UK school funding crisis and immigration

It is very frustrating. The effect is that the far right can effectively argue a kind of "cover up", and get sympathy, so the tactic is totally self-destructive.

 

It was not a dedicated thread on the topic, but mentioned in several different threads. Google lists over 14 million articles on the subject.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Muslim+arab+incest&*

 

Why don't you open a thread on it?

 

From the DM link:

Talk about 'Stating the bleedin' obvious'? And this dullard, who has obviously only just realised it, is our prime minister. How many British kids have been, and are being held back because of teacher time being devoted to foreign kids with only a slight grasp of the England language? I shudder to think how many! This poor country of ours is ****ed - well and truly ****ed!!

 

As the OP has pointed out the big imigration issue for the UK has been migrants from other EU countries, their religion(Catholics) have resulted in a disproportionate amount of births compared to the "native" population.

 

Actually to be fair, that quote was from mid-2015, which was at the time where this would still have been called "racist" / "nazi" etc etc.

Its interesting in the context of what happened after the referendum.

Well the children of immigrants outperform English children on average even with English as a second language, and the English children attending schools with a high immigrant population are less likely to fail. Perhaps this is because of additional resources devoted to those schools with high immigrant populations.

It could also be the same thing that is driving immigrants to have more children, Those immigrant children perform better scholastically than they do at home. Perhaps people who emigrate generally are more child-centric by nature.

 

Well now that you mention it, to judge from some of the English morons I see out-and-about you could well be right. And with that in mind, and they themselves eventually procreate, standards will fall even further; I mean if a kid has morons for parents, then in all likelihood that kid is going to be a moron too. QED. The tv channels have so far provided us with two generations of a dumbed-down demographic - and counting.

 

This one has hit me. The school doesn't pay those extra's. Instead they reduce my wages by the same amount.
I pay it. I pay both employers NI and employee's NI now. The school doesn't. My agent doesn't. I do. I now have "holiday pay" and "pension contributions" included in the same amount of pay that before they weren't included in.
I don't actually get anything extra from this change of law. My pay cheque is still the same. My holiday is still unpaid. No pension contributions are made.
Only difference, my NI rate has over doubled. I pay more taxes.

I live in a high immigration area. About 10% of my students in all the local schools are EU migrants. say 2-4 in each class of 20-30.
Non EU migrants? Haven't seen a single one.

Will I stay in this work? Of course not.
It's life support until I find something profitable to do.

I make more money labouring on building sites.

 

I agree, but free schools have been a costly and badly targeted thing for this. Many have been created in areas where no new places were needed.

Key bit being asylum seekers, the UK has taken in hardly any from Syria/afghanistan/and so on compared to Sweden. Most recent migration (at least the uptick in it) is due to eastern european migration. i.e. people working. Coupled with the low unemployment rate which the ECB says is 'full employment' (roughly meaning employment that won't raise inflation too much).

Well I go back and say that article is about asylum seekers, a distinct group from economic migrants. But I also say I don't think you are reading the article correctly. It is not saying the extra GDP is from welfare spending, it is saying cleverly targeted welfare spending has enabled refugees to get into work and help boost GDP. Refugees being a notoriously (and understandably) difficult group to get into work and contribute.

I think the misread is this line mainly:

"helped lower unemployment rates by increased spending on welfare for asylum seekers from war torn countries like Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq."

Meaning they have spent a big more money on welfare and the overall effect has lowered total unemployment. If it was just cash transfers to refugees it doesn't mean unemployment would go down. Though this being said, I don't know how much tax revenues have increased compared to welfare on refugees. My hunch would be it has worked out well, if the overall unemployment rate has gone down, widening the tax base generally is beneficial. IIRC they don't have a budget deficit (or certainly a very minimal one).​

Sure, you take this into account when you do sums. But this happens with any population that is increasing, and the UKs birthrate is not at high levels, it is only just at a so called 'sustainable' level, so unless you want other more difficult problems down the line (pensions, funding adult social care, healthcare for the elderly and so on) then the upfront cost for school places is the one I'd take.

I would only really see economic problems if they were pushing the birthrate up significantly, shown to not be working and worked out as more of a drain than the native population. I'm not aware of immigrant groups really doing this anywhere, but definitely not the UK. The one distinction would be refugees, but there has always only been a moral case for refugees (maybe Sweden are showing a path beyond this, but I would need to see more than an article in the Independent - not a great newspaper imo).

 

Having non English speakers in the same class as English speakers is a massive drain on teaching resources and it greatly lowers the amount of teacher time available to spend on the other students.

As the guy above posts, building new school buildings isn't cheap. Given that the vast bulk of these people come here to work low paid jobs, their minimal tax contributions are not covering the extra expenditure.

I would not by any stretch of the imagination however describe the UK school system as being in financial crisis. It is awash with money.

 

And who might they be Merwen? You evidently know, so please share with us.
Oh look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

All migrant children are flagged as special needs on my class registries.
The special needs schools pretty much have a teacher per student. I like working those jobs.
The vast cost of providing them is never lost on me.

 

I'll go tell Spain and Italy their birthrates are fine because they're Catholic.

 

Are you suggesting the migrants are not Catholic and that does not account for their birthrate compared to the native population?

 

Another poster mentioned it originally in relation to educational costs in some of the countries Muslims have been moving to. Perhaps I will eventually if they don't follow up...but it's so stupid and disgusting I doubt many would believe it without a pile of compelling factual detail I am not available to pull together right now. At least one Scandinavian country has done some educational research as to why so many of their Muslim migrants do not seem to be educable, and there have been articles about the enormous costs of Pakistani special needs kids in the British educational system, apparently outnumbering native special need kids

One of my personal theories regarding violent blow-yourself-up jihad is that many of the misfits born because of this incestuous practice end up used in that or similar ways by Islam. Supposedly there is not a lot of compassion for the disabled in that culture (but that would need more research to be provable as well). In any case, it assures the culture quite a few disposable half-wits to be manipulated into things like that, and goes a long way toward explaining why a parent would volunteer their own child to blow themselves up. So much better to have a dead hero than a live person that needs lifetime care.

There is a cultural bias against it, and most intelligent and educated people in Western culture won't do it. I am not going to do research to find out right now due to lack of time, but it wouldn't surprise me to find the Muslims we already have here have been surreptitiously tinkering with marriage law with the assistance of our backward-thinking prog crowd. You will note in the chart you so speedily dug up that some states require genetic counseling in such pairings.

 

That you pay does not mean that the school systems are also not paying because if these things. Either way, become a brick mason if you so desire.

 

I wouldn't know, to be honest. Their own propaganda indicates 93% placed in areas of need, but that's still 7% in areas without need, which is not insignificant.
http://www.newschoolsnetwork.org/what-are-free-schools/free-schools-the-basics/mythbusting

I don't think I misread it:
The paradox, says Thomas Liebig, from the OECD, is that Sweden has among the most advanced refugee-integration policies. A two-year programme is meant to make refugees “job-ready”, but is often too long for educated refugees and too short for those lacking basic literacy and numeracy. Only 22% of low-educated foreign-born men and 8% of women found work in the year after completing the programme.​

http://www.economist.com/news/finan...o-many-are-working-europe-refugees-sweden-are

Of course, but it must applied against every student. It would be inappropriate for a government statiscian to say this child here caused a new school. However, the overriding fact of the matter is that more school place are required because of the immigrant population as the established population is, as you say, quite stagnant. This cost is what is driving up the education bill.

Controlled immigration can achieve the same benefits with a lesser drain on soft infrastructure

"immigrants" is, as you say, a broad church. There are types of immigrant that are less financially productive than others and a controlled policy could assist in optimizing the structure of immigration.

 

That's interesting. I take it you mean the ESL migrant children.
Flagged as Special Needs would mean the school gets extra funding for them. A school headmaster is therefore motivated to maximise ESL intake, and it might also explain why UK kids in high ESL schools generally perform better.

 

I think the UK is having a teacher recruitment crisis. This probably is not the best message to send out.

 

If the main reason for their birthrate is Catholicism, then why do Spain and Italy have low birthrates? I thought Catholics had high birthrates? Something doesn't follow here.

 

Yeah I saw there was stuff around on it, including a Pakistani-born Lords Peer speaking out about it. Its controversial but interesting to investigate. If there is a problem there it should rightly be exposed and debated.

From what Baff (who says he's a teacher) says, the "special needs" classification in the UK may have a lot to do with the ESL status.

Well, you are certainly not afraid to b controversial!
There may well be something in that. We have some work on personality traits of suicide terrorists against a control group of non-suicidal terrorists, but I couldn't find an equivalent study on IQ.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546550903409312?src=recsys

 

That is exactly what it means. They don't pay for these things.

I pay my employee's NI, and also my employers NI.
Not the school. Not my agency. Me. Wage slip are reverse engineered to have included holiday pay and pension contributions with out providing any extra for them.
That is how it is done.

Their taxes come out of my wages.
If it makes you feel any better, many building companies do it the same.


I'm a teacher for life. Have been since I was 18. But it's not all I do and never has been and never will be. I'm just temping.
I don't usually work for the state system at all. I am a novice with their jargon.

Teacher retention is a problem my classes often mention.
But this is a profession dominated by women of child bearing age. So I expect that.

 

Not sure of the funding. Some schools appear to have way more funding than others.
I expect poor performing schools to get more money than well performing schools. But I'm not privy to the calculations.

By observation...
Village colleges seem to get the least money. City centre's schools the most.

Not sure about ESL, I don't know anything about that. They are marked EAL on my registers. In the special needs schools I have worked, foreign languages are not the main issue. Most of those students seem to be placed in regular schools.

 

https://fullfact.org/education/most-not-all-free-schools-help-meet-demand-school-places/

Of course many are created in areas that do need them, simply because this is many areas. This is a bit of a side issue, but personally I believe the free schools project was an ideological step by Gove in particular with little evidence to suggest they will raise standards, create more places, or whatever. Money has been (and is continuing to be) sunk into them http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...lions-whilst-existing-schools-fall-disrepair/

The money could be spent better, this would ease concerns.

This is much more like what I would expect. Honestly I think you misread it, but also this the Independent is likely to have given much more positive spin towards refugees, whereas the economist is more sober and analytical. But, this is largely besides the point for the UK, which has taken nothing like the number of refugees that Sweden has. Refugees are definitely not causing a strain on school places, there aren't enough to really register.

Sure, but let's not pretend the migrant population hasn't brought many other benefits. The other option (aside from increasing native birthrates, which would provide exactly the same strains on public services) is a dangerous demographic deficit.

I agree, but EU migration in particular has been a net positive economically when estimating use of public services and taxes provided. This has been shown for recent EU migration (post 2000).

https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu-immigrants-contribute-134-every-1-they-receive/

The 'problem' for migration in terms of non EU migration is either those that settled for a long time and thus used all public services (see how the UK opened up migration from the commonwealth in the 50s? maybe 60s). Many migrants came from the caribbean, south asia etc working in relatively lower paying jobs and thus, like a native brit in a low paying job have been an 'economic drain'. More recently there has been an issue with many of a south asian background bringing spouses from there, who don't contribute anything economically. This has also been 'cracked down' on by putting in place tougher spousal visas (largely based upon income).

As for 'controlled' migration, sure, there are limits that can be necessary. But, if anything the recent 'uncontrolled' migration to the UK (read: EU migration) has been far better than the migrants we have actually had control over.

A small aside: student migrants mess with the figures a little, I think they should be counted as a separate group but that isn't the government's stance so they get lumped in.

 

Immigration is great for the economy if you include all the well paid immigrants, (who would be allowed to work here anyway), and also if you don't include the costs of building new infrastructure.

Essentially if you put more low paid workers into an economy where the low paid don't pay as much tax in as they take out, the economy will be made worse not better.
The state operates a deficit, adding new loss makers to that equation makes it worse not better.

So some immigration is good for the economy. Others raise the total tax take, but increase the demands on state apparatus by more than the amount they add to it's revenues.

State spending is fundamentally flawed, adding more tax payers to an imbalanced equation simply makes the resulting bad number higher .