|
Post by see2 on Mar 3, 2023 21:25:22 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.. Thanks for exposing your limited depth of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 3, 2023 21:57:12 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. 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. That grammar school places were restricted meant no chance for millions of young people to enjoy grammar school levels of education. While selective grammar schools will get a higher level of youngsters passing GCSEs than none selective comprehensive schools, the opportunity to achieve high levels of education is obviously still there in comprehensive schools. 'Advice to parents': "The core curriculum of Maths, English and Science at GCSE is similar across grammar and comprehensive schools. Grammar schools may offer a greater range of academic and specialist subjects, such as Politics, Classical Civilisations Biology, Chemistry and Physics as individual sciences. Some comprehensive schools may not offer as many options at this level."
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 3, 2023 22:19:17 GMT
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. That grammar school places were restricted meant no chance for millions of young people to enjoy grammar school levels of education.
While selective grammar schools will get a higher level of youngsters passing GCSEs than none selective comprehensive schools, the opportunity to achieve high levels of education is obviously still there in comprehensive schools. 'Advice to parents': "The core curriculum of Maths, English and Science at GCSE is similar across grammar and comprehensive schools. Grammar schools may offer a greater range of academic and specialist subjects, such as Politics, Classical Civilisations Biology, Chemistry and Physics as individual sciences. Some comprehensive schools may not offer as many options at this level." Well there is a simple reason for that - not every kid is suitable for a Grammar school level of education. It's like Tony Blairs daft idea that 50% of kids need to go to University - no thought as to whether 50% of kids had the capability or the actual need to go to university - just set an arbitrary target and thats it job done.. So the end effect is that we have replaced selection by aptitude with selection by wealth. As Zany pointed out, the richer areas tend to have the best schools - so if you cannot afford a nice house in the catchment area of a decent state school you are relegated to the local failing comp. The poor kids have had the door slammed in their face.
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 3, 2023 22:32:38 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. I suffer from dyslexia and it has never held me back and I passed the 11 plus and went on to do a masters in phisycs after winning an ivy league scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 3, 2023 22:51:23 GMT
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 . As a person who actually has ADHD I would of course argue that its far from a strawman. Its very real and back when I was at school it was just labelled as disruptive. Thankfully todays teachers are a bit better educated.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 3, 2023 22:55:36 GMT
And the rest? The late developers, the dyslexic. I suffer from dyslexia and it has never held me back and I passed the 11 plus and went on to do a masters in phisycs after winning an ivy league scholarship. And I learned brain surgery at evening classes. When did you emigrate to the states?
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 3, 2023 23:04:55 GMT
That grammar school places were restricted meant no chance for millions of young people to enjoy grammar school levels of education.
While selective grammar schools will get a higher level of youngsters passing GCSEs than none selective comprehensive schools, the opportunity to achieve high levels of education is obviously still there in comprehensive schools. 'Advice to parents': "The core curriculum of Maths, English and Science at GCSE is similar across grammar and comprehensive schools. Grammar schools may offer a greater range of academic and specialist subjects, such as Politics, Classical Civilisations Biology, Chemistry and Physics as individual sciences. Some comprehensive schools may not offer as many options at this level." Well there is a simple reason for that - not every kid is suitable for a Grammar school level of education. It's like Tony Blairs daft idea that 50% of kids need to go to University - no thought as to whether 50% of kids had the capability or the actual need to go to university - just set an arbitrary target and thats it job done.. So the end effect is that we have replaced selection by aptitude with selection by wealth. As Zany pointed out, the richer areas tend to have the best schools - so if you cannot afford a nice house in the catchment area of a decent state school you are relegated to the local failing comp. The poor kids have had the door slammed in their face. 1. No one even suggested otherwise, but it is clear that the 11+ was a hit and miss opportunity for youngsters as the system was designed to pass a limited number of individuals through which meant that many capable youngsters never got the opportunity. 2. Blair was intent on improving education levels including addressing the importance of early education believing that the early years in education laid the foundations for academic success in the years that followed. 3. "relegated to the local failing comp"? Do you have figures for failed and successful comprehensives?
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 3, 2023 23:05:46 GMT
I suffer from dyslexia and it has never held me back and I passed the 11 plus and went on to do a masters in phisycs after winning an ivy league scholarship. And I learned brain surgery at evening classes. When did you emigrate to the states? I worked for the FAA and my partner is a yank...I won the scolarship because I applied for it and did my masters at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. You don't have to be an American to get an Ivy league scolarship it is done on a merit base.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 3, 2023 23:18:27 GMT
And the rest? The late developers, the dyslexic. I suffer from dyslexia and it has never held me back and I passed the 11 plus and went on to do a masters in phisycs after winning an ivy league scholarship. I assume that proven dyslexia will have different levels of effect on different individuals depending upon the degree of the problem. I recently spoke to a parent of a young boy with the problem, he has been tested and diagnosed with dyslexia. His teachers recognise him as very intelligent but investigation showed that in tests he wasn't doing as well as in his classwork. The end result is that he has been an extra 10 minutes when doing a written test so that he can take a break if he feels the need to during the test.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 3, 2023 23:18:56 GMT
Well there is a simple reason for that - not every kid is suitable for a Grammar school level of education. It's like Tony Blairs daft idea that 50% of kids need to go to University - no thought as to whether 50% of kids had the capability or the actual need to go to university - just set an arbitrary target and thats it job done.. So the end effect is that we have replaced selection by aptitude with selection by wealth. As Zany pointed out, the richer areas tend to have the best schools - so if you cannot afford a nice house in the catchment area of a decent state school you are relegated to the local failing comp. The poor kids have had the door slammed in their face. 1. No one even suggested otherwise, but it is clear that the 11+ was a hit and miss opportunity for youngsters as the system was designed to pass a limited number of individuals through which meant that many capable youngsters never got the opportunity. Opportunity for what?. There will only ever be a select number of kids suitable for higher education - whatever education system you have what has that to do with the daft arbitrary 50% target? Fill your boots ofstedIn fact a whole new business has grown up with advice on getting into the catchment area for the best schools - of course if you are poor you can fuck off. Getting into the catchment area of your child’s ideal secondary school
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 3, 2023 23:22:16 GMT
And I learned brain surgery at evening classes. When did you emigrate to the states? I worked for the FAA and my partner is a yank...I won the scolarship because I applied for it and did my masters at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. You don't have to be an American to get an Ivy league scolarship it is done on a merit base. Assuming for a moment you are as educated as you say, how the f**k do you get so much so wrong. WHY did you claim 9 million EV batteries have been dumped when that's clearly a lie. Surely as someone educated in the subject you can do better than that?
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 3, 2023 23:28:24 GMT
I worked for the FAA and my partner is a yank...I won the scolarship because I applied for it and did my masters at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. You don't have to be an American to get an Ivy league scolarship it is done on a merit base. Assuming for a moment you are as educated as you say, how the f**k do you get so much so wrong. WHY did you claim 9 million EV batteries have been dumped when that's clearly a lie. Surely as someone educated in the subject you can do better than that? So what have I got wrong exactly? As you seem to think your knowledge is superior to everone else.
EDIT: and it is not a lie there is enough info out there if you care to look.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 4, 2023 8:17:31 GMT
Assuming for a moment you are as educated as you say, how the f**k do you get so much so wrong. WHY did you claim 9 million EV batteries have been dumped when that's clearly a lie. Surely as someone educated in the subject you can do better than that? So what have I got wrong exactly? As you seem to think your knowledge is superior to everone else.
EDIT: and it is not a lie there is enough info out there if you care to look.
The lie is that you claimed 12 million tons of EV batteries have been dumped. That is not true. What made it a lie instead of a mistake is that when I pointed it out you made no attempt to correct it. There is NO evidence out there that 12 million tons of EV batteries have been dumped because it hasn't happened. I do not presume I am more intelligent than anyone, but I do take what people say at face value and speak as I find. For instance when Pacifico states the national grid are going to drain your car battery overnight that is clearly either stupid or a lie, which would you like me to treat it as?
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 4, 2023 8:21:33 GMT
So what have I got wrong exactly? As you seem to think your knowledge is superior to everone else.
EDIT: and it is not a lie there is enough info out there if you care to look.
The lie is that you claimed 12 million tons of EV batteries have been dumped. That is not true. What made it a lie instead of a mistake is that when I pointed it out you made no attempt to correct it. There is NO evidence out there that 12 million tons of EV batteries have been dumped because it hasn't happened. I do not presume I am more intelligent than anyone, but I do take what people say at face value and speak as I find. For instance when Pacifico states the national grid are going to drain your car battery overnight that is clearly either stupid or a lie, which would you like me to treat it as? There is plenty of evidence...And we haven't even touched on the instability of litheum batteries yet
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 4, 2023 8:32:05 GMT
The lie is that you claimed 12 million tons of EV batteries have been dumped. That is not true. What made it a lie instead of a mistake is that when I pointed it out you made no attempt to correct it. There is NO evidence out there that 12 million tons of EV batteries have been dumped because it hasn't happened. I do not presume I am more intelligent than anyone, but I do take what people say at face value and speak as I find. For instance when Pacifico states the national grid are going to drain your car battery overnight that is clearly either stupid or a lie, which would you like me to treat it as? There is plenty of evidence...And we haven't even touched on the instability of litheum batteries yet Thats true, they need a constant monitoring system which when it goes wrong they are prone to explode. What is actually needed is a solid state battery.
|
|