" school? What benefit would it give them? How would it help them?

Why doesn't this surprise me? We've already got plenty of de facto racial segregation thanks to the government's fanatical promotion of 'faith schools', it was only a matter of time before someone had the guts to suggest making the policy explicit. Sadly our two main political parties are competing with each other to see who can make more concessions to the religious lobby and the third is terrified of appearing anti-religious since its leader was revealed to be an Atheist: even if this proposal is rejected racial segregation will continue until politicians realise that most voters want less religion in education, not more.

when will the white man ever get a fair shake?

Ask yourself one question. What benefit could a "blacks only" school have? What benefit would a "whites only" school have? Are they the same thing?

The simple fact is, whites are already the benefited population in this society, why would they need a "whites only" school? What benefit would it give them? How would it help them?

What benefit would an "All black" school provide? If the goal is to decrease gang violence in the black community, then hehehe, I'm sorry but that's not going to do it. The problem is that kids who engages in gang violence aren't getting their needs met.

Allow me to introduce you to Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs. You start at the bottom and go up. When one need is met, the kid moves on to the next one.

If one need isn't met, then the kid can't move on, and that creates problem in the kid development into a functional, contributing member of society.

This is why we get gang bangers, drug addicts, and your garden variety jerks.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mlyount/MySites/Pictures/hierarchy.JPG

I wonder how well an all "White School" would go over.....

A cynic would tell you that they're already abundant: they're called "Church of England Voluntary Aided Schools".

Such a system deprives future generations of the most important lesson of all: We don't all have to be the same to be equal.

Such a system deprives future generations of the most important lesson of all: We don't all have to be the same to be equal.

Parents have like what, the first six years of the kids life to themselves? Trust me, six years is all you need to brainwash your kids with racist, sexist crap.

What benefit would an "All black" school provide? If the goal is to decrease gang violence in the black community, then hehehe, I'm sorry but that's not going to do it. The problem is that kids who engages in gang violence aren't getting their needs met.

Ahh, so you are the expert in black culture, gangs, and education now?

Parents have like what, the first six years of the kids life to themselves? Trust me, six years is all you need to brainwash your kids with racist, sexist crap.

Child development too, so it seems.

Personally I found this bit of the article the most interesting:

Mr Jasper said the schools would be open to all races but would be "focused in terms of their ethos, ethics and curriculum to the needs of our children". He added: "I'm not arguing here for a BNP-style 'apartheid education system'. I'm talking about the vision of establishing inclusive beacons of black academic excellence."

In what way does he feel the 'ethos and ethics' needs of black students are different from those of white students? I can understand the curriculum point in some subjects, like history, but not the first two.

Parents have like what, the first six years of the kids life to themselves? Trust me, six years is all you need to brainwash your kids with racist, sexist crap.

That's why you need twelve to fix it again.

In what way does he feel the 'ethos and ethics' needs of black students are different from those of white students? I can understand the curriculum point in some subjects, like history, but not the first two.

Well that is an interesting question, but I think it’s less about teaching DIFFERENT ethics, but using different means and methods to instill a comprehensive set of ethics and ethos. If you come from a particular culture and society, your outlook might be radically different from someone else. What others may see as antisocial and destructive behavior, you might see as necessary and justifiable in the circumstances.

So rather that instilling SEPARATE ethical systems, perhaps a different methodology to instill those ethics in individuals who come from, shall we say…disadvantaged social structures.

Ahh, so you are the expert in black culture, gangs, and education now?

Tell me, who has a better chance of succeeding in school, a kid who has a healthy home life, gets fed, clothed, love, attention, etc. or a kid who has an absent parent, has to work a job after school to help provide for the family, who goes hungry, and doesn't have loving, caring parents?

Kids who come from dysfunctional or broken homes are more likely to fail and drop out of school, and they'll most likely turn to gangs and crime because they were never raised properly. Comon Neo, as a lawyer, you must see this on a daily basis.

Child development too, so it seems.

Want to know why pedophiles prey on children? Because children are so easily damn impressionable and easily manipulated. That's why you should watch what you say around your kids if you actually give a damn about how they turn out. Kids learn more from their parents at the beginning of their life than from anything else.

You have racist parents, you're going to have racist kids.

That's why you need twelve to fix it again.

8 hours at school
8 hours of sleep

Still leaves 8 hours for the kid to be around the racist parents. Five bucks says the parents win out the majority of the time.

Tell me, who has a better chance of succeeding in school, a kid who has a healthy home life, gets fed, clothed, love, attention, etc. or a kid who has an absent parent, has to work a job after school to help provide for the family, who goes hungry, and doesn't have loving, caring parents?

Kids who come from dysfunctional or broken homes are more likely to fail and drop out of school, and they'll most likely turn to gangs and crime because they were never raised properly.

Holy crap, it's almost like we need special schools to help these kinds of kids! Schools that would have teachers trained to deal with these kind of issues. Schools that would have experience in dealing with them. Schools that can target specific segments of the population most commonly afflicted with these problems.

Well gee, isn't that EXACTLY what's being proposed here?

8 hours at school
8 hours of sleep

Still leaves 8 hours for the kid to be around the racist parents. Five bucks says the parents win out the majority of the time.

We're whittling them down generation by generation. Slow fuckin' going though. :(

We're whittling them down generation by generation. Slow fuckin' going though. :(

Parents will have more say than school, friends, media, or "The Wiggles" in how their kids turn out than we realize or want to admit.

Holy crap, it's almost like we need special schools to help these kinds of kids! Schools that would have teachers trained to deal with these kind of issues. Schools that would have experience in dealing with them. Schools that can target specific segments of the population most commonly afflicted with these problems.

Well gee, isn't that EXACTLY what's being proposed here?

and how does this school plan to fix the problems at home? You know, single parents, bad parents, drive by shootings, drugs, crimes, etc.

Parents have like what, the first six years of the kids life to themselves? Trust me, six years is all you need to brainwash your kids with racist, sexist crap.

And schools have 12 or 13 years to brainwash them. :rolleyes:

And schools have 12 or 13 years to brainwash them. :rolleyes:

Wow...so many people doubting how big of an effect parents have....amazing.

and how does this school plan to fix the problems at home? You know, single parents, bad parents, drive by shootings, drugs, crimes, etc.

The school can't fix those problems, but it can help those kids learn how to deal with those problems and overcome them. It can provide support for them, help them see better options. This nonsensical worship of the hierarchy of needs is absurd. While useful as a guide, trying to claim that if a kid has a bad family life he will not succeed is nonsense, and easily dis proven by my friend Jaleel, who was from one of the worst neighborhoods in all of New York. Never knew his father, had a friend shot in a drive by, worked nights to get by, had basically every bad element of upbringing you can think of.

He had the dorm next to mine freshman year at Yale. So it is possible to overcome it, but it takes a lot of work and a lot of luck. Problems CAN be dealt with, but kids will be all the more successful if they have an environment that is specifically built to help them do that.

Never knew his father, had a friend shot in a drive by, worked nights to get by, had basically every bad element of upbringing you can think of.


What's that quote from on of the posters here that people like to use? Something like, "you know for every rags to riches story, there is a million other rags to rags stories".

The school can't fix those problems, but it can help those kids learn how to deal with those problems and overcome them. It can provide support for them, help them see better options. This nonsensical worship of the hierarchy of needs is absurd. While useful as a guide, trying to claim that if a kid has a bad family life he will not succeed is nonsense, and easily dis proven by my friend Jaleel, who was from one of the worst neighborhoods in all of New York. Never knew his father, had a friend shot in a drive by, worked nights to get by, had basically every bad element of upbringing you can think of.

He had the dorm next to mine freshman year at Yale. So it is possible to overcome it, but it takes a lot of work and a lot of luck. Problems CAN be dealt with, but kids will be all the more successful if they have an environment that is specifically built to help them do that.

I never said they couldn't overcome it, I just said it's more likely that they won't. I'm not speaking in absolutes.

Good for your friend Jaleel, and he is proof that it can be overcome. However, more often than not, we get more people like the gang bangers than people like Jaleel or my best friend who also had a crap life. She to overcame her upbringing and home life.

However, like I said, Jaleel and my friend are more often the exception to the rule than not.

I never said they couldn't overcome it, I just said it's more likely that they won't. I'm not speaking in absolutes.

and you don't think there's ANYTHING schools can do to help? Really? You're honestly taking that position? If we recognize that people CAN overcome it, the only question becomes HOW they do it. And a lot of that, as I have said numerous times, is learning how to deal with the environment you are in and how to see beyond that.

And if somehow you're of the position that specialty schools can't help with this...I'm unsure how I can continue the conversation, as I appear to be up against a brick wall.

Bugger this.

Your views on life are affected mainly by people that you really trust. Such as your parents, close friends etc. - some school set up because New Labour has absolutely no idea how to fix the problems around fatherless black children is not going to help all that much, or so I'd assume.

Wow...so many people doubting how big of an effect parents have....amazing.

I've read all of your posts and so far I haven't found one I disagree with. Neither schools or the government can fix a dysfunctional family, but with a truly good education those kids caught in that situation might, just might find a way to become successful and have a good life.

and you don't think there's ANYTHING schools can do to help? Really? You're honestly taking that position?

They can try, but if a kid is failing at school because of a crap home life, more often than not, he's going to get frustrated and give up.

If the school succeed and those who go to the "all black" school start overcoming the crap home life, then congratulations and more power to them. I just think that our environment, and our parents will play a bigger role in shaping us than school, peers, or media will.

What's that quote from on of the posters here that people like to use? Something like, "you know for every rags to riches story, there is a million other rags to rags stories".

Indeed - which is why someone ought to come up with something to help people from "rags" backgrounds improve their odds. You know, like these schools.

Now, I have my doubts as to whether they're the right answer, but at least the people proposing them are trying rather than just throwing up their hands and saying, "Your home life sucks? Oh well, kid, you're fucked!"

They can try, but if a kid is failing at school because of a crap home life, more often than not, he's going to get frustrated and give up

And you get this from...where, exactly? You met a poor kid with a bad family and assumed everyone was like that?

Have you ever actually worked with at risk children before?

I've read all of your posts and so far I haven't found one I disagree with. Neither schools or the government can fix a dysfunctional family, but with a truly good education those kids caught in that situation might, just might find a way to become successful and have a good life.

True, I just hope the school finds some damn good teachers who'll go the extra mile for the students. Otherwise, why even bother in the first place?

They used to call this "Segregation" here in the good old US. It didn't turn out well.

Especially because "Separate But Equal" in practice really meant "The White Race will get the best of everything, and all the left over shit we'll dump on those n*****s."

And you get this from...where, exactly? You met a poor kid with a bad family and assumed everyone was like that?

Have you ever actually worked with at risk children before?

I actually have, worked in what could be classified as an "Inner city" school. (Let's be honest though, it's only called an 'Inner City' school because it's in the poor section of town, there's nothing 'Inner' or 'City' about a town where Dale Earnhardt Sr. was born.)

The kids I've worked with, they didn't see the point, they didn't see the point in doing the work because they'll just end up dead, jail, prison, or working at a dead end factory job where they'll eventually get laid off. (I was doing this about the time all the cotton mills in the area was closing down and going to China).

There was one idiot who didn't want to do the work because apparently succeeding in school was being "White". But, he's an idiot and I quickly discarded his opinion.

Face it Neo, if you don't have a good home life, and if you don't get the proper time to study and do the work because you're either working to help the family, or you're hungry, or whatever crap home life situation you can think of. The kids are more likely going to fail.

Want to know why pedophiles prey on children? Because children are so easily damn impressionable and easily manipulated.

This is my favourite Wilgrove quote evah. So assertive and yet so stupid.

The kids I've worked with, they didn't see the point, they didn't see the point in doing the work because they'll just end up dead, jail, prison, or working at a dead end factory job where they'll eventually get laid off. (I was doing this about the time all the cotton mills in the area was closing down and going to China).

I see, and did you have any training, experience, or background in helping them "see the point"?

There was one idiot who didn't want to do the work because apparently succeeding in school was being "White". But, he's an idiot and I quickly discarded his opinion.

No, apparently you do not.

Face it Neo, if you don't have a good home life, and if you don't get the proper time to study and do the work because you're either working to help the family, or you're hungry, or whatever crap home life situation you can think of. The kids are more likely going to fail.

More likely than...whom? Children without those problems? Where the hell did you ever see me arguing otherwise? Is it standard tactic for you to pretend someone is saying something utterly ascinine and stupid, so then you can feel smart when you disprove the utterly ludicrus position that they never made?

It might make you feel better, but it doesn't make you look very clever. Of course kids in poverty will do worse, overall, than kids who are not. I never said otherwise, nor did anyone else.

The question I asked you was simply this, will children in poverty, who have the problems associated with poverty, do better, overall, if they are put in a regular school, that is not designed to address their needs, with teachers that call them "idiots" and discard them rather then help them, or in a school that's specifically designed to address the problems of poverty?

That's all I ever asked, in which environment is a student more likely to do better. Not "will he do as well as the rich kids", not "will the school magically make his home life better" not 'will he be guaranteed a success", I simply asked, which will help the poor over all, a school that is not built to address their needs, or one that is.

Please stop arguing points I didn't make, I'm not nearly that dumb to try and make the arguments you seem to think I am, and just address the one I did.

This is my favourite Wilgrove quote evah. So assertive and yet so stupid.

Oh yea, it's not like the kid's mind is like a sponge, you know it's not like they know when to not listen to us, and when to listen to us. No...kids are like tiny adults.

Oh yea, it's not like the kid's mind is like a sponge, you know it's not like they know when to not listen to us, and when to listen to us. No...kids are like tiny adults.
I think that you're missing out the outstandingly massive point of "pedos go after children because that's the hormones, or lack thereof, that they're into".

Basically Wilgrove, you make the point for me. You talk about a school filled with kids who don't "see the point". Well, how could they, with someone like you as a teacher who, rather than having the training, experience, expertise and compassion to HELP them see the point, help them understand they can have a better life, help them to ACTUALLY IMPROVE THEMSELVES....call them idiots and dismiss them.

Basically Wilgrove, you make the point for me. You talk about a school filled with kids who don't "see the point". Well, how could they, with someone like you as a teacher who, rather than having the training, experience, expertise and compassion to HELP them see the point, help them understand they can have a better life, help them to ACTUALLY IMPROVE THEMSELVES....call them idiots and dismiss them.

Who says tough love isn't a good strategy?

Who says tough love isn't a good strategy?
There's tough love and then there's just being a prick.

Who says tough love isn't a good strategy?

....the overwhelming majority of educators?

Who says tough love isn't a good strategy?

most teachers, really.

Edit: damn it poli!

Basically Wilgrove, you make the point for me. You talk about a school filled with kids who don't "see the point". Well, how could they, with someone like you as a teacher who, rather than having the training, experience, expertise and compassion to HELP them see the point, help them understand they can have a better life, help them to ACTUALLY IMPROVE THEMSELVES....call them idiots and dismiss them.

I discarded one student's opinion because it was a stupid opinion. If he didn't want to do the work because he thought it was too "white", then that's his own damn fault. The others actually wanted help, and I tried to help them to the best of my abilities as a student who was studying to become a high school teacher at the time.

Sorry if I don't feel like working with someone who apparently didn't want to do the work, and decided to do the "black" thing and go "ghetto". I'd rather spend my time with kids who want the help and have the drive to succeed.

Tell me Neo, have you ever spent time with "At risk" kids?

I discarded one student's opinion because it was a stupid opinion. If he didn't want to do the work because he thought it was too "white", then that's his own damn fault. The others actually wanted help, and I tried to help them to the best of my abilities as a student who was studying to become a high school teacher at the time.

Nietzchean Slave Morality at work. What's good for the oppressor suddenly becomes bad to the oppressed.

Tell me Neo, have you ever spent time with "At risk" kids?

I spent two years as operations assistant and assistant program manager for the East Hartford Juvenile Justice center in East Hartford, Connecticut.

In fact, not only were these kids “at risk”, they were, by the legal nature of the program, children who had already been tried and convicted of crimes. A few thinks interesting of note, graduates of our program were three times less likely to reoffend than other children convicted of similar crimes, five times more likely to graduate high school, and, of those that did graduate highschool, were seven times more likely to go on to college than their peers who did not join similar programs.

So yeah, you could say I have.

Sorry if I don't feel like working with someone who apparently didn't want to do the work, and decided to do the "black" thing and go "ghetto". I'd rather spend my time with kids who want the help and have the drive to succeed.

So you preferred to work with kids who already had the motivation and drive, and not try to help the one who needed your help the most.

Thanks Wilgrove, you prove my point. Imagine what that kid might have become, if he had a teacher who gave a damn.

There's tough love and then there's just being a prick.

Well I wouldn't describe assertively "discarding an opinion", especially one as fundamentally stupid as "succeeding is a white thing", would constitute being a prick.

Well I wouldn't describe assertively "discarding an opinion", especially one as fundamentally stupid as "succeeding is a white thing", would constitute being a prick.

it is when you're a teacher.

You know, the kind of person who is supposed to be teaching, not dismissing.

I never said they couldn't overcome it, I just said it's more likely that they won't. I'm not speaking in absolutes.

Good for your friend Jaleel, and he is proof that it can be overcome. However, more often than not, we get more people like the gang bangers than people like Jaleel or my best friend who also had a crap life. She to overcame her upbringing and home life.

However, like I said, Jaleel and my friend are more often the exception to the rule than not.

Again you are correct. One of my sisters who is 10 years older than I am had an abusive husband and she was a very dysfunctional mother as well. Did a lot of yelling and never really disciplined the kids. Out of the six kids she had, only two are not dysfunctional themselves.

Now I realize that 33.33% of her kids are not dysfunctional, but I'm sure the rate of dysfunctional kids from a family like that is a lot higher in the general population and that is sad but also the reality. :(

....the overwhelming majority of educators?

most teachers, really.

Edit: damn it poli!

So there's been a huge census on the hundreds of millions of teachers all around the western world has there? Because I would love to see it.

And you get this from...where, exactly? You met a poor kid with a bad family and assumed everyone was like that?

Have you ever actually worked with at risk children before?

Wilgrove is correct. How do I know? I was an educator for over 20 years and have a Masters Degree in Education.

Wilgrove is correct. How do I know? I was an educator for over 20 years and have a Masters Degree in Education.

Appeal to expertise.

Wilgrove is correct.

in WHAT, exactly? That people from bad families tend to succeed less often?

Well no shit, who ever claimed otherwise? I'm unsure what exactly he's tried to say other than "poor people don't succeed as often", which is so nonsensically obvious that I am not clear why he bothered to say it, especially since nobody challenged that particular notion.

But I did ask him a question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14000905&postcount=42), one he has failed to answer. Perhaps, with all your credentials, you would like to try and answer it for him.

So there's been a huge census on the hundreds of millions of teachers all around the western world has there? Because I would love to see it.

I've taken education courses at a couple of different schools. None of them ever mentioned declaring one's students to be pricks and dismissing them as a valid pedagogical technique.

My mother is a college professor; she has also taken lots of education courses, and has worked with other teachers all her life. She was never taught that declaring one's students to be pricks and dismissing them was a valid pedagogical technique.

About half my friends have taught at some level (I went to a fancy-schmancy college and hung with the geeky crowd; it was inevitable). None of them were ever taught that declaring one's students to be pricks and dismissing them was a valid pedagogical technique.

I have no doubt some teachers exist who think that's a good method, but if they weren't a minority, I kinda think somewhere in some part of the education instruction I or anyone I know have received, that would have been suggested as acceptable behavior, don't you?

True, I just hope the school finds some damn good teachers who'll go the extra mile for the students. Otherwise, why even bother in the first place?

That's part of the problem here in the US. The truly great teachers are not rewarded and the "yawn" teachers can't be fired. This problem will never be solved until they do away with tenure and the teachers union in primary and secondary schools. And the chances of those to things is less than or equal to zero. :(

Who says tough love isn't a good strategy?Tough love is not dismissing your student. As a teacher, you never dismiss a student because you consider their point of view to be "stupid". You work to change it. This isn't pedagogical knowledge or theory, it is common sense in the industry.

I discarded one student's opinion because it was a stupid opinion. In your opinion. In my opinion, your actions are deplorable for anyone who ever wanted to be a teacher.
If he didn't want to do the work because he thought it was too "white", then that's his own damn fault. It may very well be. But your job, as his teacher, is to do everything in your power to change that attitude. Find him a mentor, an older student who is succeeding. It is your job to reach your students, not theirs to reach you.

The others actually wanted help, and I tried to help them to the best of my abilities as a student who was studying to become a high school teacher at the time.And yet, you gave up. And then had the audacity to criticize the student.

Ever think he might be the way he is because of teachers who took the same approach as you?

Sorry if I don't feel like working with someone who apparently didn't want to do the work, and decided to do the "black" thing and go "ghetto". I'd rather spend my time with kids who want the help and have the drive to succeed.
Not the job of a teacher. Your job is to educated every student, at risk, challenged, gifted, and distinctly average.

So there's been a huge census on the hundreds of millions of teachers all around the western world has there? Because I would love to see it.
Does there need to be? There is not a single pedagogy that advocates rejecting a student over educating them. If one is unable to reach the student, then another teacher, administrator, or student should be called upon.

Face it Neo, if you don't have a good home life, and if you don't get the proper time to study and do the work because you're either working to help the family, or you're hungry, or whatever crap home life situation you can think of. The kids are more likely going to fail.

You forgot "and your don't have a parent or parents who give a dam about your education.

You forgot "and your don't have a parent or parents who give a dam about your education.

Can you please also tell them that you can't save everyone, so as a teacher, you should rather try to save the one that you can?

I would say so myself, but I got supper cooking.

it is when you're a teacher.

You know, the kind of person who is supposed to be teaching, not dismissing.

There are loads of different approaches to teaching. It's not like there's a clear cut and non ambiguous argument as to why that student is wrong, sometimes it's better to just be assertive and clear cut. This is how parenting is often done, when a parent says "this is wrong", you don't expect them to justify that statement with some sort of meta ethical argument for absolutist ethics, that's not the point.

I've taken education courses at a couple of different schools. None of them ever mentioned declaring one's students to be pricks and dismissing them as a valid pedagogical technique.

My mother is a college professor; she has also taken lots of education courses, and has worked with other teachers all her life. She was never taught that declaring one's students to be pricks and dismissing them was a valid pedagogical technique.

About half my friends have taught at some level (I went to a fancy-schmancy college and hung with the geeky crowd; it was inevitable). None of them were ever taught that declaring one's students to be pricks and dismissing them was a valid pedagogical technique.

I have no doubt some teachers exist who think that's a good method, but if they weren't a minority, I kinda think somewhere in some part of the education instruction I or anyone I know have received, that would have been suggested as acceptable behavior, don't you?

Where are you getting this "declaring their students to be pricks" nonsense? Wilgrove never did that. Anyway, I'm not sure what this anecdotal evidence is supposed to prove. I could just as easily give examples, my mother is also a music teacher, the accepted methods of teachings are constantly changing like some sort of teenage fashion trend and she has an interest in keeping up with the changes, she subscribes to various teaching magazines to get this kind of information. According to her the methods are constantly changing, and she often describes the whole thing as a farce, when one minute it is good to be assertive and the next minute it isn't.

Besides, we don't even know that Wilgrove didn't explain his dismissal of that one opinion, so I don't know why you are even immediately assuming that.

Can you please also tell them that you can't save everyone, so as a teacher, you should rather try to save the one that you can?

I would say so myself, but I got supper cooking.
Differentiating instruction. You don't abandon students. No, you won't make a brick float, but it is your job to do your best. You might not save every single one of them, but it is your job to bring every student up as much as you can.

Where are you getting this "declaring their students to be pricks" nonsense? Wilgrove never did that. Anyway, I'm not sure what this anecdotal evidence is supposed to prove. I could just as easily give examples, my mother is also a music teacher, the accepted methods of teachings are constantly changing like some sort of teenage fashion trend and she has an interest in keeping up with the changes, she subscribes to various teaching magazines to get this kind of information. According to her the methods are constantly changing, and she often describes the whole thing as a farce, when one minute it is good to be assertive and the next minute it isn't.

Besides, we don't even know that Wilgrove didn't explain his dismissal of that one opinion, so I don't know why you are even immediately assuming that.
There are many approaches to teaching, yes. None of which involve dismissing a student.

Differentiating instruction. You don't abandon students. No, you won't make a brick float, but it is your job to do your best. You might not save every single one of them, but it is your job to bring every student up as much as you can.

The student has to do the work too. The teacher can teach, and he can try to reach the student, but if the student doesn't do his part of the deal, and doesn't put forth is own effort, then it's a moot point.

There are many approaches to teaching, yes. None of which involve dismissing a student.

What the hell are you talking about. There is no objective list of correct approaches to teaching, even if only one teacher in the world is adopting a particular approach, that approach still exists.

The student has to do the work too. The teacher can teach, and he can try to reach the student, but if the student doesn't do his part of the deal, and doesn't put forth is own effort, then it's a moot point.

No question, students must do their work. If they refuse, however, it is the job of the teacher to figure out a way to get them to do it. Like I said, find a mentor (an older black student who is doing well)...something as simple as an older black student saying "If being successful is "acting white", what is "acting black"? can have a huge impact. You might not be able to reach the student alone, but it is your duty to figure out some way to reach him. If you can't, well, that's why they invented ISS with a big scary man to intimidate the kids into doing their work.

What the hell are you talking about. There is no objective list of correct approaches to teaching, even if only one teacher in the world is adopting a particular approach, that approach still exists.

Let it go, let it go. Apparently they think teachers are to be "Super heros" who can fix all the kid's problem, and still be able to go home and make sweet passionate love to their partner. I've seen parents yell at teachers because their son or daughter is failing, and yet when they ask about what the parents are doing to help. They'll either get that "deer in headlight" look or "Well isn't that your job?" comment.

Teachers are overworked, underpaid, and are expected to perform miracles.

Not the job of a teacher. Your job is to educated every student, at risk, challenged, gifted, and distinctly average.
You can't educate those not willing to learn.

Where are you getting this "declaring their students to be pricks" nonsense? Wilgrove never did that. Anyway, I'm not sure what this anecdotal evidence is supposed to prove. I could just as easily give examples, my mother is also a music teacher, the accepted methods of teachings are constantly changing like some sort of teenage fashion trend and she has an interest in keeping up with the changes, she subscribes to various teaching magazines to get this kind of information. According to her the methods are constantly changing, and she often describes the whole thing as a farce, when one minute it is good to be assertive and the next minute it isn't.

Besides, we don't even know that Wilgrove didn't explain his dismissal of that one opinion, so I don't know why you are even immediately assuming that.

My apologies, I misremembered Wilgrove's choice of words. Declaring one's students to be idiots and dismissing them, then.

And of course there are a variety of methods of teaching, but every last one of them involves, y'know, teaching, not just declaring certain students not to be worth the bother.

I've tutored a lot of kids, and a great many of them didn't want to learn, thought learning was totally "uncool," even insisted that they couldn't learn. It would have been a great deal easier for me to say, "Okay, fine, you're right. You're hopeless and can't learn. Let's just spend this hour every week watching TV or something" - and yet, somehow, I thought it was a better idea to fight for them and make them work in spite of themselves. And you know what? They learned.

What the hell are you talking about. There is no objective list of correct approaches to teaching, even if only one teacher in the world is adopting a particular approach, that approach still exists.

okay, perhaps their is some asshole teacher who advocates ditching a student. That approach is neither valid nor a part of any pedagogy.

And while you are correct that there isn't an objective list of "correct approaches of teaching", there are things that are definatly not valid. Ignoring, dismissing, or rejecting students is on that list.

I got a question. How many periods in a day will this school have, and how many students will a teacher have in a single period?

You can't educate those not willing to learn.

That's a cop out. Make the student care. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" is lame. Make the student give a damn. Figure out a way to make the student relate to the material. That is, after all, the job of a teacher.

I had 70 or so students last semester. If I let every kid go who was "unwilling to learn", I would have taught three kids.

Appeal to expertise.

And the literature from the research I have done.

That's a cop out. Make the student care. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" is lame. Make the student give a damn. Figure out a way to make the student relate to the material. That is, after all, the job of a teacher.

I had 70 or so students last semester. If I let every kid go who was "unwilling to learn", I would have taught three kids.

So you never encounter a student that's just impossible to teach. You manage to "save" every student you teach, and they all got a C or higher in your class?

I call bull.

That's a cop out.
Bullshit. That's the fact. If the student doesn't want to learn, your insistence isn't going to make him.

I had 70 or so students last semester. If I let every kid go who was "unwilling to learn", I would have taught three kids.
You obviously confuse "school sucks" with "refusing to learn."

its a good thing to know that only Afro-Caribbean children can be in gangs

what I'm getting at is this guy is an idiot who has fallen into the trap of statistics that involve ones race (because naturally things like class have nothing to do with it) either that or he is doing an archbishop and trying to seem important

maybe its a trap what with parents who do send their kids to these schools being unfit for the care of children

Differentiating instruction. You don't abandon students. No, you won't make a brick float, but it is your job to do your best. You might not save every single one of them, but it is your job to bring every student up as much as you can.

many seem to be doubting the power of being ignored here, seriously its like the ultimate weapon in dealing with children IMHO

and also I'd like to hear what you think of removing disruptive children for the laughs

Let it go, let it go. Apparently they think teachers are to be "Super heros" who can fix all the kid's problem, and still be able to go home and make sweet passionate love to their partner. I've seen parents yell at teachers because their son or daughter is failing, and yet when they ask about what the parents are doing to help. They'll either get that "deer in headlight" look or "Well isn't that your job?" comment.

Teachers are overworked, underpaid, and are expected to perform miracles.

Yeah, I've been yelled at by a very large, angry Bosnian lawyer because his son failed a class. I got yelled at by a students mother because I gave him detention for being late to class for the 5th time that week. I got yelled at because I took my students cell phone because she was texting during my lecture. And you know what? I know that my students were going home to empty houses or houses where they wern't getting help with their work or being pressured to do their work.

That doesn't allow me to just blow the kid off and say "well, some people just aren't meant to learn".

I never said it was a teachers job to fix every kids every problem. What I did say is that it is the teachers job to reach every student to the best of their ability, and never to dismiss, reject, or insult a student.

in WHAT, exactly? That people from bad families tend to succeed less often?

No that is not what he said. He is correct in the fact that people from dysfunction families tend to succeed less often and that our education system as it is now can not remedy that.

My apologies, I misremembered Wilgrove's choice of words. Declaring one's students to be idiots and dismissing them, then.


He declared him privately to be an idiot I believe, I don't think he called him an idiot to his face.


And of course there are a variety of methods of teaching, but every last one of them involves, y'know, teaching, not just declaring certain students not to be worth the bother.


Well, I'm only talking about Wilgrove's decision to dismiss an opinion, not about his refusing to teach altogether, that's a different matter that I'm not discussing. However I could argue that him saying "if you don't want to learn then fine I won't teach you" as a valid reverse psychology technique.

Let it go, let it go. Apparently they think teachers are to be "Super heros" who can fix all the kid's problem, and still be able to go home and make sweet passionate love to their partner. I've seen parents yell at teachers because their son or daughter is failing, and yet when they ask about what the parents are doing to help. They'll either get that "deer in headlight" look or "Well isn't that your job?" comment.

Teachers are overworked, underpaid, and are expected to perform miracles.

Um, right. Expecting teachers to try is totally expecting them to be superheroes. Of course you can't fix every child's problems - but you can bloody well make an effort. Yes, teachers are overworked and underpaid and treated like crap by a lot of parents and students as well - so what? How does that justify them deciding some kids aren't worth their time?

(And, by the way, I'll probably be spending most of my life as a teacher, so I'm not sure why you act like I'm setting some sort of unreasonable standard for others. I'd be disgusted with myself if I just dismissed certain students as idiots instead of working with them.)

I never said it was a teachers job to fix every kids every problem. What I did say is that it is the teachers job to reach every student to the best of their ability, and never to dismiss, reject, or insult a student.

I dismissed the opinion, I didn't insult the student or dismissed him altogether. But he was one of the "unreachable"

I don't know where he is now, but five bucks says he's either in the "ghetto", jail, or dead.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23552199-details/Lee%20Jasper:%20black-only%20schools%20will%20beat%20gangs/article.do?expand=true



They have a word for this. Apartheid. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela only went to black only universities because they had to. I really don't think this'll help at all.

That just sounds like a white supremacist's bringing back the old days when blacks and white had designated bus seats, schools and water fountains. The whole gang deterrent thing is just a sad and pathetic excuse.

there are things that are definatly not valid. ....dismissing... students is on that list.

I don't see that as the case. I don't see the idea that you should universally and under any circumstance not dismiss a statement without an explanation as true. From my experience, that doesn't seem to be how it's done. Teachers are constantly dismissing opinions all the time without explanation, like when I used to ask my Maths teacher some annoying pedantic question that would take ages to explain, he would just say "no, that's not correct" and leave it, and I learned it was a lot easier just accepting these mathematical givens rather than trying to boggle my mind and wasting time finding out why this is the case.

So you never encounter a student that's just impossible to teach. You manage to "save" every student you teach, and they all got a C or higher in your class?

I call bull.
No, actually I had many students fail. But I never once gave up on them. You pressure them and push them, even when they are failing. Moreso, actually, if they are failing. The B or A student is driven on their own. Yes, you need to push them to work harder and do better, but it is the failing student who needs to be pushed the hardest.

Bullshit. That's the fact. If the student doesn't want to learn, your insistence isn't going to make him."If you are in my classroom, you will do work. If you would rather not do work, you may go see the dean, who will send you to ISS for the day, where you will be forced to do work. It is your choice."
Yep, I got work out of every student one way or the other.


You obviously confuse "school sucks" with "refusing to learn."Nope. I draw quite a distinction.


many seem to be doubting the power of being ignored here, seriously its like the ultimate weapon in dealing with children IMHO
Depends what is being ignored. A student saying "doing homework is "white" so I won't do it" cannot be ignored. A student sharpening their pencil every 5 minutes because he knows I hate the noise can be ignored.

Bullshit. That's the fact. If the student doesn't want to learn, your insistence isn't going to make him.


You obviously confuse "school sucks" with "refusing to learn."

Bullshit, yourself. I've taught a student who literally ran around the room with her hands over her ears yelling, "SCREW YOU I'M NOT LISTENING." I've taught a student who insisted that he would sooner DIE than learn algebra. And, of course, I've taught one student who insisted that being good at school was for white kids and "she didn't wanna be no Oreo." I've taught quite a few students who didn't want to learn, and they damn well learned anyway.

That just sounds like a white supremacist's bringing back the old days when blacks and white had designated bus seats, schools and water fountains. The whole gang deterrent thing is just a sad and pathetic excuse.

well apparently his taste in married women is expensive(he can hardly sex her in McDonalds toilets now?*) so he needs the story money

*seriously lets talk about shagging old ladies

Um, right. Expecting teachers to try is totally expecting them to be superheroes. Of course you can't fix every child's problems - but you can bloody well make an effort. Yes, teachers are overworked and underpaid and treated like crap by a lot of parents and students as well - so what? How does that justify them deciding some kids aren't worth their time?

(And, by the way, I'll probably be spending most of my life as a teacher, so I'm not sure why you act like I'm setting some sort of unreasonable standard for others. I'd be disgusted with myself if I just dismissed certain students as idiots instead of working with them.)This. All of this.

I dismissed the opinion, I didn't insult the student or dismissed him altogether. But he was one of the "unreachable"While that is a slightly different case, it still isn't entirely valid. Yes, dismiss the opinion, but present an alternative. "I don't want to do anything 'white'" is unacceptable. Present the alternative.
"If acting white is being successful, what is acting black?"

Can you please also tell them that you can't save everyone, so as a teacher, you should rather try to save the one that you can?

I would say so myself, but I got supper cooking.

You can not save every one but you should try to save every one that is in your care.

Getting back to the op, I am not sure if segregation would work in helping these kids or not. There may be many arguments for and against it. The one way to find out is to start one charter school and measure it's success or failure. If it fails then close it down, but if it succeeds then expand the program. BUT, what everyone needs to understand is it will take years to measure the success or failure of the program.

Unfortunately, there is no magic wand that will solve this problem in the UK, the US, or anywhere else. I wish there was because people need to understand that education is the only way to success.

And with that I must go to supper.

Differentiating instruction. You don't abandon students. No, you won't make a brick float, but it is your job to do your best. You might not save every single one of them, but it is your job to bring every student up as much as you can.

You get to a point with some student that there is nothing more you can do for them and to continue trying means you can not help the others. As a teacher, you have to recognize that point so you don't loose the others.

I don't see that as the case. I don't see the idea that you should universally and under any circumstance not dismiss a statement without an explanation as true. From my experience, that doesn't seem to be how it's done. Teachers are constantly dismissing opinions all the time without explanation, like when I used to ask my Maths teacher some annoying pedantic question that would take ages to explain, he would just say "no, that's not correct" and leave it, and I learned it was a lot easier just accepting these mathematical givens rather than trying to boggle my mind and wasting time finding out why this is the case.A better response would be "That's incorrect. Come talk to me after class/school, and we'll discuss why". I had a student ask me some pendantic question about grammar. I had finally gotten the rest of the class to understand the sentence structure, and discussing this exception would have confused the rest. "You're technically correct, but this is being used to aesthetic, not grammar. Come talk to me after class, and I'll see if I can clarify"

Bullshit, yourself. I've taught a student who literally ran around the room with her hands over her ears yelling, "SCREW YOU I'M NOT LISTENING." I've taught a student who insisted that he would sooner DIE than learn algebra. And, of course, I've taught one student who insisted that being good at school was for white kids and "she didn't wanna be no Oreo." I've taught quite a few students who didn't want to learn, and they damn well learned anyway.I had the pregnant student who was looking for baby clothes rather than write her essay. She would be leaving the school a month or two before the end of the term, and so her grades didn't matter. And yet, I got an essay out of her.

Or the chick who flipped a desk and hit a student with her peanut butter and jelly sandwich, screaming "I don't give a fuck about parallel sentence structures".

I was just amazed she knew what we were talking about.

You get to a point with some student that there is nothing more you can do for them and to continue trying means you can not help the others. As a teacher, you have to recognize that point so you don't loose the others.

Then find another way. I had a girl who slept in my class every single day. When she was awake, she was texting. Yelling at her was taking away from my class. I spoke to the dean, he said "no warnings. If she does anything wrong, send her down and she'll have ISS".

There are other ways. Find them and utilize them. Allowing one student to sleep or give up in class shows the other students that, if you just push hard enough, the teacher will give up on you and let you do what you want.

Or the chick who flipped a desk and hit a student with her peanut butter and jelly sandwich, screaming "I don't give a fuck about parallel sentence structures".

...okay, I have to admit, this one made me laugh. :tongue:

Depends what is being ignored. A student saying "doing homework is "white" so I won't do it" cannot be ignored. A student sharpening their pencil every 5 minutes because he knows I hate the noise can be ignored.

so you seriously don't believe that student wasn't saying that for a reaction?

I think choosing to just send the student to work outside the group/class on its own till it chooses to do the work would be my course of action if he was generally just going through that gangster phase

exclusion whether from participation is quite a horrible thing for a monkey after all

A better response would be "That's incorrect. Come talk to me after class/school, and we'll discuss why".


And what if it's so complicated not even the teacher can properly explain it?

And what if it's so complicated not even the teacher can properly explain it?

"Come talk to me after class, and I'll point you towards some resources that can help explain why."

so you seriously don't believe that student wasn't saying that for a reaction?The sentiment of "black" v. "white" behavior is very common, and not generally used just for reaction. Something for reaction is "I ain't doin this gay ass work". In which case, it can't be ignored because he used the word "gay" in a derogatory manner and "ass" without justification, both of which would be against my class rules.

Short answer is no. And even if he is, there are likely other students who would benefit from hearing the lecture.

I think choosing to just send the student to work outside the group/class on its own till it chooses to do the work would be my course of action if he was generally just going through that gangster phase
The first few times the offending student does something, it should be handled in class. It should not be taken out of the classroom untill absolutly necessary.

exclusion whether from participation is quite a horrible thing for a monkey after all
Something that does work along those lines is to isolate the student within the classroom. "Go do your work in the back corner of the classroom."
And what if it's so complicated not even the teacher can properly explain it?
Then they should be ready to admit that.
"You know, I'm not even really sure. I'll see what I can find for you tonight. Come check with me later."

"Come talk to me after class, and I'll point you towards some resources that can help explain why."

And if there are no resources that my teacher can provide which is at my level?

Let it go, let it go. Apparently they think teachers are to be "Super heros" who can fix all the kid's problem, and still be able to go home and make sweet passionate love to their partner.

I'll ask the question for the fourth time, and I expect you will ignore it for the fourth time.

Exactly who is saying this here? Who are you addressing? Who here said that teachers should always be able to fix every kid's problem?

Enough with the fucking hyperbole already, grow up and figure out how to address the arguments you are ACTUALLY confronted with.

Then they should be ready to admit that.
"You know, I'm not even really sure. I'll see what I can find for you tonight. Come check with me later."

It's not about ignorance, it's not something you can look up. It's that it's so complicated that even if the teacher did understand it, he wouldn't (nor would any resource) be able to articulate it to my level of understanding.

No that is not what he said. He is correct in the fact that people from dysfunction families tend to succeed less often and that our education system as it is now can not remedy that.

I highlighted the important part for you. It appears the very point of this thread is someone who is trying to change our educational system as it is now

Or did you miss that?

Unfortunately, there is no magic wand that will solve this problem in the UK, the US, or anywhere else. I wish there was because people need to understand that education is the only way to success.

even if it could magically distance black people from their chimpanzee ancestors (oh god I use the email in my profile for work) it fundamentally stinks to me due to it going against all that modern education is supposed to stand for, hell we have uniforms to asphyxiate classism for god sakes how will racist schools work?

And with that I must go to supper.

what on Earth is "supper"?

Getting back to the op, I am not sure if segregation would work in helping these kids or not. There may be many arguments for and against it. The one way to find out is to start one charter school and measure it's success or failure. If it fails then close it down, but if it succeeds then expand the program. BUT, what everyone needs to understand is it will take years to measure the success or failure of the program.

Unfortunately, there is no magic wand that will solve this problem in the UK, the US, or anywhere else. I wish there was because people need to understand that education is the only way to success.

I highlighted the important part for you. It appears the very point of this thread is someone who is trying to change our educational system as it is now

Or did you miss that?

Perhaps you missed the above. No I did not miss the point of the thread.

It's not about ignorance, it's not something you can look up. It's that it's so complicated that even if the teacher did understand it, he wouldn't (nor would any resource) be able to articulate it to my level of understanding.

Then, presumably, the teacher would say, "Wow, you amazing super-genius child, no one in the history of civilization has ever thought of that question before! I can't answer it, nor can any resource, so you shall just have to use your amazing mental prowess to think about it on your own, o wise one!" :rolleyes:

Perhaps you missed the above. No I did not miss the point of the thread.

so then you admit the program could work. Why then did you say Wilgrove was right, in saying that it wouldn't?

for god sakes how will racist schools work?

what on Earth is "supper"?

The same way private segregated (by religion, by race, by shoe size :rolleyes:) work?

Supper = dinner = the evening meal. depending on your ethnic, regional, religon, etc. :)

And now I must go get food!

Then, presumably, the teacher would say, "Wow, you amazing super-genius child, no one in the history of civilization has ever thought of that question before! I can't answer it, nor can any resource, so you shall just have to use your amazing mental prowess to think about it on your own, o wise one!" :rolleyes:

There are loads of simple questions in maths that have unbelievably complex answers. The point being, it's absurd to say that dismissing a student is universally wrong.

so then you admit the program could work.

Yes, it could work.

[/QUOTE] Why then did you say Wilgrove was right, in saying that it wouldn't?[/QUOTE]

Wilgrove was right on many, many of the things he said. I don't recall his saying it wouldn't work. But I'm old and might have missed that statement.

And if there are no resources that my teacher can provide which is at my level?

It's not about ignorance, it's not something you can look up. It's that it's so complicated that even if the teacher did understand it, he wouldn't (nor would any resource) be able to articulate it to my level of understanding.

What is the question? Something like "but why does 2 and 2 equal 4"?

I have trouble believing that a valid question in math would have no resource that your teacher could find, or atleast point you towards...something as simple as "You might be able to find the answer here, but I make no promises. Tell me if you have any luck. If not, I'll see what I can do".

If you can ask a question so complex that a college graduate in math cannot answer, then you should be able to understand the complex answer.

If you can ask a question so complex that a college graduate in math cannot answer, then you should be able to understand the complex answer.

No, there are things like "how do you solve Fermat last theorem? (a relatively simple proposition but with an insanely complex proof that few people understand)" or "how is this the golden ratio for fibonacci" or even "how come I can't divide by zero"? etc...

Wilgrove was right on many, many of the things he said. I don't recall his saying it wouldn't work. But I'm old and might have missed that statement.

To whit:

What benefit would an "All black" school provide? If the goal is to decrease gang violence in the black community, then hehehe, I'm sorry but that's not going to do it.

Which is what I thought you were agreeing iwth. Now if you support the general proposition that good schools can't fix bad homes, and the best thing to have is a positive home environment, I'm agreeing 100%

But I reject the notion that just because the kid comes from a bad environment, there isn't a lot a school can do.

No, there are things like "how do you solve Fermat last theorem? (a relatively simple proposition but with an insanely complex proof that few people understand)" or "how is this the golden ratio for fibonacci" or even "how come I can't divide by zero"? etc...

I'm curious where any of those aside from "why can't I divide by zero" would ever come up in a high school math class. Why can't I divide by zero is something the teacher should be able to explain.

How much education do these kids need to become crack dealers and prostitutes anyway?

I'm curious where any of those aside from "why can't I divide by zero" would ever come up in a high school math class. Why can't I divide by zero is something the teacher should be able to explain.

They wouldn't come up in a normal maths class but a higher tier one they would. When you get into further maths, you start using a whole load of assumptions which haven't been explained, which can get annoying at times.

How much education do these kids need to become crack dealers and prostitutes anyway?

Without basic math they wouldn't know how much crack goes per gram on the streets and they wouldn't know how much the hos were holding out on them.

:D

Without basic math they wouldn't know how much crack goes per gram on the streets and they wouldn't know how much the hos were holding out on them.

:D

You make an excellent point...but I think the more common 'apprenticeship' system we've always had for this sort of specialisation can continue to work just fine. Really, forcing black kids into culturally incompatible schools won't help...and in fact, might hinder them as they lose valuable time which could be better used developing street cred.

I don't know, but segregation does seem to be working in Northern Ireland.

There are black people in Northern Ireland?

How much education do these kids need to become crack dealers and prostitutes anyway?

You have two bitches. Latoya can turn an average of six tricks a night at $75. or three tricks at $160. Keesha can turn eight tricks at $80, or a dozen at $40. How do you maximize your profits?

And, with the new global economy, multiple languages can't hurt ;)
They wouldn't come up in a normal maths class but a higher tier one they would. When you get into further maths, you start using a whole load of assumptions which haven't been explained, which can get annoying at times.
I was never that good at math, and so generally just accepted it. But your teacher should be able to direct you to a good resource at the very least, even if they can't explain it well.

There are loads of simple questions in maths that have unbelievably complex answers. The point being, it's absurd to say that dismissing a student is universally wrong.

Really? There are "loads" of simple questions that not only have complex answers, but no resources anywhere explaining those answers?

Funny how I never encountered even one of those "loads" of questions, despite being a scary little math prodigy as a child.

You have two bitches. Latoya can turn an average of six tricks a night at $75. or three tricks at $160. Keesha can turn eight tricks at $80, or a dozen at $40. How do you maximize your profits?

That sounds so much like a math problem out of High School High.

....the overwhelming majority of educators?

most teachers, really.

Edit: damn it poli!

You met better teachers than I did when I was working as a special ed paraprofessional. Hell, I was in one class where one teacher and two other paras were YELLING at a disabled six or seven year old for being unable to cut along a line. I informed someone higher ranking that myself that worked within the school full time of what went on in that class (I felt that I as a substitute who had only worked in the room that one day would have little pull with the principal in this matter) and never subed at that school again so I don't know if it got any better.

Holy crap, it's almost like we need special schools to help these kinds of kids! Schools that would have teachers trained to deal with these kind of issues. Schools that would have experience in dealing with them. Schools that can target specific segments of the population most commonly afflicted with these problems.

Well gee, isn't that EXACTLY what's being proposed here?

So what are you saying here Neo? That the only kids that come from families who has an absent parent, has to work a job after school to help provide for the family, who goes hungry, and doesn't have loving, caring parents are children from black families?

If so then yes that is what is EXACTLY what is being proposed here, but unfortunately Neo, kids from all races can come from dysfunctional or broken homes.

"If you are in my classroom, you will do work. If you would rather not do work, you may go see the dean, who will send you to ISS for the day, where you will be forced to do work. It is your choice."
Yep, I got work out of every student one way or the other.


I've worked in schools where sending a child to the principals office would get the TEACHER in more trouble than the student. If only all schools would use their resources correctly.

I've worked in schools where sending a child to the principals office would get the TEACHER in more trouble than the student. If only all schools would use their resources correctly.

Situations should be handled in the classroom as well as can possibly be done. There are times that outside help is needed, in which case, the principal damn well better not yell at me.

There are still huge problems with admin v. staff that need to be taken care of. Sadly. My sister happens to be at one of those schools right now.

I don't have time to read the whole thread right now, but personally, I'm against racial segregation in school and for increased diversity training, more funding for programs like HeadStart and free lunches, and a MUCH more diverse teaching population. I think this last would have a positive effect on many students who are not middle class white girls.

There are black people in Northern Ireland?

Since I'm surprised nobody said this before but...


Ever heard of Black Irish?

:D

I've worked in schools where sending a child to the principals office would get the TEACHER in more trouble than the student. If only all schools would use their resources correctly.

I send kids to the principal only as a last resort. Like when my two quite-often-out-of-control kids became physically violent, or tried to run away from school.

Once one of them started tearing things off the walls, pushing furniture around and threatening other students, and he was left in the classroom almost the entire day. When the principal finally came to collect him, she told me with surprised concern that he wouldn't go with her. Really? Because he's been an angel all day, threatening to stab another student in the head, so I can't imagine what the problem is. -_-

Yeah, I've been yelled at by a very large, angry Bosnian lawyer because his son failed a class. I got yelled at by a students mother because I gave him detention for being late to class for the 5th time that week. I got yelled at because I took my students cell phone because she was texting during my lecture. And you know what? I know that my students were going home to empty houses or houses where they wern't getting help with their work or being pressured to do their work.

That doesn't allow me to just blow the kid off and say "well, some people just aren't meant to learn".

I never said it was a teachers job to fix every kids every problem. What I did say is that it is the teachers job to reach every student to the best of their ability, and never to dismiss, reject, or insult a student.

This, this, this. Bravo.

I wonder how well an all "White School" would go over.....
Well, if they put all or most blacks into "Black-only Schools", we won't even need to bother!

i dont have a problem with an "all black" school if what that means is a magnet school designed to encourage academic excellence in all students that enroll there.

if a different approach can bring under achieving students up to the level of the rest of british students, whats the big problem?

I think I'm with you on this one. We have existing faith schools, and they have to take a % of students not from their particular faith(infact my kids go to an Anglican school), but as Wilgrove points out then that does open the doors to all white schools.

In and of itself I see no reason why not, the problems being of course the racist angle. I know that black's are just as prone to racism as whites, so how can we make sure that the parents reasons for sending their kids to such a school are not racist?

Since I'm surprised nobody said this before but...


Ever heard of Black Irish?

:D

Are we taking about Phil Lynot here?

I think I'm with you on this one. We have existing faith schools, and they have to take a % of students not from their particular faith

They don't have to: the government considered imposing a quota of that sort a while ago but the Catholics screamed the house down and it became a voluntary recommendation instead. Most CofE schools take non-believers (because let's face it, they wouldn't have enough pupils if they only took believing Anglicans :p) but most of the new religious schools which are springing up are exclusive to one religious group.

what on Earth is "supper"?

y'all dont eat supper?

what are you, all city folks?

what do you call the lighter meal that you eat at the end of the day when the big meal of the day (dinner) was at noon time?

Yea, but you know that as soon as the first "All White" school opens in the states, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, basically the whole black community will be bitching and having an uproar.

Meanwhile the "All Black" school down the road from the "All White" school goes unnoticed. It goes unnoticed because if the white community try to say something about it, they'll be labeled racist, and we can't have that.

and yet, here it is the "all black" school being bitched about. Hardly unnoticed.

I think I'm with you on this one. We have existing faith schools, and they have to take a % of students not from their particular faith(infact my kids go to an Anglican school), but as Wilgrove points out then that does open the doors to all white schools.

In and of itself I see no reason why not, the problems being of course the racist angle. I know that black's are just as prone to racism as whites, so how can we make sure that the parents reasons for sending their kids to such a school are not racist?
it all depends, of course, on how it is set up. im not sure that it is cultural incompatibility that causes caribbean students to do less well than the general british population. that would be for the experts to figure out.

but

if its voluntary; if its open to all students in the school system; and if all students are treated equally what is the problem?

y'all dont eat supper?
Eh we call it different things around the place.
what are you, all city folks?
In the UK, if you have any interest in politics and a decent internet connection that you are going to be one of the city folks :p
what do you call the lighter meal that you eat at the end of the day when the big meal of the day (dinner) was at noon time?
Eh certainly in my house, and in many others, the big meal of the day is your evening meal, after having a fairly light lunch.

it all depends, of course, on how it is set up. im not sure that it is cultural incompatibility that causes caribbean students to do less well than the general british population. that would be for the experts to figure out.
Indeed.
but

if its voluntary; if its open to all students in the school system; and if all students are treated equally what is the problem?
The problem in my mind is that this might actually be a way more to get black children out of comprehensive schools, which quite a lot of middle-class, white Londoners don't want to send their successful children to because they're scared that their children will be in gangs or something, and send them on to private school education.

If you get lots of middle-class, white children into comprehensives again then they look a lot better, you can talk about it in parliament, and because the media basically just reports London as the UK-wide 'truth' for some reason, Labour (or more to the point, the conservatives, because these schools will only be finished when they get into power) look like they're saving children from being rubbish or something.

Eh we call it different things around the place.

In the UK, if you have any interest in politics and a decent internet connection that you are going to be one of the city folks :p

Eh certainly in my house, and in many others, the big meal of the day is your evening meal, after having a fairly light lunch.
which is also most common in the US with the rise of city folks.

but do you eat, for example, christmas dinner in the evening?

Indeed.

The problem in my mind is that this might actually be a way more to get black children out of comprehensive schools, which quite a lot of middle-class, white Londoners don't want to send their successful children to because they're scared that their children will be in gangs or something, and send them on to private school education.

If you get lots of middle-class, white children into comprehensives again then they look a lot better, you can talk about it in parliament, and because the media basically just reports London as the UK-wide 'truth' for some reason, Labour (or more to the point, the conservatives, because these schools will only be finished when they get into power) look like they're saving children from being rubbish or something.
its certainly a danger of setting up a system like this.

which is why it must be voluntary so that if it becomes a dead-end hell hole you can send your (black caribbean) kids to a different school.

i (obviously) dont know what kind of a performance gap there is between caribbean students and the general british studen population and i certainly dont know how much of that gap might be attributed to either racism or low expectations on the part of the school system. but IF that is the root of the problem (or a large part of it) then bold action might be needed to turn things around. both in the attitudes of the students and in the assumptions of the racist system.

if (looking at the thread title) the goal is to stop gangs, however, they are living in a dream world where gangs are caused by in school pressures.

y'all dont eat supper?

what are you, all city folks?

what do you call the lighter meal that you eat at the end of the day when the big meal of the day (dinner) was at noon time?

I get told off all the time for calling the daily meals by the names breakfast, dinner, and tea.

I get told off all the time for calling the daily meals by the names breakfast, dinner, and tea.
oh i thought "tea" was midafternoon snack.

it was an adjustment to have to use "breakfast, lunch, and dinner" instead of "breakfast, dinner and supper" when i moved around people who are more of that modern office job 9-5 standard lifestyle thing.

which is also most common in the US with the rise of city folks.

but do you eat, for example, christmas dinner in the evening?

Yes but usually on Christmas the main meal the Christmas meal is eaten around noon early afternoon but then that is known as a Christmas Lunch.

oh i thought "tea" was midafternoon snack.

it was an adjustment to have to use "breakfast, lunch, and dinner" instead of "breakfast, dinner and supper" when i moved around people who are more of that modern office job 9-5 standard lifestyle thing.

See that is what I call tea too, afternoon tea for a midafternoon snack or morning tea for a midmorning snack.

oh i thought "tea" was midafternoon snack.

it was an adjustment to have to use "breakfast, lunch, and dinner" instead of "breakfast, dinner and supper" when i moved around people who are more of that modern office job 9-5 standard lifestyle thing.

Well it's something left over from my childhood, thats what we alwayss called it. Breakfast in the morning, and dinner at noon, and tea around 18:00.

Yes but usually on Christmas the main meal the Christmas meal is eaten around noon early afternoon but then that is known as a Christmas Lunch.
oh thats so wrong. you cant call a big fancy meal "lunch"

you brits. who taught you to speak english?

Well it's something left over from my childhood, thats what we alwayss called it. Breakfast in the morning, and dinner at noon, and tea around 18:00.
im going to file that info away.

so none of y'all ever use the word "supper"?

Yes but usually on Christmas the main meal the Christmas meal is eaten around noon early afternoon but then that is known as a Christmas Lunch.

No man there is no such thing as an Xmas lunch, its dinner, or nothing at all.

oh thats so wrong. you cant call a big fancy meal "lunch"

you brits. who taught you to speak english?

:tongue:

No man there is no such thing as an Xmas lunch, its dinner, or nothing at all.

Not if you have it in the middle of the day, come on dude, it may be the main meal but if it is in the middle of the day you have to call it lunch.

Let's not start on brunch.:p

:tongue:



Not if you have it in the middle of the day, come on dude, it may be the main meal but if it is in the middle of the day you have to call it lunch.

Let's not start on brunch.:p

Naa man thats what I'm saying the food you eat in the middle of the day is called dinner.

As in shool dinner time, school dinner ladies, well you get the point.

Naa man thats what I'm saying the food you eat in the middle of the day is called dinner.

As in shool dinner time, school dinner ladies, well you get the point.

Yeah I get your point but it's a shame at school I never had school dinners I only ever had school lunches. But I suppose that is what we call a cultural difference. :wink:

As far as I remember, this was suggested earlier on this year, ignored, and subsiquently forgotten about. Although, having said that, we already have segregation based on religion in Northern Ireland (albeit with a few integrated schools) and a network of CoE, Catholic and a few Hindu, Jewish and Muslim schools that are supported by LEAs and, in some areas, amount to de facto racial segregation anyway.

And I had dinner ladies serve me at school lunch time.;)

no, really, you 2 are both SO wrong

DINNER is the main meal of the day. no matter when you eat it.

so if you eat dinner--the main meal of the day-- in the middle of the day, you have to have another word for the meal that you eat afterwards. in the US that word is "supper"

if your main meal of the day is in the evening, then you need a different word for the one that you eat at noon-ish. that meal is then called "lunch"

so while, in the US, the evening meal is most often the main one (these days) and is thus called DINNER (with the earlier lighter meal called "lunch") when its a holiday meal like thanksgiving, easter or christmas where the big fancy meal is most usually in the afternoon (depending on how good the cook is at getting the meal done at a specific time) its christmas DINNER even though there will be a lighter meal later on in the evening ....most often called "eating leftovers".

im going to file that info away.

so none of y'all ever use the word "supper"?

We use breakfast and lunch, and then dinner/supper are interchangeable in my house. My mother grew up calling it supper (upstate NY) so it's rubbed off a bit.

no, really, you 2 are both SO wrong

DINNER is the main meal of the day. no matter when you eat it.

so if you eat dinner--the main meal of the day-- in the middle of the day, you have to have another word for the meal that you eat afterwards. in the US that word is "supper"

if your main meal of the day is in the evening, then you need a different word for the one that you eat at noon-ish. that meal is then called "lunch"

so while, in the US, the evening meal is most often the main one (these days) and is thus called DINNER (with the earlier lighter meal called "lunch") when its a holiday meal like thanksgiving, easter or christmas where the big fancy meal is most usually in the afternoon (depending on how good the cook is at getting the meal done at a specific time) its christmas DINNER even though there will be a lighter meal later on in the evening ....most often called "eating leftovers".

So if I eat my main meal in the morning then it is dinner rather than breakfast? No, because I am still breaking the fast when eating that meal, maybe it would be both. Yeah I know how it is in the US, it is different to how my people would call it but I know what it is like in the US.

when you eat your main meal in the morning, we'll talk about what to call it.

when you eat your main meal in the morning, we'll talk about what to call it.

Sometimes I do, though sometimes I eat my main meal when I wake up which maybe in the afternoon depending on what time I went to bed, and I would still call that breakfast, as I am breaking the fast.

Yeah I get your point but it's a shame at school I never had school dinners I only ever had school lunches. But I suppose that is what we call a cultural difference. :wink:

That is exactly what I would call it.

Sometimes I do, though sometimes I eat my main meal when I wake up which maybe in the afternoon depending on what time I went to bed, and I would still call that breakfast, as I am breaking the fast.

Even if it is tea time?:D

So if this happens and catches on in the rest of Europe(a stretch i know) and they create ethnic schools in Europe will Europeans tell us how much less racist they are because they divide the ethnic groups up ???/

So if this happens and catches on in the rest of Europe(a stretch i know) and they create ethnic schools in Europe will Europeans tell us how much less racist they are because they divide the ethnic groups up ???/
europeans will tell us that no matter what they do with their schools.

oh thats so wrong. you cant call a big fancy meal "lunch"
You call it "luncheon" if it's too big for one syllable :)

"Some of the greatest black leaders in the world - Dr Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, to name just two - attended all-black schools and universities."

And spent their lives trying to abolish them so black students could enjoy the same privileges as white students. We have fought so long and so hard to allow black students to obtain an equal footing, only to now roll over and re-introduce segregation. These are the same tired argument's; black people have special education needs, it can be separate but still equal, black students need to be separated to achieve substantive results. Black people are not inherently intellectually inferior, and we need to have the courage to confront this heinous lie. Socioeconomic status is the lead determinant for intellectual development, and yes more black people are in poverty than their white counter-parts, but the solution to improve the opportunities of all students lies in raising the working poor out of poverty and into a reasonable fiscal surplus.

"Some of the greatest black leaders in the world - Dr Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, to name just two - attended all-black schools and universities."

And spent their lives trying to abolish them so black students could enjoy the same privileges as white students. We have fought so long and so hard to allow black students to obtain an equal footing, only to now roll over and re-introduce segregation. These are the same tired argument's; black people have special education needs, it can be separate but still equal, black students need to be separated to achieve substantive results. Black people are not inherently intellectually inferior, and we need to have the courage to confront this heinous lie. Socioeconomic status is the lead determinant for intellectual development, and yes more black people are in poverty than their white counter-parts, but the solution to improve the opportunities of all students lies in raising the working poor out of poverty and into a reasonable fiscal surplus.
Very well said.

Even if it is tea time?:D

:D Technically yes it is my breakfast, but I think I would call it dinner or tea if I was from that part of the world.

You call it "luncheon" if it's too big for one syllable :)
yeah but i dont know what a luncheon is.

im thinking its lunch for a group when you need a fancy name for it.

Which is what I thought you were agreeing iwth. Now if you support the general proposition that good schools can't fix bad homes, and the best thing to have is a positive home environment, I'm agreeing 100%

But I reject the notion that just because the kid comes from a bad environment, there isn't a lot a school can do.

We agree on this. While I doubt that having all black school, or all Latino schools will reduce gang violence we will never know unless it is tried.

Just because a kid comes from a bad environment does not mean there isn't a lot schools can do. In some cases the schools may be the only institution that can do something and that is very sad. :(

No school can fix bad homes.

So, we agree and I think we also agree that Willgrove also had many good points.

Since I'm surprised nobody said this before but...


Ever heard of Black Irish?

:D

Yes, and they were called that because they were the Celts who came from Spain and were darker and had darker hair than the other Celts.

They don't have to: the government considered imposing a quota of that sort a while ago but the Catholics screamed the house down and it became a voluntary recommendation instead. Most CofE schools take non-believers (because let's face it, they wouldn't have enough pupils if they only took believing Anglicans :p) but most of the new religious schools which are springing up are exclusive to one religious group.

Are these religious schools supported by the government? If it is that would drive the Demoratic party in the US nuts. Oh nose, out tax dallars supporting religion. Jus tink of the vilation of the Constitution here. Wat eba happin to seperetion of churc and state? :rolleyes:

Eh certainly in my house, and in many others, the big meal of the day is your evening meal, after having a fairly light lunch.

In New England supper = dinner. at least where I grew up around Boston it did.

Yes but usually on Christmas the main meal the Christmas meal is eaten around noon early afternoon but then that is known as a Christmas Lunch.

Early afternoon and called feast :)

Such a system deprives future generations of the most important lesson of all: We don't all have to be the same to be equal.

My thoughts exactly.