Bolitics The New Condem Government

[bickster]

As to the grade bands 40% is about right. It reflects the minimum at undergraduate level- it was 50% on the LPC.

What has 40% got to do with grade boundaries? The 40% is the level at which a school is now considered to be "failing" a month ago it was 35%. There is also nothing wrong with that per se, it is however wrong to move that at the last minute. It is also wrong to do it with the agenda that the government quite clearly has

[Ads]

. They and their supporters (not just those in parliament) seem more concerned with feathering their own nests at the expense of any one they can

this veiled allegation again, want to give some examples of that?

I am using Risso to hide my funds in the IoW. Funds generated from the tears of the poor!

Muhahaha!

I see the allegation in most posts about a Tory "they". It seems a bit like paranoia to me.

[Ads]

Does it matter when they're shifted?

I am sure most teachers, whether inside the 35% band or not would consider that to be a poor result in any event.

[bickster]

Does it matter when they're shifted?

I am sure most teachers, whether inside the 35% band or not would consider that to be a poor result in any event.

Yes it does, why are exams taken in the summer harder to pass than the ones taken in January, certificate looks the same but is worth less, of course it matters and if you can't see that then there's hope hope for a reasonable discussion is there.

If you're at work and the boss sets you a target for your bonus which you reach at the end of the period but then your boss ups the ante when its too late for you to do anything about it, would that be fair? No is the OBVIOUS answer and not once have you actually come up with a coherent intelligible answer to the questions posed, just some nonsense about paranoia (when the stories are there for all to see in all parts of the media) and a "does it matter".

Your posts have been downgraded to an E

[Big_John_10]

That's a good analogy.

Now imagine that you failing to meet your target was then used as a reason to replace you. Would that feel fair?

[drat01]

Maybe the idea from the Tory party and its supporters is a return to the days of CSE's and O Levels where you had a two tier educational reward system and all of the various stigma's and ridiculous anomalies that went with that.

Doing away with Grammar schools has been mooted as possibly the biggest inhibitor to social mobility of the last 50 years. The vehicle that gave poor kids with academic ability the chance to compete for top university places (and the jobs that follow them) was destroyed.

For example, the last PM not to come from a background of private education was John Major. There won't be another one any time soon.

What has grammar schools got do with anything? A choice made a the age of 11 was ridiculous and has no place in modern society. How i read your post is a cry for a return to elitism of grammar schools. ( and yes i was a grammar school boy)

[Ads]

You missed my point. 35% is a poor performance whether its deemed good enough by government or not. I cannot believe that any teacher would be happy with 65 out of a 100 of their students failing.

My post about paranoia has nothing to do with this subject, so its no surprise it confused you.

[Risso]

If the educational standards that had been progressively lowered were ever to be addressed then how was this to be done without fundamentally disadvantaging those whose exams were subsequently marked at a decent standard?

You could argue that those children who had sat the dumbed down exams of the last decade are the one's now at a disadvantage, because employers know that qualifications in the decade leading up to 2012 may as well have been issued by Disney world. That's not to damn those pupils as individuals (it's clearly not their fault), but rather the political ideology of creating a no failure culture around academic qualifications - as damaging to overall belief in the system as it is to the cognitive and social development of children.

Spot on. The uninterrupted grade inflation of the last 20 odd years is a national disgrace. When I was at school, kids getting three A Levels at grade A were genuinely the brightest kids in the school and could look forward to going to a top university. As an employer, it gets increasingly harder to work out how bright a young candidate is going to be, because I've seen some right no-hopers with amazing grades.

It's not a disgrace at all. There are quite a lot of things that you show by that statement

1) resentment that any that follow you have the audacity to get equal or better exam marks than you.

2) Teachers are in some way now less able to obtain better grades

3) Improvements through investment into an education system

4) If an employer decided on recruitment solely based on exam marks, which many do not, then I suggest they are not going about recruitment in the correct way. Even if the marks are taken as you say then how difficult would it be to put on a factor for the perceived easier grades per year or is that a case again of too much effort on the employer part

As Gareth said earlier the disgraceful way that Gove and Cameron have pandered to ill thought out views about grades and their desire to be seen to be doing something (with little regard to what exactly they were doing) is the disgrace here. It's funny that with all the preaching that we hear from the Tory party and its supporters about Britain being Idle, when we see kids working hard and getting good rewards the immediate reaction from the Tory's is to question them and try and piss on their parade

Scandalous by the Gvmt again, awful that it's supporters cannot see the damage it continues to inflict

You show breathtaking ignorance of the subject. Until GCSEs came in and replaced O Levels (which just so happened to be the year I took my exams), average results each year went up and down as you'd expect. Since then (ie nearly 25 years) every single year has shown an increase in the number of people getting the top grades. That's absolutely nothing to do with kids getting cleverer, or teachers working harder, and everything to do with they're marked and graded. You should try comparing a current GCSE paper with an O Level one in the same subject, there's no comparison, O Levels were far harder.

And it's also nothing to do with politics as it's happened across both parties, so not sure what your usual frothing-at-the-mouth reaction was for.

[Awol]

How i read your post is a cry for a return to elitism of grammar schools. ( and yes i was a grammar school boy)

Correct. It appears that you define education in "modern society" as a mechanism to ensure the poorest pupils don't have access to the same academic opportunities as the richest - which is odd given your epic rants against anyone earning more than minimum wage.

Society is not and can never be "equal", but education can and should provide all children bright enough with an opportunity to improve their prospects. Using the Grammar school system is no worse than the sensible practice of streaming pupils in a Comprehensive school based on their ability - or do you think that's wrong too based on the inherent unfairness of inherited genes?

[chrisp65]

How i read your post is a cry for a return to elitism of grammar schools. ( and yes i was a grammar school boy)

Correct. It appears that you define education in "modern society" as a mechanism to ensure the poorest pupils don't have access to the same academic opportunities as the richest - which is odd given your epic rants against anyone earning more than minimum wage.

Society is not and can never be "equal", but education can and should provide all children bright enough with an opportunity to improve their prospects. Using the Grammar school system is no worse than the sensible practice of streaming pupils in a Comprehensive school based on their ability - or do you think that's wrong too based on the inherent unfairness of inherited genes?

From my own personal experience, an arbitary age of 11 to stream somebody into grammar or other is patently ridiculous and would have given me some very different life choices to those I got via the comp system.

No, society cannot be equal whilst their are greedy and devious people, but it can be fair. It isn't about pick the best and **** the rest, it's about giving everyone access to the best education and best chances.

Grammar schooling is far worse than comp streaming, it's a near final selection at age 11. Which is ridiculous. Unfortunately, Gove strikes me as just the kind of warm hearted all in it together big society tory that would love to bring back more elitism.

[bickster]

You missed my point. 35% is a poor performance whether its deemed good enough by government or not. I cannot believe that any teacher would be happy with 65 out of a 100 of their students failing.

My post about paranoia has nothing to do with this subject, so its no surprise it confused you.

I didn't miss your point, you made it rather poorly, in fact you didn't actually say what you meant

Your point about paranoia also has very little to do with paranoia either

What is below an E?

[Ads]

You do know that paranoia wasn't directed at you?

I think its fairly clear what I meant. As for whats below an E, an F, G and a U isn't it?

[Risso]

You won't find me disagreeing with any of that Risso, my argument is that the way this has been done, isn't fair on the kids its affected, it isn't fair on the schools who've had the goalposts moved at a time when they cannot do anything about it and the ultimate aim isn't improving education its lining the pockets of some highly dubious individuals/organisations, religious nutters will be running our schools. I'm not even talking about your bog standard CofE/Catholic nutjobs, I'm talking some right oddballs, oh and businesses, who have absolutely no place in schools.

Education needs improving, this is neither fair on those affected nor is it going to be effective in raising standards

How is it fair on the kids who took exams last year, or five or ten years ago if every single year, people taking exams are given better marks than them for the same standard work? If your CV goes straight in the bin for only having BBB at A Level, when you did just as well as somebody who did their exams five years later and got AAA for the same level of ability?

[drat01]

You show breathtaking ignorance of the subject. Until GCSEs came in and replaced O Levels (which just so happened to be the year I took my exams), average results each year went up and down as you'd expect. Since then (ie nearly 25 years) every single year has shown an increase in the number of people getting the top grades. That's absolutely nothing to do with kids getting cleverer, or teachers working harder, and everything to do with they're marked and graded. You should try comparing a current GCSE paper with an O Level one in the same subject, there's no comparison, O Levels were far harder.

And it's also nothing to do with politics as it's happened across both parties, so not sure what your usual frothing-at-the-mouth reaction was for.

As usual a patronizing and ill informed response especially when someone challenges your ill thought out views. Your ignorance coupled with a fair dose of arrogance shines through I would say. So what you are saying is that the introduction of GCSE's is the fault here? Continued increase in pass rates is somehow wrong? Maybe the teachers and the rest of the educational staff should continue to keep the students at lower levels, we don't want them challenging the superior results of those that have gone before now do we?

Your dismissive attitude to kids and the teaching profession progressing says a lot especially when you then call for improvements. Previously you said that it was difficult to determine the relative merits of students when you look at their job applications, maybe you should / could take into account your views then that the rewards they have received are in your opinion of a lesser value or "watered down" as some in the Tory party have claimed in a way to justify Gove's interference.

To claim that O levels were harder is a ridiculous claim, it's like saying footballers of the 1950's were better because they had to play on sodden pitches and with leather footballs. The chalk and cheese rule applies very much so. As someone who has in the past and still does have to recruit the value of O levels, GCSE's, A levels, even degrees is not something that stays with applicants as they progress in their working career.

Your last comment is just wrong on so many counts. (along with normal snide comments). The fact that so many are talking about people like Give and Cameron's interference and challenges to be made in courts etc show that it is political. Obviously because the people in question are Tories may make that something you want to sweep under the carpet, but the reality is while you may turn a blind to it, luckily the public are questioning the political motives of the actions taken

[drat01]

How i read your post is a cry for a return to elitism of grammar schools. ( and yes i was a grammar school boy)

Correct. It appears that you define education in "modern society" as a mechanism to ensure the poorest pupils don't have access to the same academic opportunities as the richest - which is odd given your epic rants against anyone earning more than minimum wage.

Society is not and can never be "equal", but education can and should provide all children bright enough with an opportunity to improve their prospects. Using the Grammar school system is no worse than the sensible practice of streaming pupils in a Comprehensive school based on their ability - or do you think that's wrong too based on the inherent unfairness of inherited genes?

How convenient that you fail to look at what was written. Funny how I never said what you are claiming nor do I subscribe to the views, but hey don't let that stop you trying to score a few points

Your desire it seems is a return to the ill thought out system previously of Grammar schools where kids whole futures were decided by virtue of two tests taken when they were 10/11 in Junior School. The elitism and investment in various factors of Grammar schools to Secondary Modern were something that a civilized modern society should not put forward as a key educational policy. Recognition and reward of children's (and adults) academic abilities over numerous years and ease of accessibility to good education surely is the way forward, or do you prefer elitism based on single criteria?

You say that society is not equal, no it is not, but the fact that you seemingly want it to remain one of privilege is luckily a minority view in most civilized and reasonable thinking. You say that education should provide children bright enough to prosper but then contradict that by saying that should be determined by a test at the age of 10/11.

The Grammar school principle is nothing like streaming as you well know. The former is decided as a one off on the basis of a test, the latter being something that is ongoing as Children develop and learn more.

I have no clue what the hell you are talking about re genes, where you have got that from is beyond me.

[drat01]

How is it fair on the kids who took exams last year, or five or ten years ago if every single year, people taking exams are given better marks than them for the same standard work? If your CV goes straight in the bin for only having BBB at A Level, when you did just as well as somebody who did their exams five years later and got AAA for the same level of ability?

Surely you are contradicting yourself there. On one hand you say that older people had harder exams so would get lower marks and that youngsters have easier options to get higher marks. That being the case then you dismiss this when you do a compare on the two for a job application?

[Awol]

How i read your post is a cry for a return to elitism of grammar schools. ( and yes i was a grammar school boy)

Correct. It appears that you define education in "modern society" as a mechanism to ensure the poorest pupils don't have access to the same academic opportunities as the richest - which is odd given your epic rants against anyone earning more than minimum wage.

Society is not and can never be "equal", but education can and should provide all children bright enough with an opportunity to improve their prospects. Using the Grammar school system is no worse than the sensible practice of streaming pupils in a Comprehensive school based on their ability - or do you think that's wrong too based on the inherent unfairness of inherited genes?

How convenient that you fail to look at what was written. Funny how I never said what you are claiming nor do I subscribe to the views, but hey don't let that stop you trying to score a few points

The comprehensive system promotes elitism by consigning bright but poor children to a mediocre education, while ensuring that those who can afford to will buy a good education for their kids, therefore giving them a better shot at doing well.

If we want greater social mobility then a way has to be found to give the brightest a platform to excel regardless of background. Despite denying it you are supporting a system that essentially holds back the brightest.

They still have Grammar schools in Northern Ireland and the system works fine. There is a tiered education system in Germany which again, works fine. Then you have the comprehensive system here which itself is often selective in intake because the house prices rise around the catchment area of good schools thereby excluding those from the poorest background.

I accept what Chrisp65 is saying about the problem of 'pass the 11 plus, or else', but why not have a number of potential age linked crossover points to Grammar schools (say 11 and again at 13)? The other institutions could then focus far more on teaching vocational subjects in addition to the core maths, English and science.

All this talk of elitism smacks more of class war than a well thought out argument to be honest.

[bickster]

You won't find me disagreeing with any of that Risso, my argument is that the way this has been done, isn't fair on the kids its affected, it isn't fair on the schools who've had the goalposts moved at a time when they cannot do anything about it and the ultimate aim isn't improving education its lining the pockets of some highly dubious individuals/organisations, religious nutters will be running our schools. I'm not even talking about your bog standard CofE/Catholic nutjobs, I'm talking some right oddballs, oh and businesses, who have absolutely no place in schools.

Education needs improving, this is neither fair on those affected nor is it going to be effective in raising standards

How is it fair on the kids who took exams last year, or five or ten years ago if every single year, people taking exams are given better marks than them for the same standard work? If your CV goes straight in the bin for only having BBB at A Level, when you did just as well as somebody who did their exams five years later and got AAA for the same level of ability?

That actually isn't true though, I've seen enough past papers in Rebecca's 9 subjects from the last ten years to know that if anything, the exams have got harder in that period. This year however there were questions in some papers that weren't actually on the syllabus, some that were considered AS level - totally unannounced.

[drat01]

The comprehensive system promotes elitism by consigning bright but poor children to a mediocre education, while ensuring that those who can afford to will buy a good education for their kids, therefore giving them a better shot at doing well.

If we want greater social mobility then a way has to be found to give the brightest a platform to excel regardless of background. Despite denying it you are supporting a system that essentially holds back the brightest.

They still have Grammar schools in Northern Ireland and the system works fine. There is a tiered education system in Germany which again, works fine. Then you have the comprehensive system here which itself is often selective in intake because the house prices rise around the catchment area of good schools thereby excluding those from the poorest background.

I accept what Chrisp65 is saying about the problem of 'pass the 11 plus, or else', but why not have a number of potential age linked crossover points to Grammar schools (say 11 and again at 13)? The other institutions could then focus far more on teaching vocational subjects in addition to the core maths, English and science.

All this talk of elitism smacks more of class war than a well thought out argument to be honest.

The comprehensive system does not promote elitism at all, that is just a weak attempt to try and justify your desire for Grammar schools. As mentioned streaming and movement within streams throughout the schooling period means that kids with higher intellect in certain subjects are taught with their peers typically and those who need different schooling and help are catered for. That is not elitism as you well know

Social mobility, something not exactly a favorite with this Tory Gvmt other than social cleansing within housing, is not achieved by discriminatory schooling based on a test when a child is 10/11 years old. Children are not at their peak of education ability at that age and the current system allows for amendments as the kids progress through life. Yes they have Grammar schools in Northern Ireland so that is the sole basis for your argument?

Your argument for movement into different "schools" at different ages would not work. To provide a better more varied education then you have to asses kids abilities in each of the subjects and move them into the relevant streams for that. with the system you are talking about you have all your eggs in one basket which in turn provides a poorer system. If a child is good at Maths but poor at the arts subjects how would they benefit from the system you are talking about?

The current system is fine and works well. As with all things there can and should be improvements and with correct investment and less interference from idiots within the political systems (at Gvmt and council level) then things will continue upwards and onwards.

As said as a ex-Grammar school boy elitism is the correct word for that old system. It has nothing whatsoever to do with class war and again that is just a deflection on your part

[snowychap]

...while ensuring that those who can afford to will buy a good education for their kids, therefore giving them a better shot at doing well...

Going slightly off topic, I'm really not sure how much the 'better shot' arises from the education received rather than other things.