11+ being scrapped

[musu]

At one school in Essex here

Interesting development which follows on from Bucks CC overhauling their 11+ and trying to make it tutor proof (although everyone I know in Bucks is still employing tutors).

Everything can't be good for everyone, nit. The system we have now is not good for a whole lot more people than kids with the specific issues mine have. I'm not actually sure who the current system is properly good for, actually. Perhaps we are aiming for equality of misery? Or equality of 'alright I suppose' - which is, essentially, satisficing. And that's really not good enough is it. For anyone.

Some people are not bothered if the top end are not pushed accidemically.
But this ultimately results in a poorer country.
Which ultimately results in the poor, in poorer countries getting poorer.

[But I do also realise that a wealthy country can still result in that country not taking good care of its more vulnerable citizens].

Having taking on board this thread, I am actually coming to the conclusion that there isnt really a perfect answer at all. It seems to me, that whatever system is place,that there will be "winners" and "losers".

Bit of a x post with Russians!

Russians I agree that, sadly, 'everything can't be good for everyone' - but not about 'equality of misery' or 'alright I suppose'.

The problem with a statement like Ilike's - Some people are not bothered if the top end are not pushed accidemically is that it contains too many imponderables.

Not bothered - well does that equal: 'doesn't think that this pushing should necessarily be the focus and aim of a system as a whole, over and above the needs of other children'?
'Top end' - where does that start and stop?
'Pushed academically' - see, lots of people think that means 'do GCSEs early', and I think that's a reductive response and too easy a box to tick. Pushed how, and where, and at what?

"What I say is that education policy should not be formulated based on the needs of the outliers."

This is already so far from being the case (the opposite is true) that it doesn't need arguing.

But doesn't the 11+ do exactly that, Bonsoir? Except it's only interested in the 'outliers' at the 'top end'?

The thing is, a lot of comprehensives are good at somehting! 70% getting 5 GCSEs is a really really decent achievemnet. And far far better than ten years ago!

But unless you have social issues affecting a school (deprivation, high levels of EAL or SEN etc etc) your top cohort ought to be getting A*s! If they're not, they're not being catered for!

Now you can say that the teachers must do more, more, more...But can they? Can we really ask them to be all things to all men? Aren't they already doing a fab job with the main cohort?

I did read what you said. And I was responding exactly to that. If there are 'only 4' kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who got into a Kent non superselective grammar school that does NOT make the whole thing not worth while. Those kids are a particular type of outlier - outlying in two dimensions, if you like, in the context in which they find themselves (Kent. Which as we are all now very aware, is very much a different country). But you are dismissing them because there are only 4 of them. There is no 'only' about 4 kids getting an appropriate education which they might otherwise not have got.

The 11+ doesn't distinguish outliers - it identifies (in Kent) the top 25% of performers using the Kent test.

Word - 70% getting 5 CS isn't that great though, is it? And that's the problem. :(

But nit the main cohort is being adequaltely served! This is where good comprehensives excel themselves.

Taking out the top 10% won't affect them, will it? It will just stop the top 10% from underperforming.

seeker - your comment about not expecting education policy to be based on the needs of the outliers is a contradiction of your earlier comments.

If we were to merge your GS with your SM then those in the top band at the SM has, in theory, the means to progress to the GS bands and likewise vice versa in the opposite direction. However, I suspect that the numbers involved would be minimal.

Yet you expect education policy be changed for these relatively few children. A bit inconsistent n'est pas?

Is it the word "only" that you are struggling with?

And anyway, children on FSM might be outliers in grammar schools-!but they sure as hell aren't in the population at large

"Taking out the top 10% won't affect them, will it? It will just stop the top 10% from underperforming."

I agree with this (I might quibble on the precise percentage, but I think you use 10% for illustration purposes only). In France, the outliers at the top of the spectrum have to jump a class which raises all sorts of other issues - and still removes them from their cohort.

I agree that pushing the top as it were should not be a focus. But neither should complacency be going on.
And I am talking about if everyone[bar private schools] are in comprehensives.

Nit - people passing the 11+ in Kent or Bucks aren't necessarily outliers. I'd say the outliers at each end in Kent and Bucks are equally ill served by the system, to be honest. Having nieces (and one nephew) at schools in both counties.

I don't think we could or should have a system designed to cater only to the needs of the outliers (for whatever reason). But. I don't think it's beyond the wit of man (although clearly beyond the wit of Gove) to have a system which caters to them as well. In sensible, thoughtful, considered ways. The desire to have a system which explicitly does not cater for them and is designed to not cater for them, as espoused by some in this thread, is deeply horrible. It might be what you end up with, because life isn't perfect. But to actually advocate that as an aim is very sad to see.

If you have an intake of 200. And you remove 20, it has a negligible affect on the remaining 180, surely?

Bonsoir, I've come across the CEFR before and wondered why it doesn't start at C2 and end at A1. You can't presumably give the same exam to those at each end of this spectrum.

pickledsiblings - the whole point is that you don't give the same exam to those at A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2. You measure the achievements of individuals by targetting the right exam for each child (there are great on-line pre-tests to do this).

I agree with wordfactory.
But I think it does then come down to more of a social issue.

Soem people, perhaps many people do not like seeing other peoples' children very visibly "doing better" than theirs.
Even if, at some point, their children may ultimately be more "successful" in life.

No, but if you remove the top 25%, you're presumably getting the top 2% within that, is what I mean.

And actually I do think if you took the top 10%, it would make a difference to those left, and the school left behind, and in fact I also don't think it would necessarily be an unmitigatedly Good Thing for that 10% either.

Word if you have an intake of 210 (30 x 7) and you remove 20 ish, you are effectively removing 2/3 of the top set.

"The desire to have a system which explicitly does not cater for them and is designed to not cater for them, as espoused by some in this thread, is deeply horrible"

Yeah, well, if anyone actually said that, it would, obviously, be deeply horrible. But as nobody, as far as I can see has...........

Bonsoir, I'm interested in your statement about sitting exams early being anti-education. There's a lot to think about there. Is it your sentiment or one you've read and agree with?