dandannieldanok Posted 13 January 2010 Posted 13 January 2010 4) Only use computers when teaching IT. Try actually teaching the other subjects instead of asking questions and then letting pupils cut and paste the answers from wikipedia. You may as well not teach IT altogether then if you're not going to let the kids use computers for their work. How the hell did we manage without them? I have no idea . In schools these days its almost a necessity to use computers, I'm not saying that's the right way to learn or be taught or anything, but that's the way it's become.
lou Posted 13 January 2010 Author Posted 13 January 2010 I would never in a million years got through my GCSEs, my AS levels, and my A levels without a computer and access to word processing and the internet, so I think this is a very decent idea. This will help kids who get stuck in a vicious circle of poverty (not necessarily through anyones fault, just circumstance) by giving them a kickstart in their studies.The alternatives are: 1) Carry on as normal and hope the kids from poorer families can get by without 2) Open schools after hours so kids can use their computers 3) Make library computers a lot cheaper to use and increase their quantity ^ Each of them are flawed and this proposal does have holes in it but it's still a decent proposal. They do that at my kids schools already through after school clubs. Plus breaks and lunchtimes. I know what youre saying but I just dont think for one moment kids will be using these laptops for studies thats all. Mine bloody dont and theyre all still excelling at school. These laptops are just going to be used for socal network sites we all know that. Im not saying all low income families are scumbags but normal kids will not be using them for studying...
davieG Posted 13 January 2010 Posted 13 January 2010 I would never in a million years got through my GCSEs, my AS levels, and my A levels without a computer and access to word processing and the internet, so I think this is a very decent idea. This will help kids who get stuck in a vicious circle of poverty (not necessarily through anyones fault, just circumstance) by giving them a kickstart in their studies.The alternatives are: 1) Carry on as normal and hope the kids from poorer families can get by without 2) Open schools after hours so kids can use their computers 3) Make library computers a lot cheaper to use and increase their quantity ^ Each of them are flawed and this proposal does have holes in it but it's still a decent proposal. I thought they were free to use, whenever I've been in the Library to use one no one else was using them.
lou Posted 13 January 2010 Author Posted 13 January 2010 If these laptops are so important to education, why don't we lend the money to the 'poor' to buy them on a 'pay-back-when-you-have-a-job' basis, in the same way that university students take out loans? That way it's an investment for the future of both parties.Where's the incentive for people to lift themselves out of the 'poor zone' if luxuries, such as a laptop, are handed out courtesy of our wonderful government misappropriating my hard-earned money. Reasonable laptop @ £400 plus 12 months connection @ 15.00 = £580. The figures quoted equate to £1111 per laptop. Someone's making a killing somewhere. Sheer madness. Actually most low income families I know of all have computers anyway.... and 2 cars (usually BMW's or Imprezzas) and nicer houses than me, and a better social life than me, and expensive pedigree dogs....
Alexikokopops Posted 13 January 2010 Posted 13 January 2010 I thought they were free to use, whenever I've been in the Library to use one no one else was using them. They're free in my current library in Twickenham. And when I lived in Reading. And when I lived in Lincolnshire (Lincoln, Sleaford and Metheringham libraries). And when I've visited my parents in Leicestershire (Cosby library). In fact, I've never come across a library that charges for computer use.
dandannieldanok Posted 13 January 2010 Posted 13 January 2010 I thought they were free to use, whenever I've been in the Library to use one no one else was using them. I think my local library charges to use them, although I could be wrong. If they are free to use then that changes my whole view on this.
Alexikokopops Posted 13 January 2010 Posted 13 January 2010 I think my local library charges to use them, although I could be wrong. If they are free to use then that changes my whole view on this. Blaby District Libraries are free, I can tell you that They're free in my current library in Twickenham. And when I lived in Reading. And when I lived in Lincolnshire (Lincoln, Sleaford and Metheringham libraries). And when I've visited my parents in Leicestershire (Cosby library). In fact, I've never come across a library that charges for computer use.
davieG Posted 13 January 2010 Posted 13 January 2010 I think my local library charges to use them, although I could be wrong. If they are free to use then that changes my whole view on this. Everywhere I've been on holiday in the UK in last 3/4 years I've used the Local Library PC for nothing and with the exception of a little village in Scotland all of them were not being utilised. In fact if you live with in walking distance of a local library you could almost manage without one for any essential browsing.
dandannieldanok Posted 13 January 2010 Posted 13 January 2010 Blaby District Libraries are free, I can tell you that I think I'm definitely wrong on this and all you have to be to use the computers is a library member, so it is free computer and internet access. Taking this into consideration, maybe this proposal isn't necessary. The library needs to be better advertised to the children and families this proposal is aimed at though.
Bryn Posted 13 January 2010 Posted 13 January 2010 I fail to see why any of these children need laptops buying for them. My secondary school (and don't forget that Hull's educational performance is dismal) was located next to one of Hull's worst estates, and they all seem to manage to get hold of PS3s, cars, televisions, designer gear etc. just fine. Add to that the fact that most schools provide free to use computers anyway. I really don't understand this monstrous waste of money on people who aren't learning simply because for the most part they don't want to learn. Punt them out of school and into apprenticeships and get them earning, and you're more likely to keep them on the straight and narrow.
CosbehFox Posted 13 January 2010 Posted 13 January 2010 I agree, but this would probably be seen as elitism. I am aware of this opinion but surely if you give a kid a laptop and he/she develops his education yet gets to further education to be told no more places. If there's no target to aspire, why even bother? I reckon every household with a young family must have one of the following: PS3, XBox or Sky.
ozleicester Posted 14 January 2010 Posted 14 January 2010 yeh bugger them.. let them go to the library etc. Oh, and they can pi$$ off if they think they are getting free or cheap pencils and work books. bloody freeloaders!! Im sorry, i think that computers are essential in the same way that books and pencils were back in the day.
Alexikokopops Posted 14 January 2010 Posted 14 January 2010 yeh bugger them.. let them go to the library etc.Oh, and they can pi$$ off if they think they are getting free or cheap pencils and work books. bloody freeloaders!! Im sorry, i think that computers are essential in the same way that books and pencils were back in the day. But if they've got access to computers at school and at libraries out of school, plus after school clubs that schools put on, then why should the Government be the ones to provide computers with the tax payers money?
Daggers Posted 14 January 2010 Posted 14 January 2010 Do you want to know the primary link between kids and learning? It isn't bastard computers. No one loves tech more than me but it is nothing more than a tool - the kids who fail the education system have more than simply income as an indicator. The unmeasured variable is 'quality of parenting'. Poor kids don't suffer from a lack of technology or access to an online world, they suffer because they have shit parents. Shit parents who don't turn up to parents' evenings. Or arrive late, reeking of BO and pissed. Shit parents who believe a healthy breakfast consists of a tin of Coke and a packet of crisps. Shit parents who failed in education because of their shit parents. These people are born into a dependence culture, going from cradle to the grave on handouts devoid of compulsion or incentive to ever do anything different. This £300,000,000 is nothing more than another expensive gimmick from a government devoid of ideas and deaf to the voices who know how to make education work.
Sir Fynwy Posted 14 January 2010 Posted 14 January 2010 Do you want to know the primary link between kids and learning? It isn't bastard computers. No one loves tech more than me but it is nothing more than a tool - the kids who fail the education system have more than simply income as an indicator. The unmeasured variable is 'quality of parenting'. Poor kids don't suffer from a lack of technology or access to an online world, they suffer because they have shit parents. Shit parents who don't turn up to parents' evenings. Or arrive late, reeking of BO and pissed. Shit parents who believe a healthy breakfast consists of a tin of Coke and a packet of crisps. Shit parents who failed in education because of their shit parents. These people are born into a dependence culture, going from cradle to the grave on handouts devoid of compulsion or incentive to ever do anything different. This £300,000,000 is nothing more than another expensive gimmick from a government devoid of ideas and deaf to the voices who know how to make education work. I wondered why my life turned out so badly even though I has a zx81, thanks for clearing that up.
dandannieldanok Posted 14 January 2010 Posted 14 January 2010 Do you want to know the primary link between kids and learning? It isn't bastard computers. No one loves tech more than me but it is nothing more than a tool - the kids who fail the education system have more than simply income as an indicator. The unmeasured variable is 'quality of parenting'. Poor kids don't suffer from a lack of technology or access to an online world, they suffer because they have shit parents. Shit parents who don't turn up to parents' evenings. Or arrive late, reeking of BO and pissed. Shit parents who believe a healthy breakfast consists of a tin of Coke and a packet of crisps. Shit parents who failed in education because of their shit parents. These people are born into a dependence culture, going from cradle to the grave on handouts devoid of compulsion or incentive to ever do anything different. This £300,000,000 is nothing more than another expensive gimmick from a government devoid of ideas and deaf to the voices who know how to make education work. Totally agree that your parent's attitude is certainly a major factor in how your education pans out. However the government can't really win on things like this; on the one hand it's rightly seen as unnecessary, on the other hand people will accuse them of doing nothing. It is a gimmick as you say, but they're trying to win an election and the other parties are also coming up with different gimmicks too to try and win votes.
Wycombe Fox Posted 14 January 2010 Posted 14 January 2010 Do you want to know the primary link between kids and learning? It isn't bastard computers. No one loves tech more than me but it is nothing more than a tool - the kids who fail the education system have more than simply income as an indicator. The unmeasured variable is 'quality of parenting'. Poor kids don't suffer from a lack of technology or access to an online world, they suffer because they have shit parents. Shit parents who don't turn up to parents' evenings. Or arrive late, reeking of BO and pissed. Shit parents who believe a healthy breakfast consists of a tin of Coke and a packet of crisps. Shit parents who failed in education because of their shit parents. These people are born into a dependence culture, going from cradle to the grave on handouts devoid of compulsion or incentive to ever do anything different. This £300,000,000 is nothing more than another expensive gimmick from a government devoid of ideas and deaf to the voices who know how to make education work.
lou Posted 14 January 2010 Author Posted 14 January 2010 Do you want to know the primary link between kids and learning? It isn't bastard computers. No one loves tech more than me but it is nothing more than a tool - the kids who fail the education system have more than simply income as an indicator. The unmeasured variable is 'quality of parenting'. Poor kids don't suffer from a lack of technology or access to an online world, they suffer because they have shit parents. Shit parents who don't turn up to parents' evenings. Or arrive late, reeking of BO and pissed. Shit parents who believe a healthy breakfast consists of a tin of Coke and a packet of crisps. Shit parents who failed in education because of their shit parents. These people are born into a dependence culture, going from cradle to the grave on handouts devoid of compulsion or incentive to ever do anything different. This £300,000,000 is nothing more than another expensive gimmick from a government devoid of ideas and deaf to the voices who know how to make education work.
ousefox Posted 14 January 2010 Posted 14 January 2010 My annoyance with this is that Mandelson has just revealed his cuts for Universities. Couldn't they do with a good percentage of this amount? Thats what I was thinking. Why spend £300m on something that nearly every kid in the UK has access to anyway and then announce cuts of £900m for Universities which could potentially close some down because of this?!
Guest Posted 14 January 2010 Posted 14 January 2010 Im sorry, i think that computers are essential in the same way that books and pencils were back in the day. But a pencil costs less than a quid. A computer costs over £200. The pencil could be used to write notes whilst using the library's free PCs and internet. Do you want to know the primary link between kids and learning? It isn't bastard computers. No one loves tech more than me but it is nothing more than a tool - the kids who fail the education system have more than simply income as an indicator. The unmeasured variable is 'quality of parenting'. Poor kids don't suffer from a lack of technology or access to an online world, they suffer because they have shit parents. Shit parents who don't turn up to parents' evenings. Or arrive late, reeking of BO and pissed. Shit parents who believe a healthy breakfast consists of a tin of Coke and a packet of crisps. Shit parents who failed in education because of their shit parents. These people are born into a dependence culture, going from cradle to the grave on handouts devoid of compulsion or incentive to ever do anything different. This £300,000,000 is nothing more than another expensive gimmick from a government devoid of ideas and deaf to the voices who know how to make education work.
Head Honcho Posted 14 January 2010 Posted 14 January 2010 Thats what I was thinking. Why spend £300m on something that nearly every kid in the UK has access to anyway and then announce cuts of £900m for Universities which could potentially close some down because of this?! Not too sure about this. Far too many people going to university unprepared and unqualified these days imo. Giving them more money only for grads to spend years struggling to get a job worthy of their degree seems a bit trite.
ozleicester Posted 15 January 2010 Posted 15 January 2010 Do you want to know the primary link between kids and learning? It isn't bastard computers. No one loves tech more than me but it is nothing more than a tool - the kids who fail the education system have more than simply income as an indicator. The unmeasured variable is 'quality of parenting'. Poor kids don't suffer from a lack of technology or access to an online world, they suffer because they have shit parents. Shit parents who don't turn up to parents' evenings. Or arrive late, reeking of BO and pissed. Shit parents who believe a healthy breakfast consists of a tin of Coke and a packet of crisps. Shit parents who failed in education because of their shit parents. These people are born into a dependence culture, going from cradle to the grave on handouts devoid of compulsion or incentive to ever do anything different. This £300,000,000 is nothing more than another expensive gimmick from a government devoid of ideas and deaf to the voices who know how to make education work. I certainly acknowledge that the cycle of poverty and shit parenting is a major reason, but denying kids the opportunity to get out of that cycle AINT GONNA HELP! Punishing the kids, because their parents are shit will only breed even greater numbers of shit. (watch "Iddiocracy" for a simple guide to this). If 1 % of these kids benefits from what really is a minimal impost (im guessing maybe 2 pounds a week?) on most taxpayers it could change that kids world.. and he/she in turn may invent/discover something that will change all of ours. " A hand up... not a hand out"
Daggers Posted 15 January 2010 Posted 15 January 2010 If 1 % of these kids benefits from what really is a minimal impost (im guessing maybe 2 pounds a week?) on most taxpayers it could change that kids world.. and he/she in turn may invent/discover something that will change all of ours. Fuck it then - I want a hadron collider off the State. Who knows what shit I might be able to change with that?
Bryn Posted 15 January 2010 Posted 15 January 2010 The kids that chronically fail simply don't want to learn. Punt them out of school into monitored apprenticeships, get them working, deny them dole, and hope that they learn the lesson and pass it on to their children. I read the other day that Hull has scrabbled it's way up, to having 39% of its children get 5 A*-Cs. That's up from about 29% a few years ago. National average is 50%. GCSEs aren't even particularly challenging, it mystifies me that this country even runs with that level of underachievement. The entire school system needs looking at but stuff like this is entirely wrong. The problem is the lack of discipline, the lack of parental guidance and the simply undercurrent school culture that wanting to learn is uncool and that it is desirable to do as little as possible. This base attitude is what needs tackling. Any child in this country that wants to learn, has all the resources they need to make the attempt already.
CosbehFox Posted 15 January 2010 Posted 15 January 2010 Not too sure about this.Far too many people going to university unprepared and unqualified these days imo. Giving them more money only for grads to spend years struggling to get a job worthy of their degree seems a bit trite. Whilst I partially agree...£900m is a massive cut and rather than let universitites dicidate where those cuts should be, they are doing themselves.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.