Different exams for boys and girls

[OrigamiYoda]

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jun/18/boys-girls-different-gcse-course

What do you think ?

What happens if a company starts losing money (in a recession for instance?)? What will come first - its schools or its shareholders?
My dh works for a massive multinational and was on short time for 12 months last year. Would the funding for the company's schools be reduced in lean times?
What if the company goes bust? Who will pick up the pieces?

Hmm, well I went to a grammar school and was in the top form.

It was 50/50 boys and girls in the form.

We got half term and full term marks (which is course work I suppose) and then sat exams twice a year and got the end of year form order from the exam results.

As I recall the top 2 places in the form (and thus the year) alternated between a very clever girl and a very clever boy. They were both brilliant at every subject. Then we had subject specialists, top in physics was a very geeky boy who went on to Imperial and got a first, top in MAths was a girl (I was always 3rd or so).

Top in languages was a girl, top in history a boy...exams certainly did not favour one gender or the other.
But I think this silly thinking as per the article all stems from:

Only very clever people who can pass top exams get qualifications.
OK, so for those for whom O level is just too much lets introduce GCSE's
Oh look, we still have quite a lot of people getting no qualifications, lets make the exams a bit easier so people who are less clever still get a qualification and feel better
Oh, exams don't suit some people, lets add in a bit of continual assessment
Oh, now girls are out-performing boys...that's not fair, lets do something to adress the balance or boys will get despondent...

Let's not mention that girls mature more quickly than boys emotionally anyway, and physically so sitting still from age 4 and holding a pen is easier for them and that we actually have made the education system from day 1 more difficult for boys, especially as the old methods of getting boys to learn (feeding them brimstone and treacle and thrashing them if they don't try hard) are now gone. (I'm not saying these were good things BUT they were just as much an answer to boys not working hard during the year as giving them exam only course as is currently proposed).

Lets ignore the fact boys learn generally in a different way and need more attention and get more attention and that girls who sit and work steadily and quietly get less praise from the teacher than a lazy boy who then does one bit of work well
Lets also ignore the fact men will earn more when they leave education regardless of educational attainment

This is just papering over the cracks of a different problem (basic gender inequality in education and the workplace).

Oh, I meant really:

Look, boys don't like working steadily through the year. Well, why not give them a kick up the arse and get them to work then so they are not be so lazy!

Girls work hard most of the time so let's not congratulate them, lets make their efforts less important.

This proposal actually enshrines a boy's right to be lazy, still get a good mark, and earn more than girls do when they get a job.

RollaCoasta, good questions you are right these things need looking at. I don't know the ins and outs of it but I hope that govt have looked at such issues.

claig there have been worksheets for primary school children that were provided by sponsors, containing advertising. There was a big scandal about it a few years back (though can't for the life of me find a link).

To imagine that private profit making companies would ever act in the best interests of children above their own interests in cash is bizarre TBH. All the evidence in the entire world goes to show that private profit making companies are generally devoid of morals/ethics/anything like that, when there is a quick buck to be made. Getting hold of children and being able to shape the way they think is an ad-mans fantasy.

And I don't understand how your post (which seems to be some kind of rant about the nanny state) ties in with a post about McDs offering free food to schoolchildren, via things that they are given at school.

You think it is a good idea to have workbooks for primary school children advertising macdonalds, so that they see it every day, and including vouchers? As excluding that kind of thing is "PC gorn mad"?

By Miggsie Sun 20-Jun-10 13:45:52
Oh, I meant really:

Look, boys don't like working steadily through the year. Well, why not give them a kick up the arse and get them to work then so they are not be so lazy!

Girls work hard most of the time so let's not congratulate them, lets make their efforts less important.

Apart from the instant gender stereotyping

how would you suggest that boys get this "kick up the arse"?

I don't think that McDonalds is the devil incarnate and if they provide extra money for schools which saves the taxpayer money, then that should be encouraged. I think that McDonalds is a great company that provide a great service and employ thousands of hard-working employees. The more that such companies contribute to our society the better.

Children like McDonalds better than they like brussel sprouts, just as they like ice cream, sweets and chocolate better than liver. In moderation there is no harm in such things. But I think that there is harm in aspartame and I think the nanny state, if it really cares as it says it does, should start nannying on about that rather than McDonalds.

It's got nothing to do with being the devil incarnate. It's to do with for-profit organisations being given a way "in" to schools and thus to influence young people.

There is a reason that advertising for certain things is banned on childrens television. Why would anyone think that advertisers should be allowed into schools to propogate their messages.

In the US there have been changes made, previously fizzy drinks companies paid to have their vending machines installed on school premises (with no access to alternatives) and fast food companies were allowed to run franchises in school canteens.

There have been moves there to ban the more flagrent irresponsible profiteering behaviour. I cannot for the life of me see why we would want to introduce them here.

we are in the worst recession for 60 years and all sorts of cuts will have to be made. I think that any extra money is welcome and responsible employers like McDonalds should be encouraged to help fund schools, so that the rest of our taxes can be used to stop cuts being made in some of our other vital services. I think the PC mollycoddlers need to get their priorities right and stop worrying about Mars advertising or selling snickers bars in school vending machines. I don't think it matters at all if Mars is the sole supplier of sweets to a school, if it is helping to fund the school. Children are not stupid and will still bring other sweets to school and buy other sweets outside of school. Maybe the PC thing to do would be to organise some more citizenship type classes to explain the evils of advertising to children. It wouldn't be my top priority, but if the progressives would agree to mention aspartame as well, then I wouldn't be against it.

So we should give pupils full access to as much sugar as possible.

But hey it does matter the Teachers will cope.

sorry should be

doesn't matter

sugar is better than the sugar-free aspartame in sweets and aspartame in so-called healthy "diet" drinks. As Persnickety said so well, there are far worse ingredients in many school meals. Why don't they create one of their health czars to have a look at some of these ingredients and their effect on ADHD etc.? Maybe they don't really care? But as long as McDonalds and Mars are not helping to fund our schools by advertising their products then we know that they have our children's interests at heart.

?

But children aren't allowed to take sweets etc to school.

I do think it is a bad idea to give young children free access to (for example) mars bars and macdonalds in school. What do you mean "children are not stupid"? Well they're not stupid, but they're, say, 6, and aren't able to make fully informed responsible long term decisions based on all the facts when someone is brandishing mars bars at them.

Claig you seem to have a "rant list" and hop from one thing to the next, trying to make links where there are none and randomising the conversation. What does aspartame have to do with this? Children are not allowed fizzy drinks in schools AFAIK, whether the sugar versions or the aspartame versions.

TBH

So you

Don't like the fact that school meals are crappy (which has been identified and people are trying to change)

But you do think that mars bars and fizzy drinks should be available. As long as they don't have aspartame

And that macdonalds and other fast food outlets should be allowed to advertise to school children in the classroom, in return for cash

Ummmm

Claig you 'hope the government has looked at these issues' Get real - they have been in power for five minutes - this is not a long and hard thought out policy, it appeared as part of the election campaign. As I said before they are 'commercial' companies for a reason and believe me their bottom line comes before absolutely EVERYTHING else....

I am just trying to show that they have their priorities wrong and avoid talking about more serious issues to health than sugar. Yes, I think we are in a financial crisis and advertising might be able to be used to inject more money in. The original point was that I don't think it is wrong for businesses to be involved in running schools, I think it will help.

Blackduck, good point they have only been in 5 minutes. So RollaCoasta made very good points and we should try to ensure that govt. has answers to these questions. I don't know if they have or not.

Who are The Progressives of whom you speak?

Lots of people speak out against aspartame and gm modified food. I don't know if they are The Progressives or not.

Are The Progressives the new Luddites? Do we mock them and sneer?

Good question who or what is a progressive? Many parties are now using this term constantly. What does it really mean? True, lots of people speak out against aspartame and GM food except government ministers. Did the much publicised Jamie Oliver in his school food campaign mention aspartame and GM? I doubt it.

You are using this term constantly! What do you mean by it?

yes, as you are using the term, claig, I thought you might at least know what it meant. I never use it.

I know what it means. I am only using the term to prick the bubble of the progressives who are using the term to hoodwink the public. To get into the meaning of what the progressives are will be off-topic. But I use it in the sense that David Miliband uses it when he describes himself and his progressive policies.

That really doesn't help. Just makes it sound like you are banging a political tub with no substance.

So defining a term you are using constantly is off-topic, but going on about aspartame and GM foods on a thread about assessment isn't...