|
|
Post by ratcliff on Mar 8, 2023 16:43:11 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. Thousands of kids think they have potential to pay premiership football/ rugby /play tennis at Queens , maybe even Wimbledon/drive F1 cars but are denied the opportunity . According to your stunted logic that must mean the system is clearly flawed from the start |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 8, 2023 16:48:14 GMT
Of course not, but that second chance for some at age 13 came no where near to rescuing the failures surrounding the 11+ system and grammar school education. My daughter had a problem which started with writing letters and numbers back to front, and trying to read from right to left. The problem was pretty much sorted out in her last year at junior school. She started senior school in the remedial class. I can tell you in absolute honesty that she left school with 6 GCSE passes, the most passes achieved by anyone at that school in that year. 6 GCSE passes was the best that school could do? Either the cohort was especially poor or teachers majorly inept to have such spectacularly dreadful results Hopefully the school was put into special measures and has been improved Yes the school was struggling, it was at a time when Thatcher's stupid Grant Maintained Education system meant that the majority of state schools were starved of income. This particular school even invited parents into a meeting where a discussion took place to see if any parents could help with school maintenance. It was a period with very high unemployment and where students had become disinterested and disillusioned with little more to hope for than a job as shelf fillers. A time when some parents, themselves were so fed up with the situation, that anything that smacked of authority immediately raised their hackles, if bad lad son was reprimanded by a teacher the parent would give the teacher hell. They were bad times, later referred to IIRC as the 'damaged generation'. The only thing that is dreadful here is your ill informed post. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Mar 8, 2023 16:58:08 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. So , your idea would be for those who aren't bright enough to take an exam for 11 year olds (you call them late developers ) to take the same exam for 11 year olds at age 13 and see if they pass? What then? You put the 13 year old in the class for bright 11 year olds? |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Mar 8, 2023 17:02:06 GMT
What criteria are you using to measure success? The previously mentioned percentage of people passing the GCSE tests. How to increase the pass rates of school exams to try to pretend that education standards have improved Reduce the pass marks Give everyone a pass |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 8, 2023 17:06:43 GMT
The previously mentioned percentage of people passing the GCSE tests. How to increase the pass rates of school exams to try to pretend that education standards have improved Reduce the pass marks Give everyone a pass Nothing wrong with your imagination, but why would anyone " try to pretend that education standards have improved". If there was proof, no one would waste their time pretending. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Mar 8, 2023 17:10:58 GMT
6 GCSE passes was the best that school could do? Either the cohort was especially poor or teachers majorly inept to have such spectacularly dreadful results Hopefully the school was put into special measures and has been improved Yes the school was struggling, it was at a time when Thatcher's stupid Grant Maintained Education system meant that the majority of state schools were starved of income. This particular school even invited parents into a meeting where a discussion took place to see if any parents could help with school maintenance. It was a period with very high unemployment and where students had become disinterested and disillusioned with little more to hope for than a job as shelf fillers. A time when some parents, themselves were so fed up with the situation, that anything that smacked of authority immediately raised their hackles, if bad lad son was reprimanded by a teacher the parent would give the teacher hell. They were bad times, later referred to IIRC as the 'damaged generation'. The only thing that is dreadful here is your ill informed post. Therefore it was a particularly poor student cohort who wasted their state education opportunity because they wanted to if 6 GCSE passes was the best they could do. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 8, 2023 17:18:23 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. So , your idea would be for those who aren't bright enough to take an exam for 11 year olds (you call them late developers ) to take the same exam for 11 year olds at age 13 and see if they pass? What then? You put the 13 year old in the class for bright 11 year olds? No that was not my idea, I put it forward as an example of how the level of personal development could affect individuals taking the test. The point I was getting at is that amongst all people there are early developers and late developers. The 11+ exam had no way of determining the level of development of the person taking the test, which meant that late developers were disadvantaged. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 8, 2023 17:18:40 GMT
At least you have got one thing right . Well done . Oh yes, coz we're so much cleverer than the next generation always. I mean just look how science has stalled since we retired. 🙄This might upset you to know but…other countries have contributed to science too. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 8, 2023 17:21:59 GMT
Yes the school was struggling, it was at a time when Thatcher's stupid Grant Maintained Education system meant that the majority of state schools were starved of income. This particular school even invited parents into a meeting where a discussion took place to see if any parents could help with school maintenance. It was a period with very high unemployment and where students had become disinterested and disillusioned with little more to hope for than a job as shelf fillers. A time when some parents, themselves were so fed up with the situation, that anything that smacked of authority immediately raised their hackles, if bad lad son was reprimanded by a teacher the parent would give the teacher hell. They were bad times, later referred to IIRC as the 'damaged generation'. The only thing that is dreadful here is your ill informed post. Therefore it was a particularly poor student cohort who wasted their state education opportunity because they wanted to if 6 GCSE passes was the best they could do. Circumstances do have there affect. If you are determined to ignore that fact, and the best you can come up with is in your post, it shows what is possibly a deliberate lack of depth of thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 8, 2023 17:27:04 GMT
So , your idea would be for those who aren't bright enough to take an exam for 11 year olds (you call them late developers ) to take the same exam for 11 year olds at age 13 and see if they pass? What then? You put the 13 year old in the class for bright 11 year olds? No that was not my idea, I put it forward as an example of how the level of personal development could affect individuals taking the test. The point I was getting at is that amongst all people there are early developers and late developers. The 11+ exam had no way of determining the level of development of the person taking the test, which meant that late developers were disadvantaged. Exams are not set to determine the development level, they are set to determine how much a child has learnt. If the haven't learnt enought to pass, are you saying they must be underdeveloped? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 8, 2023 17:28:00 GMT
Well the increase in exam passes can only be one of 2 things - either the exams have got easier (my contention) or the kids are 300% more intelligent (your contention). Do you mean they are 300% more intelligent, or the number of passes increased? The amount with the intelligence capable of passing with top marks increased from 8% to 24% - a 300% increase. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 8, 2023 17:28:30 GMT
Therefore it was a particularly poor student cohort who wasted their state education opportunity because they wanted to if 6 GCSE passes was the best they could do. Circumstances do have there affect. If you are determined to ignore that fact, and the best you can come up with is in your post, it shows what is possibly a deliberate lack of depth of thought. The school may have done better without the remedial pupils and the no hopers . They might have been able to offer a better standard of education . |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 8, 2023 20:57:05 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. So , your idea would be for those who aren't bright enough to take an exam for 11 year olds (you call them late developers ) to take the same exam for 11 year olds at age 13 and see if they pass? What then? You put the 13 year old in the class for bright 11 year olds? You seem to have entirely missed what the words 'late developer' mean. It doesn't mean not bright, it means developed later. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 8, 2023 22:38:19 GMT
No it is not. It is something you have invented. Well the increase in exam passes can only be one of 2 things - either the exams have got easier (my contention) or the kids are 300% more intelligent (your contention). Or your '300%' is made up shite. Occam's razor would say it was |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 9, 2023 8:24:18 GMT
No that was not my idea, I put it forward as an example of how the level of personal development could affect individuals taking the test. The point I was getting at is that amongst all people there are early developers and late developers. The 11+ exam had no way of determining the level of development of the person taking the test, which meant that late developers were disadvantaged. Exams are not set to determine the development level, they are set to determine how much a child has learnt. If the haven't learnt enought to pass, are you saying they must be underdeveloped? No, I'm pointing out the obvious that a late developing child is put at a disadvantage by the 11+ system. |
|
