|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 5, 2023 23:35:39 GMT
If 11+ ignored the problem of late developers, or probably never even thought about it, why would the 13+ approached be any different The likelihood is that those who sat the 13+ exams were people who had expected to pass, and perhaps should have passed the 11+ but for some reason failed. The 13+ people might possibly have had some private tuition in the meantime in an attempt to keep up with those who were already in the grammar school. A late developer doesn't suddenly catch up in development in two years, plus catch up with the two years of grammar school study they have missed. The 13+ approach would be to give the late developers another chance …as you wanted. No it would not, if a late developer was behind the development of an 11 year old at age 11, they would still be behind the development of a 13 year old at age 13. So they would still be disadvantaged. If a disadvantage late developer at age 11 took an 11+ examination at age 13, then you might have a point, but it obviously doesn't work that way. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 5, 2023 23:51:48 GMT
No the idea would be to continue to improve the comprehensive system.
If approaching 50% of the also ran proved to be successful at comprehensives, why would those who were successful in grammar schools fail in a comprehensive school? What stops you doing that while still having Grammar Schools? I dont see how giving a cohort a worse education is going to make the entire system better. You refer to a worse education but if the comprehension system was so bad how come it has so many successes? The problem with setting the grammar school system up as the norm is that too many of the best teachers are taken away from the rest of the education system, and as far as I can gather so to is too much of the education funding taken up by grammar schools. For me it is about giving the best opportunities to as many people as have the ability to use them. Many schools do still use the grammar school, by selection, system. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 6, 2023 0:09:10 GMT
The 13+ approach would be to give the late developers another chance …as you wanted. No it would not, if a late developer was behind the development of an 11 year old at age 11, they would still be behind the development of a 13 year old at age 13. So they would still be disadvantaged. If a disadvantage late developer at age 11 took an 11+ examination at age 13, then you might have a point, but it obviously doesn't work that way. I am not privy to what was in the 13+ exam and neither are you but I suspect that the people who formulated the 13+ exam did not intend to deprive 23 year olds a place in grammar schools . As the actual 11+ exam was effectively an IQ test I am confident the 13+ was too. So I think that you might not have a point . |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 6, 2023 7:57:42 GMT
What stops you doing that while still having Grammar Schools? I dont see how giving a cohort a worse education is going to make the entire system better. You refer to a worse education but if the comprehension system was so bad how come it has so many successes?
What criteria are you using to measure success? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 6, 2023 8:16:17 GMT
Comprehensives used 'Setting' as compared to 'Streaming' Streaming puts a child in a group based on general ability Setting puts a child in a group based on subject by subject ability. Does that mean if you're lousy at maths you don't do maths lessons? No, it means if you're lousy at maths you are in a lousy at maths group. But if you're good at English you're in a good at English group. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 6, 2023 8:18:44 GMT
The 13+ approach would be to give the late developers another chance …as you wanted. No it would not, if a late developer was behind the development of an 11 year old at age 11, they would still be behind the development of a 13 year old at age 13. So they would still be disadvantaged. If a disadvantage late developer at age 11 took an 11+ examination at age 13, then you might have a point, but it obviously doesn't work that way. This is a tricky one, many late developers do not develop until after school leaving age, but there is a huge amount of peer pressure not to admit this. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 6, 2023 8:31:03 GMT
You refer to a worse education but if the comprehension system was so bad how come it has so many successes?
What criteria are you using to measure success? Well it certainly isn't IQ or abilities, so I guess it must be some unreachable potential. Which can be addressed once they arrive at uni given a mickey mouse degree a debt that will last them for life and a head full of politics as deemed by which ever professor as his or her flavour. Meanwhile they can tell us about the skill shortages and the jobs nobody wants. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 6, 2023 9:04:41 GMT
No it would not, if a late developer was behind the development of an 11 year old at age 11, they would still be behind the development of a 13 year old at age 13. So they would still be disadvantaged. If a disadvantage late developer at age 11 took an 11+ examination at age 13, then you might have a point, but it obviously doesn't work that way. I am not privy to what was in the 13+ exam and neither are you but I suspect that the people who formulated the 13+ exam did not intend to deprive 23 year olds a place in grammar schools . As the actual 11+ exam was effectively an IQ test I am confident the 13+ was too. So I think that you might not have a point . True neither of us know what would be in the 13+ test, but that test would be to see if the applicant was compatible, i.e. able to exist or occur together without problems, with the 13 year old students already at the school. Late development is a factor that is not taken into account when selecting who does and who does not fit into the grammar school system. Such people would just fail the test and would be left behind. Interestingly for me is that some 20% of students are early developers, this no doubt gives them an advantage over others, they may make up the majority of those who pass the 11+, and do so for no other reason than that they are more developed than others taking the test. On top of that females are in the majority of cases more developed than males throughout the academic years. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 6, 2023 9:07:36 GMT
You refer to a worse education but if the comprehension system was so bad how come it has so many successes?
What criteria are you using to measure success? The previously mentioned percentage of people passing the GCSE tests. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 6, 2023 9:29:56 GMT
I am not privy to what was in the 13+ exam and neither are you but I suspect that the people who formulated the 13+ exam did not intend to deprive 23 year olds a place in grammar schools . As the actual 11+ exam was effectively an IQ test I am confident the 13+ was too. So I think that you might not have a point . True neither of us know what would be in the 13+ test, but that test would be to see if the applicant was compatible, i.e. able to exist or occur together without problems, with the 13 year old students already at the school. Late development is a factor that is not taken into account when selecting who does and who does not fit into the grammar school system. Such people would just fail the test and would be left behind. Interestingly for me is that some 20% of students are early developers, this no doubt gives them an advantage over others, they may make up the majority of those who pass the 11+, and do so for no other reason than that they are more developed than others taking the test. On top of that females are in the majority of cases more developed than males throughout the academic years. What interesting about it? the Westminster party followers of fashion turn every thread into their staple political diet of, education, the economy and the NHS, which never get fixed anyway. Just a continuing circle of voting for the same thing and getting nowhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 6, 2023 9:44:14 GMT
I am not privy to what was in the 13+ exam and neither are you but I suspect that the people who formulated the 13+ exam did not intend to deprive 23 year olds a place in grammar schools . As the actual 11+ exam was effectively an IQ test I am confident the 13+ was too. So I think that you might not have a point . True neither of us know what would be in the 13+ test, but that test would be to see if the applicant was compatible, i.e. able to exist or occur together without problems, with the 13 year old students already at the school. In my school days (and yours) the exam for 13 year olds was for entry into technical colleges, only rarely did a pupil get a second stab at grammar school Late development is a factor that is not taken into account when selecting who does and who does not fit into the grammar school system. Such people would just fail the test and would be left behind. You can't have a system that's subject to so much variation, it just wouldn't work and the comprehensive system has not worked as well as as the sec. mod combined with the grammar school methodInterestingly for me is that some 20% of students are early developers, this no doubt gives them an advantage over others, they may make up the majority of those who pass the 11+, and do so for no other reason than that they are more developed than others taking the test. On top of that females are in the majority of cases more developed than males throughout the academic years. Starting age was 5 years old. I was put into infant school at four and a half because I could read and do simple maths; do you think that age disparity was to my advantage or disadvantage? Today's kids are put into what is erroneously called pre-school, erroneous because all the evidence I've seen is that it has little scholastic merit unless daubing paper with felt tips and constant babble is classed as education.
Females are physically more developed in terms of puberty from a considerably younger age, that may be the reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 6, 2023 9:47:43 GMT
I am not privy to what was in the 13+ exam and neither are you but I suspect that the people who formulated the 13+ exam did not intend to deprive 23 year olds a place in grammar schools . As the actual 11+ exam was effectively an IQ test I am confident the 13+ was too. So I think that you might not have a point . True neither of us know what would be in the 13+ test, but that test would be to see if the applicant was compatible, i.e. able to exist or occur together without problems, with the 13 year old students already at the school. Late development is a factor that is not taken into account when selecting who does and who does not fit into the grammar school system. Such people would just fail the test and would be left behind. Interestingly for me is that some 20% of students are early developers, this no doubt gives them an advantage over others, they may make up the majority of those who pass the 11+, and do so for no other reason than that they are more developed than others taking the test. On top of that females are in the majority of cases more developed than males throughout the academic years. This all smacks of equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. You seem to want an education system that fits the least capable rather than enhance the opportunities of the most capable . I don’t agree. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 6, 2023 10:04:14 GMT
True neither of us know what would be in the 13+ test, but that test would be to see if the applicant was compatible, i.e. able to exist or occur together without problems, with the 13 year old students already at the school. Late development is a factor that is not taken into account when selecting who does and who does not fit into the grammar school system. Such people would just fail the test and would be left behind. Interestingly for me is that some 20% of students are early developers, this no doubt gives them an advantage over others, they may make up the majority of those who pass the 11+, and do so for no other reason than that they are more developed than others taking the test. On top of that females are in the majority of cases more developed than males throughout the academic years. This all smacks of equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. You seem to want an education system that fits the least capable rather than enhance the opportunities of the most capable . I don’t agree. No, I prefer a system that deals with all levels of educational needs. Not just with the misguided assessment of the few selected by the use of the inefficient blunt instrument of the 11+. Comprehensive schools offer education at different levels including some at remedial level, they are separated into different streams in the same sort of way grammar schools have an A and a B stream. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 6, 2023 10:05:34 GMT
This all smacks of equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. You seem to want an education system that fits the least capable rather than enhance the opportunities of the most capable . I don’t agree. No, I prefer a system that deals with all levels of educational needs. Not just with the misguided assessment of the few selected by the use of the inefficient blunt instrument of the 11+. Comprehensive schools offer education at different levels including some at remedial level, they are separated into different streams in the same sort of way grammar schools have an A and a B stream. My grammar school didn't stream. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 6, 2023 10:10:35 GMT
This all smacks of equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. You seem to want an education system that fits the least capable rather than enhance the opportunities of the most capable . I don’t agree. No, I prefer a system that deals with all levels of educational needs. Not just with the misguided assessment of the few selected by the use of the inefficient blunt instrument of the 11+. Comprehensive schools offer education at different levels including some at remedial level, they are separated into different streams in the same sort of way grammar schools have an A and a B stream. The comprehension system is misguided. The level of education in the UK is mediocre at best and comprehensives are part of the problem. We need a system where the more talented children can be separated from the mediocre and receive a more technical and academic education . We threw that away in 1967 . |
|
