An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

I stand corrected.....Can't get my head around what the current plan is?? I read yesterday the aim will be to have an 11+, 12+, 13+ opportunity to get into the grammar school.....so those who can coach their kids or pay for someone else to get them coached into these schools will have multiple chances...what is the point of that?.....and what will that mean for those left behind?
I also don't understand the purpose of having a school set aside for those who pass when we already have setting to reflect abilities anyway?
Is it simply that people want the chance of exclusivity which can only be reflected through a completely separate school? Surely it's not that crude .....am I missing something?

in what way is a child in the lowest 'stream ' not being left behind?
in what way is a child in the lowest 'sets' not being left behind

do they or their parents, not notice as they are all in the same physical building?

note I don't support in general support grmmar schools.

TrickyTree83

setmefree2 wrote: »

Some scientists dispute the concept of IQ entirely....but I wouldn't expect you to understand that......



So what are those benefits?

Oh come on.. some 'scientists' also claim they can prove the Earth is flat.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way is a child in the lowest 'stream ' not being left behind?
in what way is a child in the lowest 'sets' not being left behind

do they or their parents, not notice as they are all in the same physical building?

note I don't support in general support grmmar schools.

Setmefree explained the term is 'sets' not 'streaming'....so from my own schooldays i was in certain sets for certain subjects between ages 11-15. Depending on my speed of progress I could be moved up and down in those sets. I started off in set 2 for biology but improved and moved to set 1 by the time I was 15. You therefore never feel you are being left behind because you have multiple chances to move sets if your grades improve and you have also not experienced the apartheid of being sent to a separate school....you stay in the same school as those who have better grades.
"do they or their parents, not notice as they are all in the same physical building"
I'm sure they do notice....my point is why is it important to them? Why is it an issue?

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Oh come on.. some 'scientists' also claim they can prove the Earth is flat.

There is plenty of research that shows they are not that reliable, and your comparison is ridiculous.

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

There is plenty of research that shows they are not that reliable, and your comparison is ridiculous.

Show me the credible evidence that the concept of IQ is incorrect/doesn't exist that stands up to scrutiny.

The comparison is fine.

mayonnaise

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't support in general support grmmar schools.

No, obviously you don't.

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Show me the credible evidence that the concept of IQ is incorrect/doesn't exist that stands up to scrutiny.

The comparison is fine.

There is plenty of research to show that the test do not give an accurate measurement of IQ that doesn't mean the concept of IQ doesn't exist.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Setmefree explained the term is 'sets' not 'streaming'....so from my own schooldays i was in certain sets for certain subjects between ages 11-15. Depending on my speed of progress I could be moved up and down in those sets. I started off in set 2 for biology but improved and moved to set 1 by the time I was 15. You therefore never feel you are being left behind because you have multiple chances to move sets if your grades improve and you have also not experienced the apartheid of being sent to a separate school....you stay in the same school as those who have better grades.
"do they or their parents, not notice as they are all in the same physical building"
I'm sure they do notice....my point is why is it important to them? Why is it an issue?

in what way is a child in the lowest 'sets' not being left behind

if a child is moved to a lower set would they not feel they were being left behind?

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

There is plenty of research to show that the test do not give an accurate measurement of IQ that doesn't mean the concept of IQ doesn't exist.

which raises the question of how one knows that an IQ test doesn't give an accurate measure unless you have a measure to measure it against.

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

There is plenty of research to show that the test do not give an accurate measurement of IQ that doesn't mean the concept of IQ doesn't exist.

That wasn't what was said.

Inaccuracy is not disproof of a concept.

I disagreed with a throwaway comment regarding legitimacy of the IQ concept. I responded flippantly to a flippant comment. Perhaps I should have been more reserved.

And now you're trying to defend what was said by insinuating - inaccuracy of a test to measure X disproves the concept of X. Surely you can see the problem in that.

I can't accurately measure the diameter of the Sun, it doesn't disprove the concept of the Sun.

Some scientists think IQ as a concept to be incorrect, as some scientists believe the Earth is flat. These crackpots exist, I actually watched a video attempting to prove it, quite amusing actually.