An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

IQ tests have internal validity in that subjects score broadly the same over different tests.

That doesn't mean that what is being measured is intelligence. You could call anything.

BobQ

Wild_Rover wrote: »

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!

I agree with Clapton :eek: .

How on Earth can the state equalise opportunity given differences in health, economic security, aptitude, home encouragement, competing domestic stresses, family make up, living conditions, access to peace and quiet for study and role models?

I'm not saying 'give up' but come on .

WR

Did I say that it did? Clapton said that I did which is not the same.

LHW99

Most common IQ test test verabl ability and abstract thought. There are some that measure other "non-verbal" IQ's.
Verbal ability and abstract thought are useful for studying in an "academic" rather than a "practical / hands on" fashion.
Hence a traditionally high IQ measured by the more standard type of IQ test tends to indicate how well a child will cope with being taught in the way that was common in grammar schools when that was the country's education system.
They did / do not measure how much commonsense, cleverness or any other skill set (or even memory ability) was possessed.

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Everyone loves the idea of a level playing field. That's not what we have, and it's not what we're moving towards. It's unachievable. It's a grand idea, like socialism, but the reality is very different. I prefer to take the route of letting everyone achieve the best they can, even if that means some people get selected for a particular type and focus in education and others do not. If that means some people want to send their children to a selective school what gives anyone the right to say they should be denied that opportunity?

I would say that a level playing field is never going to be achieved but that we should try. You speak of some people choosing a selective school. Selection if it happens should be based on ability not parental choice.

I agree that it would be wrong to stop parents sending their children to a private school. What I think is wrong is to allow the state schools to favour one child over another in terms of better facilities, better teachers etc.

That is what used to happen with the grammar/technical/secondary modern system. The grammar I went to in 1970 had sports field big enough for 6 soccer pitches and a language laboratory. The secondary moderns in the area had the local park and no language teaching facilities. Is that fair?

None of us on here have any right to deny others opportunities, even at our own expense. If your kids or the kids of others fail to gain entry or do not even try to gain entry into a selective school then that's fine, lesson learnt, either they didn't try hard enough, simply were not good enough or didn't want to.

And you accuse me of being ideological!!!

Please tell me why it's OK to have selection at A Level and at University level of education but not pre-GCSE? What of the opportunities denied to millions who did not attend Oxford or Cambridge due to the entry criteria and selection process? What about people on a council estate in Stoke-on-Trent being denied entry into the finest schools in London, doesn't every child deserve the best teachers? Extreme example yes, but it proves the point. Right now we have selection by postal code. Instead of merit. I'm arguing for the opportunity to use merit to succeed rather than the wealth and decisions of your parents. For example foster kids who bounce around could be in a selective grammar instead of a long list of comprehensives as they're moved around from home to home.

If you read what I have posted I have not said that selection is wrong, only that it is wrong for the state education system to revert to a system where if you are selected you get better resourced schools and the best teachers but if you are not selected you get an inferior school.

I would like to have an educational system which mirrors A Level and University selection throughout, where merit reigns supreme and a postal code is just where you live and not what quality of education you get.

I repeat I am not opposed to selection within a school. The more able are better taught with those of similar ability than in a mixed ability class. I do not have an up to date knowledge of the present education system but the idea we should go back to the grammar school system in which one exam at 11 consigned some to a better education and some to a worse one is unfair.

First you say that it is OK for parents to choose to send their children to selective schools. Now you advocate selection on merit. This seems contradictory?

But I agree that if you have a pass/fail system at any age it should not affect the quality of education you get which should be geared to letting the child make the best of whatever ability they have. Some who want grammar schools back hanker after a system that actually ensured that failing the 11+ meant focussing resources on those who passed.

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Why then must people be denied the choice to be able to attend a state school which selects pupils purely on merit in the same way Colleges and Universities do?

Choice is something within your control, selection is based on someone else making the choice.

University entrance is based on the availability of spaces at that body and you can get into some universities with the same qualifications that another university declined. It is the best system we have but to suggest they select purely on merit is not true. Some do interviews which are subjective. I recall my university interviews with their attempts to check out your social skills etc.

As I understand it GCSE's are at least regulated across the nation in an effort to ensure that an A pass in Newcastle is equal to one in Sevenoaks.

You speak of the 11+ as just another selection process. In fact, when everyone took the exam, the pass mark varied across the country depending on the population and the number of places available at the grammar and technical schools. Was that fair?

Saying life is unfair is a point of view. But I think the state should at least try to be fair.

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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

Name one alive today!

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I would say that a level playing field is never going to be achieved but that we should try.

whatever is a level playing field?

That is what used to happen with the grammar/technical/secondary modern system. The grammar I went to in 1970 had sports field big enough for 6 soccer pitches and a language laboratory. The secondary moderns in the either had the local park and no language teaching facilities. Is that fair?


And you accuse me of being ideological!!!



If you read what I have posted I have not said that selection is wrong, only that it is wrong for the state education system to revert to a system where if you are selected you get better resourced schools and the best teachers but if you are not selected you get an inferior school.

but you KNOW that schools with higher level of 'disadvantaged' children have higher funding (forget what happened in the 1970s)


also do you reject the research that shows that 'setting' increases the inequality of outcomes

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

IQ tests have internal validity in that subjects score broadly the same over different tests.

That doesn't mean that what is being measured is intelligence. You could call anything.

do you support

-streaming within a school
-setting within a school
-different schools e.g. techncial, academic for pupils with different interests and abilities
-mixed ability teaching only

if you do, what sort of selection criteria would you have

TrickyTree83

You won't get an answer from me today, I'm off to a wedding. But the contradictions? Really.. Parents should have the right to be able to choose to try, and kids should be allowed to get in on merit. That's not contradicting.

MobileSaver

Filo25 wrote: »

Where is the empirical evidence for the benefit provided by the grammar school system?

If I thought Grammars would actually improve average educational standards in the country I would be all for their reintroduction

Grammar School Statistics 29 June 2016

The differences in headline results are very clear; virtually all pupils in grammar schools achieved five or more good passes at GCSE or equivalent compared to around two-thirds at comprehensives.

Is that empirical enough?