Primary school closing early.

Cakeguts

economic wrote: »

Then there are a lot more !!!!!! and low iq people then i thought.

Someone who is badly taught is not a low IQ. They may have been taught by a teacher who has a much lower IQ than most of their class that is becoming increasingly possible by the standard of degrees from low level universities that people training as teachers have.

What worries me most about all of this is that if you complain to a service company's customer services they will try to improve or apologise for their mistakes. If you complain about teaching standards you can guarantee that you some teacher somewhere will launch an attack at you personally as if your opinion is not valid despite all the evidence that it is. I don't care about these personal attacks because they show up what is wrong with the system. So far I have not had any teacher ask how they think that they could improve the education that they are offering. It is all about them and what they think about me.

There is something very wrong with this attitude. If a member of the public is getting a view of the standards of teaching and the fact that many teachers don't appear to want to improve them then we have a problem.

Cakeguts

Malthusian wrote: »

Nonsense - there's 1500+ in the Houses of Parliament, plus tens of thousands more on city councils and county councils throughout the land.

HO-OH! *fist bump*



Same number that could do it in the past. I used logarithm tables in my dumbed-down education for millennial morons, and normal distribution tables as well. Anyone who can compute normal distributions and logarithms using a calculator can do it using a table. It just takes longer.

2L10s4.5d = 50s4.5d = 604.5d. 23% * 604 = 139d rounded down. 139d = 11 and sevenpence. Do I get a Werther's Original?

Working out figures in pounds shillings and pence is exactly the same as in decimalised currency, it just involves an additional, totally pointless step. People who worked in pounds shillings and pence were therefore worse at maths involving currency than those doing the equivalent calculation in decimalised currency, as it takes them longer to achieve the same end.

Yes but we didn't have calculators so it all had to be done by long hand so why are children leaving school unable to do simple arithmetic or read and write when so much time is being saved by not doing anything by long hand and the availability of calculators?

There are O level questions on A level papers. If we could get to this standard at 16 why is it now taking until 18? If everything took longer in the 60s children should now be getting to O level standard at 15 and as GCSEs are so much easier why aren't they taking them at age 14?

Jackmydad

Cakeguts wrote: »

Someone who is badly taught is not a low IQ. They may have been taught by a teacher who has a much lower IQ than most of their class that is becoming increasingly possible by the standard of degrees from low level universities that people training as teachers have.

What worries me most about all of this is that if you complain to a service company's customer services they will try to improve or apologise for their mistakes. If you complain about teaching standards you can guarantee that you some teacher somewhere will launch an attack at you personally as if your opinion is not valid despite all the evidence that it is. I don't care about these personal attacks because they show up what is wrong with the system. So far I have not had any teacher ask how they think that they could improve the education that they are offering. It is all about them and what they think about me.

There is something very wrong with this attitude. If a member of the public is getting a view of the standards of teaching and the fact that many teachers don't appear to want to improve them then we have a problem.

The problem with a lot of these services, not just schools, is that the providers of the service have basically been put in charge of the standards of the service.
There is no direct way for the "customers" (and how I hate that term when used to describe recipients of tax funded services) to question the quality of said services, and so we get what we're given.

I've said for a long time that a lot of these governmental services, schools, health, and police, have become an end in themselves, at least to themselves.
The services they provide are a secondary consideration.

MPD

Pennywise wrote: »

No they're not. Something like 40% of 16 year olds don't even get the "good pass" grade in Maths and English GCSE (old C grade). That's shocking after 10+ years of compulsory education. There are so many, they can't all be low iq or !!!!!!. They've just been failed by the system.

Bottom 2/3rds of old grade C is a 4 which is a standard pass. A strong pass is a 5 (the top 1/3rd of C and bottom of or above.

In any case the grade is based on the distribution of marks, to prevent tabloid accusations of grade inflation the proportion of grades will not change much year to year. If everyone was to improve by the same number of marks then everyone would get the same grades as if they hadn't improved.

TL;DR The system is designed so the same proportion "pass" or "fail" every year.

Cakeguts

MPD wrote: »

Bottom 2/3rds of old grade C is a 4 which is a standard pass. A strong pass is a 5 (the top 1/3rd of C and bottom of or above.

In any case the grade is based on the distribution of marks, to prevent tabloid accusations of grade inflation the proportion of grades will not change much year to year. If everyone was to improve by the same number of marks then everyone would get the same grades as if they hadn't improved.

TL;DR The system is designed so the same proportion "pass" or "fail" every year.

Standard pass for 2017 or an almighty fail for 1965? It depends where the boundary is set.

Jackmydad

Cakeguts wrote: »

Standard pass for 2017 or an almighty fail for 1965? It depends where the boundary is set.

Hard sums or easy sums. . .

MPD

Cakeguts wrote: »

Standard pass for 2017 or an almighty fail for 1965? It depends where the boundary is set.

Put the same grading structure on the 1965 exam and the same proportion would fail.

Cakeguts

MPD wrote: »

Put the same grading structure on the 1965 exam and the same proportion would fail.

Exactly. However if you used a 1965 exam paper they would probably all fail.

MPD

Cakeguts wrote: »

Exactly. However if you used a 1965 exam paper they would probably all fail.

You missed the point entirely.

Put any exam paper in front of any cohort and the proportion of grades awarded will be exactly the same. If you give all the people that got whatever the top grade was in 1965 the 2018 exam paper and applied the current grading system then approx 50% would fail.

That is why the standard pass (grade 4) required 17% for the summer 2017 higher tier maths paper and just 13% for the November resit paper. Under the current grading system making the paper harder just lowers the marks required for a certain grade.

Windofchange

I find it both amusing and ironic in equal measures that the champions of the it was all harder back in my day argument are unable to consistently put together grammatically correct and coherent sentences. You'd get more sense out of a cage of agitated monkeys than some of the thought processes displayed here.