04-12-2016, 01:40 AM
21
Re: 11 +
Originally Posted by JBR
->
Yes, one year, based on your statement:"a child can make his or her own decision once past the basics at 15 or 16"
In Britain, compulsory education finishes at age 16!
In my opinion, the basics finish at age 11. 7 or 8 years should be more than adequate to teach the basics of English and mathematics.
After age 11 these two subjects would continue at a more advanced level, along with a choice of scientific or arts-based subjects at grammar school or alternatively technical, engineering and similar subjects.
By age 11 a child's teachers and (assuming they are interested) parents should have a pretty good idea of where a child's strengths lie. Many children of that age also have their own ideas of their favourite subjects in school.
How are children to learn about the joys of Physics, fine art, Politics, History, Maths, Chem, Language and Culture etc?
How can any child have any idea about their favorite subjects if they have only had primary level exposure ?
You suggest that a child in Technical school be denied the opportunity to explore the world of Physics or Literature because they failed some low level arbitrary exam when they were still watching Blue Peter?
04-12-2016, 01:44 AM
22
Re: 11 +
Originally Posted by JBR
->
Such accusations make me very angry too. I, like my parents (who were poor people), am working class yet went to a grammar school. Grammar schools were not provided only for middle and upper classes; on the contrary, they made provision for lower/working class children who had the academic ability to benefit from their teaching. In my class was the son of a 'rag and bone' man who, because he passed the 11+ was offered a place in a school which cost his parents nothing.State grammar schools were classless.
04-12-2016, 01:52 AM
23
Re: 11 +
Originally Posted by bridget
->
if a child is really poor at english, written and spoken..but a wizz at maths...at 11 years of age? !!what do you do?stream them into a trade school?
In addition, your expression 'trade school' sounds rather demeaning. Perhaps you are not aware that there are some very intelligent engineers and some very rich artisans. I get the impression that you are of the opinion that academics are all 'high class' and manual workers are all 'low class'. I can assure you that you are completely wrong. I know people of both sorts who contradict your apparent definitions.
The new '11+' exams that I envisage would not rely on good results in English and maths, but would have a much broader content to help determine where a child's strengths lie.
Incidentally, I was crap at maths despite being educated at a grammar school.
04-12-2016, 01:55 AM
24
Re: 11 +
Originally Posted by gumbud
->
agreed - came from a poor background myself in UK - working class district etc - got into grammar school after passing the eleven plus - however in those days if you didn't get high enough scores for grammar school you were also offered option in technical colleges or commercial colleges and then there were also high school - a full range of options to suit all kids.
It's that
1. 11 years old is too young to be "deciding" a child's fate.
2. That children should be the ones to make that choice not the education department.
What does it matter if a child chooses to take subjects that they find are beyond them at 15?? they can surely change their choices ..the point is that they should be able to try to reach for the moon, not be told they are inadequate...at 11.
When I was in my 11th year..in the UK..my only talent was for day dreaming..my reports were straight D's.
Our primary school books were shared class sets of texts written in the 1930's, Geography was tracing maps, English was how to write copperplate and spelling lists, History was reading about Alfred burning the cake, Bruce and his arachnid mate, and King Canute turning the waves back..or not.
We'd just covered long division.
My first English class in Australia (in my 11th year, was how to hold a debate.
I thank my Father every day for emigrating.
04-12-2016, 02:07 AM
25
Re: 11 +
Originally Posted by bridget
->
If the only Core subjects are English and Maths after 11.How are children to learn about the joys of Physics, fine art, Politics, History, Maths, Chem, Language and Culture etc?
How can any child have any idea about their favorite subjects if they have only had primary level exposure ?
You suggest that a child in Technical school be denied the opportunity to explore the world of Physics or Literature because they failed some low level arbitrary exam when they were still watching Blue Peter?
It may not have occurred to you that physics and chemistry, for example, would be important component subjects of technical schools. You seem to have a fixed idea that technical schools would be the same as secondary modern schools of a low standard and low expectation.
If you think that a 'low level arbitrary exam' would be suitable for determining the best type of education for a child, you have a lot to learn about exams. In addition, there would also be input from teachers and parents to substantiate the validity of the proposed 11+ replacement.
To conclude. I'd prefer not to argue about the subject. Your opinions are quite clear, and I hope that I have made mine perfectly clear as well. I am sure that I shall not in any way change your ideas and I assure you that you will not change mine, so perhaps we can drop the matter now.
04-12-2016, 02:11 AM
26
Re: 11 +
Originally Posted by bridget
->
not be told they are inadequate...at 11.
So my suggested 11+ would result in either a 'pass' or a 'fail'. You, madam, are a dinosaur.
It is clear that you completely fail to understand everything I have tried to explain. Or perhaps you are just being bloody minded. I shall waste no more of my valuable time on you.
04-12-2016, 02:17 AM
27
Re: 11 +
Maybe I just have very bad memories of the terror of the 11+ in 1967?
I grew up and was "educated" in Nottingham.
The eleven-plus was a result of the major changes which took place in English and Welsh education in the years up to 1944. In particular, the Hadow report of 1926 called for the division of primary and secondary education to take place on the cusp of adolescence at 11 or 12. The implementation of this break by the Butler Act seemed to offer an ideal opportunity to implement streaming, since all children would be changing school anyway. Thus testing at eleven emerged largely as an historical accident, without other specific reasons for testing at that age.
Criticism of the eleven-plus arose on a number of grounds, though many related more to the wider education system than to academic selection generally or the eleven-plus specifically. The proportions of schoolchildren gaining a place at a Grammar School varied by location and gender. 35% of pupils in the South West secured grammar school places as opposed to 10% in Nottinghamshire.[7] Because of the continuance of single-sex schooling, there were fewer places for girls than boys.
Critics of the eleven-plus also claimed that there was a strong class bias in the exam. JWB Douglas, studying the question in 1957, found that children on the borderline of passing were more likely to get grammar school places if they came from middle-class families.[8] For example, questions about the role of household servants or classical composers were far easier for middle-class children to answer than for those from less wealthy or less educated backgrounds. In response, the eleven-plus was redesigned during the 1960s to be more like an IQ test. However, even after this modification, grammar schools were largely attended by middle-class children while secondary modern schools were attended by mostly working-class children.[9][10][11]
Passing – or not passing – the eleven-plus was a "defining moment in many lives", with education viewed as "the silver bullet for enhanced social mobility."[12] Richard Hoggart claimed in 1961 that "what happens in thousands of homes is that the eleven-plus examination is identified in the minds of parents, not with 'our Jimmy is a clever lad and he's going to have his talents trained', but 'our Jimmy is going to move into another class, he's going to get a white-collar job' or something like that
04-12-2016, 08:57 AM
28
Re: 11 +
Originally Posted by marmaduke
->
I hear what your saying galty , but then again everyone goes to uni these days .... kids leave Skool unable to read /write or do basic arithmetic yet go to uni and get an ology to prove they iz klever .My theory then as is now , tony Bliar wanted all kids to be kleverand go 2 uni simply bcuz they had no jobs innit
was just a huge baby sitting service to keep the figures looking good instead of mass unemployment under labour .As for apprenticeships yes we're sadly lacking but it was just as much the unions who killed them by demanding full proper wages for apprentices at the time so company's obviously thought if paying full rate then il hire a qualified .experienced worker instead ( since then the big manpower dependent industries have moved abroad such as ship building ETC )
04-12-2016, 09:51 AM
29
Re: 11 +
Originally Posted by JBR
->
Such accusations make me very angry too. I, like my parents (who were poor people), am working class yet went to a grammar school. Grammar schools were not provided only for middle and upper classes; on the contrary, they made provision for lower/working class children who had the academic ability to benefit from their teaching. In my class was the son of a 'rag and bone' man who, because he passed the 11+ was offered a place in a school which cost his parents nothing.State grammar schools were classless.
Yes grammar schools were classless.
|
|
