There are lots of problems in this and no real solutions. If there were real, easy, or plausible solutions, they would already be here. The author says, "We kick twenty percent of our kids out of school illiterate, innumerate and socially dysfunctional . . .", as if... what? Those kids can be made more literate by more time in the school system that's had them for 13 – 16 years? How much of the responsibility is the schools, and how much is the individual's or the parents'?
Bear that in mind before you propose a large-scale, institutional, governmental, and bureaucratic solution. Before you propose that government is the problem, remember that these people are still people and you still have to live in society with them. There isn't a simple answer to the problems being described, and if your glasses are colored by ideology, you're going to miss that essential fact.
EDIT: Removed gratuitous and incorrect comment WRT the author.
I'm of the opinion that the education system itself is one of the fundamental causes of the 13-20% that the author mentions.
Our school system is a factory that generates more of the tax generating working class that is told to shut up and do as their told. The kids are taught by age, not ability, they are taught to pass a test, not how to learn, they aren't taught life skills like personal finance, cooking, basic mechanical theory on how things work, and how to question authority and learn for themselves.
If they are not taught anything at all, then it's illegal.
"Now in the United Kingdom compulsory education begins between four and a half and five and a half; since 1972 it has ended at the age of 16. But from 2013 compulsory education, be it traditional classroom education or training is planned to be raised to the age of 17, and from 2015 to the age of 18." https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mandatory_edu...
> If they are not taught anything at all, then it's illegal.
Oh really?
> "Now in the United Kingdom compulsory education begins between four and a half and five and a half; since 1972 it has ended at the age of 16. But from 2013 compulsory education, be it traditional classroom education or training is planned to be raised to the age of 17, and from 2015 to the age of 18."
That's an attendance mandate, not an education mandate. "Taught" implies that they learned something.
Is there an education mandate in the UK? If so, who goes to jail if a kid doesn't learn "enough" during those years of compulsory education?
I think nazgulnarsil was talking figuratively rather than literally "nothing at all," meaning the children at poorer schools go to school and don't learn a great deal during their time there.
Identifying the problems is important, even if you don't propose a solution, though. In a situation like this, discussing all the aspects of the problems - not just as arm chair strategists[1], but actually going out and getting hard data[2] - would greatly help to define it, and, from there, it might become easier to find a solution, even if it would be very non-optimal. Giving up because you think that "If there were real, easy, or plausible solutions, they would already be here" isn't productive in the least - it's like giving up a project when you can't find a library that does what you need.
[1] Yes, I know it's ironic that I'm an arm chair strategist discussing how not to be one.
[2] Off the top of my head, some questions that it might be useful to know the answers to: Where do the 13 to 20% fall on the IQ spectrum? What media do they consume? Are they really as unmotivated as the author makes them sound? What do they do with their time? Is smoking/drinking during pregnancy common? What percentage of them are involved in crime? What do they spend their money on?
Schools are definately part of the problem. I went to secondary school (high school) in an 'inner city comprehensive' in Chalk Farm, Camden in the early nineties. I wanted to study structural engineering at university. At the time it wasn't possible to study the combination of subjects that many universities required to study engineering either at that school or most others in the area. The school system definately wasn't and isn't set up to prepare people for jobs in IT, construction, biotech, medicine and engineering. Not just for engineering design type jobs but maintenance and technician jobs or construction jobs like carpentry, plumbing etc. There is huge demand for skilled construction workers in London.
It was the same for me at secondary school in the late 90s and early 00s. They hadn't moved on. ICT education at GCSE consisted solely of being taught how to use a computer in an office environment, and mostly how to use Microsoft Office. They didn't touch on how the things actually worked... presumably because those teaching to the syllabus didn't actually know.
Why we aren't giving every single kid in this country the chance to write some rudimentary code before they leave school (I've anecdotally heard this is the case in parts of India) is beyond me. Those are the skills we need to get the country out of this hole, not a million more 'TV producers' or 'admin assistants'.
There are lots of problems in this and no real solutions. If there were real, easy, or plausible solutions, they would already be here.
I think this is largely the point the author is making, if subtly - that the solution is hard, so we aren't bothering.
The author says, "We kick twenty percent of our kids out of school illiterate, innumerate and socially dysfunctional . . .", as if... what? Those kids can be made more literate by more time in the school system that's had them for 13 – 16 years?
I'm not sure that's the suggestion - the author talks about being involved in various types of different forms of education (including adult). There are ways to do outreach and give these people options. Some are in place. Most are understaffed.
How much of the responsibility is the schools, and how much is the individual's or the parents'?
A bit of everything I think. I know a few inner city school teachers, and most despair at an inability to get through to the kids. By the time they are 8-10 they are already tied into the downward spiral - by poor early education, their parents and their peers. Cutting that cycle requires something dramatic or radical (for example; getting locked up, which is why you hear about youth offenders who were "converted" and make a success of themselves - once kicked out of the cycle and forced to seriously consider their future they made an upward choice).
One of the saddest things I have ever seen were the personal statements I was shown once, for 16 year olds. They simply did not seem to grasp the concept of achievement beyond "I got a GCSE"; largely because no one has taught them that achievement doesn't simply mean academic qualifications.
And these were kids who cared, that actually wanted to go further than the dole.
I have a child that is six years old and I go and read to/with her and other children in her class. She's been in school for two years, before that she was in a nursery for a year but she's been 'reading' for six years.
In her class I meet children who already display worrying problems. Some can't concentrate for more than a few minutes, some already fear failure and don't understand that everyone in the room is struggling at something (and that tbh everyone in the world should be struggling at something). Some are rude and some, rarely, are aggressive. Some are learning English for the first time and their entire experience of school is that it's in a foreign language to them and their parents. Few value learning at all. All of these problems can be traced back to their parents. Many of the kids NEVER read outside school and NEVER see their parent read yet they all talk to me about video games, movies and TV. IMHO many of the parents work too hard to either get by or for material gain and see school as a cheap day care system. In a class of 30 children I am the ONLY parent that regularly spends 30 minutes a WEEK to read with the kids. I would spend more but that's the allotted time and I'm happy to help.
The problems these children face are multifaceted and individual to them but NOT unsurmountable. Firstly the parents need to be told that the school isn't there to baby sit and some of the children are not ready to socialise. The parents/children need to be taught how to socialise in an acceptable manner, not excluded from a young age. We need, as a society, to accept that not all children are ready to learn from day one of school. Why do all kids start at the same age? Kids should enter school when they are ready to learn. Within a single class of first year kids their ages range from 5-6, this is a huge age range. Some children should just wait a year or two and society should just learn that there is nothing wrong with that. Kids should be held back if they are not ready for the next year. Some kids are WAY out of their depth. What is the use of sending kids up from reception to year one when they can't write/hear simple sounds or comprehend simple tasks. It just places too much burden on them. Obviously kids who are kept back should receive extra help and borderline kids should be helped before they are held back.
We've all experienced moments where we don't understand something and we plug away and suddenly it all falls in to place and pow we are like gods for a moment. Most politicians , being high achievers, have certainly experienced this. I think some children never get to experience that because they are always chasing, always behind. They loose sight of what learning is and see themselves are dumb/difficult/slow. Politicians don't seem to comprehend this, it's alien to them as they just got it all the way through life. I fear they just label the 'others' as dumb/difficult/slow and imagine this is the way of things. Maybe they even think they are superior and deserve to be 'on top'.
If we let children grow and be challenged at their own rate I feel a greater number would be succeeding by the time they move to senior/highschool. Of course that means letting go a little and trusting teachers which is problematic for some here in the UK.
I think you are right and make many valid points. But I think there is a parenting problem that goes deeper than this. My friends 4 year old has learnt to call people a 'motherfucking bitch' from his classmates at preschool in Hackney and he said that reason his best friend is his friend is because he is the only one who doesn't hit him. Needless to say my friend is moving out of London. I've got 2 toddlers and I did the same.
I grew up in Hackney, I didn't go to secondary school in Hackney because the system was totally broken 20 years ago; my nearest school, the school I would have gone to if my parents didn't take an interest in my education, was closed after a teacher got raped and then another got stabbed to death. The schools are struggling to keep control of kids let alone teach them anything.
Yet, at the same time the rent on a 2 bed flat that is clean and safe in Hackney is absolute minimum £1300 pcm, outside the state provided housing system. The current government has told people that their right to stay on in a council house is no longer secure and they are raising rents across the board, but the people that live there have nowhere else to go because they can't afford to rent privately. They don't have the skills to make the money needed to get any job let alone one that pays enough to rent in the private housing market. This is why tensions are at fever pitch, people are feeling trapped and the walls have started to move in.
My partner works in a secondary school here in Shropshire (and I used to) and what you're describing is identical to the situation there. These kids you're seeing now are the kids that are still going to be like that in 10 years time. That's shocking (to me), and very, very sad.
I almost missed it, but there is a 100x100 pixel drawn image of a woman with her breasts out in the top right. I'm not sure why it's there at all, it has nothing to do with the text, but there you go.
Bear that in mind before you propose a large-scale, institutional, governmental, and bureaucratic solution. Before you propose that government is the problem, remember that these people are still people and you still have to live in society with them. There isn't a simple answer to the problems being described, and if your glasses are colored by ideology, you're going to miss that essential fact.
EDIT: Removed gratuitous and incorrect comment WRT the author.