|
Post by zanygame on Mar 3, 2023 9:42:52 GMT
Then you were unlucky. Fact is more educated children got into grammar schools and they tend to come from better off parents. Same with private schools, same with schools around Cambridge where I live. In a town full of scientific institutes take a guess at the average academic level of the children. Nonsense, they tend to come from one or two more intelligent parents and though there's a body of opinion that cites environment as a factor, many very young kids show a high intelligence well before environmental factors kick in. you're right, studies show a certain amount of intelligence is genetic. But this doesn't change the fact that if your parents are intelligent they tend to earn more and live in areas that reflect this. Thus the local schools also reside in areas of wealth and fair better. This is magnified if central funding is cut.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 3, 2023 9:47:27 GMT
Nonsense, they tend to come from one or two more intelligent parents and though there's a body of opinion that cites environment as a factor, many very young kids show a high intelligence well before environmental factors kick in. you're right, studies show a certain amount of intelligence is genetic. But this doesn't change the fact that if your parents are intelligent they tend to earn more and live in areas that reflect this. Thus the local schools also reside in areas of wealth and fair better. This is magnified if central funding is cut. Absolute rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 3, 2023 9:54:58 GMT
you're right, studies show a certain amount of intelligence is genetic. But this doesn't change the fact that if your parents are intelligent they tend to earn more and live in areas that reflect this. Thus the local schools also reside in areas of wealth and fair better. This is magnified if central funding is cut. Absolute rubbish. Does he spout anything else?
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 3, 2023 11:54:11 GMT
Nonsense, they tend to come from one or two more intelligent parents and though there's a body of opinion that cites environment as a factor, many very young kids show a high intelligence well before environmental factors kick in. you're right, studies show a certain amount of intelligence is genetic. But this doesn't change the fact that if your parents are intelligent they tend to earn more and live in areas that reflect this. Thus the local schools also reside in areas of wealth and fair better. This is magnified if central funding is cut. My old man was a bricklayer my mum was variously a dinner lady, engineering machinist and other jobs. Before even taking the 11-plus we had to select a first and second choice of grammar school should we pass. I went to my first choice along with other 11 year olds who came from various backgrounds but none of them significant background; the same was true of my junior school classmates who went to other grammar schools and the same was true of other pupils at my grammar school who came from a variety of backgrounds. Probably the most affluent were one or two who owned a shop.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 3, 2023 12:24:34 GMT
The whole point of Grammar schools was to allow poorer talented kids to have access to a more technical and academic education . If anything when they were replaced with comprehensives the more wealthy areas had the money and influence to retain them . So as the lefties deprived the clever poor kids a better education , the rich kids still got it.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 3, 2023 12:56:07 GMT
The whole point of Grammar schools was to allow poorer talented kids to have access to a more technical and academic education . If anything when they were replaced with comprehensives the more wealthy areas had the money and influence to retain them . So as the lefties deprived the clever poor kids a better education , the rich kids still got it. I think we should start at the point that 11+ acceptance was based based upon the number of grammar school places available. Even then it was not based on IQ or even on individual potential but on passing a particular examination on a particular day. Apart from anything else, there is the fact that thousands of kids with potential were denied grammar school education. So the system was clearly flawed from the start. Comprehensives were designed to overcome that problem. Whether they did or not is IMO yet to be proven.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 3, 2023 16:06:31 GMT
The whole point of Grammar schools was to allow poorer talented kids to have access to a more technical and academic education . If anything when they were replaced with comprehensives the more wealthy areas had the money and influence to retain them . So as the lefties deprived the clever poor kids a better education , the rich kids still got it. I think we should start at the point that 11+ acceptance was based based upon the number of grammar school places available. Even then it was not based on IQ or even on individual potential but on passing a particular examination on a particular day. Apart from anything else, there is the fact that thousands of kids with potential were denied grammar school education. So the system was clearly flawed from the start. Comprehensives were designed to overcome that problem. Whether they did or not is IMO yet to be proven. Of course the number of grammar school places were restricted by numbers but many grammar and other schools increased their capacity by erecting annexes using well built timber structures. Often schools were unable to expand because the greedy county councils were selling off playing fields for housing developments, thereby reducing the amount of land available to schools. At roughly the same time local schools were closing and kids, rather than walk to school, became the school run, either by car or by coach, in other words the education system was being unnecesarily destroyed on the altar of politics under successive governments but initiated by the Wilson Labour government of the sixties. Passing a particular exam on a particular day is no different to a horse race on a particular day or an Olymic event, exams are the opportunity and necessarily to recall what you have been taught; how lucky that the 11-plus replaced the Scholarship exam, an equivalent of the French Baccalaureate. It's sad that you haven't recognised the decline in education standards since the mid-sixties and that no government has seriously improved the standard, we're still producing far to many duffers.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 3, 2023 17:20:39 GMT
The whole point of Grammar schools was to allow poorer talented kids to have access to a more technical and academic education . If anything when they were replaced with comprehensives the more wealthy areas had the money and influence to retain them . So as the lefties deprived the clever poor kids a better education , the rich kids still got it. I think we should start at the point that 11+ acceptance was based based upon the number of grammar school places available. Even then it was not based on IQ or even on individual potential but on passing a particular examination on a particular day. Apart from anything else, there is the fact that thousands of kids with potential were denied grammar school education. So the system was clearly flawed from the start. Comprehensives were designed to overcome that problem. Whether they did or not is IMO yet to be proven. Certainly they tried to judge more from course work and less from a single day memory test (Exam) Then a few years ago the Tories decided we needed to go back to the good old days where if you flunked on that one day your life was f**ked.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 3, 2023 17:47:28 GMT
so we should have no testing for anything - just hand out driving Licences for instance because if you fail you might just be having a bad day..
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 3, 2023 18:23:21 GMT
I think we should start at the point that 11+ acceptance was based based upon the number of grammar school places available. Even then it was not based on IQ or even on individual potential but on passing a particular examination on a particular day. Apart from anything else, there is the fact that thousands of kids with potential were denied grammar school education. So the system was clearly flawed from the start. Comprehensives were designed to overcome that problem. Whether they did or not is IMO yet to be proven. Certainly they tried to judge more from course work and less from a single day memory test (Exam) Then a few years ago the Tories decided we needed to go back to the good old days where if you flunked on that one day your life was f**ked. Well when I went to school pupils were streamed and the top stream didn't have duffers.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 3, 2023 18:29:40 GMT
so we should have no testing for anything - just hand out driving Licences for instance because if you fail you might just be having a bad day.. Nope. Your driving test is nothing like a paper exam. Its a skill test with very little memory added. Whats more you can take it as many times as you like with no delays.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 3, 2023 18:31:16 GMT
Certainly they tried to judge more from course work and less from a single day memory test (Exam) Then a few years ago the Tories decided we needed to go back to the good old days where if you flunked on that one day your life was f**ked. Well when I went to school pupils were streamed and the top stream didn't have duffers. And the rest? The late developers, the dyslexic.
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 3, 2023 18:38:38 GMT
Well when I went to school pupils were streamed and the top stream didn't have duffers. And the rest? The late developers, the dyslexic. And all of the other excuses trotted out for thickness and lack of application?
They failed.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 3, 2023 18:40:53 GMT
And the rest? The late developers, the dyslexic. And all of the other excuses trotted out for thickness and lack of application?
They failed.
Wow, what a complete and utter arsehole you are.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 3, 2023 18:44:48 GMT
Well when I went to school pupils were streamed and the top stream didn't have duffers. And the rest? The late developers, the dyslexic. The late developers a chance at 13 and using dyslexia as some sort if argument is merely a strawman .
|
|