Need more unplanned pregnancies for 16 yrolds don't we, don't hear much about that these day's?
Need more unplanned pregnancies for 16 yrolds don't we, don't hear much about that these day's?Societies rise and Societies fall, it has always been thus. Some of the reasons are similar and there can be one obvious cause or a series of drip drip effects.
Will Mein Starmer rule over a Thousand Year Reich, of course not, will he hasten the demise, I personally think so but only time will tell.
Sign in
thinkspot: Ideas Live Here. thinkspot is a collaborative community where individuals can explore and exchange ideas in a thoughtful and respectful manner. The platform is an intellectual and creative playground for meaningful discourse.thinkspot.com
I thought this was quite interesting, it is hardly breaking new ground but worth a read.
Personal choice more than circumstances is the reason why younger generations are not having children, a new study reveals.
Recent figures from the Central Statistics Office showed that fewer children are being born in Ireland and the fertility rate is well below the replacement level. Understanding the reasons why people choose not to have offspring is crucial for comprehending the shifting demographics and future family structures.
A new study from the Pew Research Center on U.S. adults without children offers a detailed examination of the various reasons why this is the case, highlighting significant trends and differences across age groups.
The survey is based on two distinct cohorts: adults aged 18-49 and those aged 50 and older.
Lifestyle choice is a predominant reason for the decision not to have children, especially among younger adults.. Over half (57pc) of childless adults under 50 state they simply do not want to have kids. This figure is notably higher than among older adults (ages 50 and above), where only 31pc cite the same reason. This indicates a generational shift towards valuing personal autonomy and lifestyle choices over traditional expectations of parenthood.
Comparing these findings with past surveys reveals a clear move towards more people opting out of parenthood by choice rather than by circumstance. The share of non-parents under 50 who say they are unlikely to have children has increased by seven percentage points since 2018.
Who was that bloke from Wyken who always used to write in to the CT , don't expect You to know who I'm on about but was always entertaining!I see @MalcSB has been writing into the paper…
View attachment 37876
He had almost grasped the idea of collective bargaining. Good start Jonathan, keep going.
J T Hancock? or something like that?Who was that bloke from Wyken who always used to write in to the CT , don't expect You to know who I'm on about but was always entertaining!
Yes that's the one I think!J T Hancock? or something like that?
A reasonable chap no doubt, fair play for trying to get a pint though!
That is years old FYI.
Some of the comments under it are just brain dead.Was a Tory anti lockdown activist/conspiracist IIRC
After a rethink I think it was actually M T Hancock, as I recall referring to them as M T Head.Yes that's the one I think!
Thanks - had no idea tbh as I'd not seen it previously.That is years old FYI.
Does the fact it’s years old make Starmer any less of a c**t?That is years old FYI.
In other news, Netflix are to announce a new political documentary featuring the Labour government entitled “Back to the 70s”.I see @MalcSB has been writing into the paper…
View attachment 37876
He had almost grasped the idea of collective bargaining. Good start Jonathan, keep going.
MT HancockJ T Hancock? or something like that?
Does that mean that NOT pulling bright/middle class kids out into their own school hurts/ hinders them? Logic would suggest that to be the case.Always a tricky one this, school choice, like grammars the evidence seems to suggest pulling bright/middle class kids out into their own school helps them and hurts those left behind.
Does that mean that NOT pulling bright/middle class kids out into their own school hurts/ hinders them? Logic would suggest that to be the case.
Yes Richard Tice seems the type to go on the dodgems as a day out. Was he and Isabelle Oakshot having fun on the Ghost Train and Hook A Duck?
Shmmeee has already said that is likely to be the case.Is the reverse not also true? As in those bright enough for grammars that end up in the mainstream, are held back by others they school with?
I hope it doesn't come across conceited, as I wouldn't change my schooling or friends I had, but they were basically dickheads (and arguably I was the biggest dickhead of them all), yet could comfortably have gone to a grammar and I'm certain I'd have been a much higher achiever if I had, rather than running with those who thought study was for whimps and playing football was much better.
Is the reverse not also true? As in those bright enough for grammars that end up in the mainstream, are held back by others they school with?
I hope it doesn't come across conceited, as I wouldn't change my schooling or friends I had, but they were basically dickheads (and arguably I was the biggest dickhead of them all), yet could comfortably have gone to a grammar and I'm certain I'd have been a much higher achiever if I had, rather than running with those who thought study was for whimps and playing football was much better.
I guess the question is does the “damage” done to the smart by not having a selective process outweigh the damage done to the less intellectually gifted? There were times as a grammar school pupil when I felt held back in maths by those who weren’t quite up to it - to the extent that I lost interest and failed the O level first time. I can’t imagine what it would have been like if there were even less capable, perhaps disinterested, potentially disruptive pupils in the class.Yeah it is. And as I say it’s the same in a school that has top/middle/bottom sets.
It’s a fascinating topic politically because it seems to be a true zero sum game: do you value the poor and/or stupid or the rich and/or smart? Can’t have both.
Which is why I come down against really. For such a small effect and zero effect on a population level, is itbwirth the risk to social cohesion from lack of integration. And arguably the economic cost of worse education for the worst is worse than the gain from a bit more education for the best.
I’m not solidly on either side though and have been pro academies and selection and anti.
If it's a small consolation to you, I took my maths O'level in a comprehensive at 14 and passedI guess the question is does the “damage” done to the smart by not having a selective process outweigh the damage done to the less intellectually gifted? There were times as a grammar school pupil when I felt held back in maths by those who weren’t quite up to it - to the extent that I lost interest and failed the O level first time. I can’t imagine what it would have been like if there were even less capable, perhaps disinterested, potentially disruptive pupils in the class.
Im sorry if that sounds conceited - for full transparency I will add that I underachieved at school compared with the school’s expectation.
Thanks for making me feel so much — better?If it's a small consolation to you, I took my maths O'level in a comprehensive at 14 and passed(one of the youngest to still hold an actual O'level as we were the first GCSE year and I was youngest in the academic year, so it was only child geniuses who are younger).
Having said that I still maintain I would have benefitted from grammar school, as I believe I'd have been dragged along by the bootstraps of others rather than running with the crowd I did. Thankfully my family could never have afforded private education, which I am totally against (even for a Tory, yes I know!)
I worked in a school that went from ability setting to mixed ability classes and I think overall it was beneficial for both as the higher ability children generally bring up the lower ability ones. There is also a definite mentality to being in a ‘bottom set’ that encourages children to expect less of themselves.Is the reverse not also true? As in those bright enough for grammars that end up in the mainstream, are held back by others they school with?
I hope it doesn't come across conceited, as I wouldn't change my schooling or friends I had, but they were basically dickheads (and arguably I was the biggest dickhead of them all), yet could comfortably have gone to a grammar and I'm certain I'd have been a much higher achiever if I had, rather than running with those who thought study was for whimps and playing football was much better.
Did you not find that the higher ability children who found the lesson easier, regressed or caused trouble waiting for those at the other end to catch up? There are many subjects that could easily accommodate, but particularly maths and the sciences I suppose I'm thinking of.I worked in a school that went from ability setting to mixed ability classes and I think overall it was beneficial for both as the higher ability children generally bring up the lower ability ones. There is also a definite mentality to being in a ‘bottom set’ that encourages children to expect less of themselves.
The impact on higher ability children varies according to how well the teacher can differentiate. In my case, I tried to make the lessons challenging overall so that everyone still progressed. The research on grammars generally shows them to a) have a negative effect on nearby comps and b) exacerbates social inequality as wealthier parents can afford to get 11+ coaching for their kids.
I taught science, and set the lesson objective to always be something that would stretch the top end. The result of that was everyone getting challenged, and the lower ability kids often surprising themselves too by how far they got.Did you not find that the higher ability children who found the lesson easier, regressed or caused trouble waiting for those at the other end to catch up? There are many subjects that could easily accommodate, but particularly maths and the sciences I suppose I'm thinking of.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?