Wednesday, May 16, 2007
“Academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it”
Here’s an interesting challenge to the DUP’s education policy. David Willets has just dropped the policy bombshell on his own party that they no longer support Grammar Schools, or indeed any schools based on academic selection…
Mr Willetts also distanced himself from the traditional Tory belief in academic selection, saying it was “fantasy” to say selection at the age of 11, which takes place in grammar schools, could be fair. He said the Tories could use legislation “left behind” by Tony Blair to push academies further than Gordon Brown, Mr Blair’s likely successor, “would ever dare to do”. Mr Willetts told the CBI: “We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright poor kids. “We just have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it.”
Mick Fealty @ 05:11 PM
Bill: Can you answer the question posed there?
Yes, I did birthdays for a bit of R&R;after I used a spreadsheet to solve a similar problem for the chance of accidental conflicts in a 2 byte hash. (50% chance of a hash clash within about 300 tests, in case you are interested). And all without having gone to the Poly, too.
Posted by on May 17, 2007 @ 02:58 PMMalcolm:
“I think you answer your own points. Since the system is essentially providing for “aspirational” parents, they are the ones who can understand and exploit it. When the under-class is hampered by illiteracy (see Sir Reg at http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=82284&pt=n), they are not able to access the system.”
“illiteracy”! So an illiterate parent is not capable of insisting their child attends school regularly, does his homework, behaves himself at school and does the best he can?
Certainly, all of the children of this “underclass” you mention do not have learning disabilities, so what is the cause achievement problem? “Non-aspirational” parents? If so, should academics selection be ended because of “under class” apathy?
Posted by on May 17, 2007 @ 07:58 PM<sigh>
[1] Of course illiteracy hampers access to and exploitation of the schooling system, as to any other system.[2] And of course there is no absolute equation between learning disability and social disability. However, learning (like most good and bad habits) is caught, not taught: parental example is crucial.
[3] And of course academic selection should be ended, if only because one of its effects is “failure” (and it doesn’t matter whether the “failure” is named out loud or merely felt subjectively). “Success” in schooling and entry to higher education unlocks the gate to professional careers, better job-security, membership of the local golf-club or whatever social worth one cares to assume—and especially a lifetime of additional earnings. Generations of social “failure” is pretty damn sure to engender apathy, if not downright antagonism. And if that’s not the creation of an excluded, undervalued, demoralised, even despairing under-class .... oh, why do I bother?
Back to the original issue: if Cameron is seriously talking about minimising the effects of selection, that’s a significant advance in Tory thinking. If in turn it puts pressure on the DUP and UUP who can’t cope with the idea, tough. If it helps SF to move NI schooling forward one whit, on this occasion I’m cheering them on.
Posted by on May 17, 2007 @ 08:34 PMMalcolm Redfellow: And of course academic selection should be ended, if only because one of its effects is “failure”
In which case, how do you feel about exams? Should everyone get the same grade?
I get the impression that you feel that talent cannot rise from an underclass at present. You might even be right. You think that selection is part of the problem, not the solution. You are wrong. Because it’s a social problem, so education can only be a part of the solution. And whatever the flaws of selection by ability, it is still far better than selection by cash, or selection by postcode.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 08:52 AMReader @ 09:52 AM
My feeling about examination? It depends what the examination is measuring. Testing of “knowledge” or “skill” is one thing (hence I want my dentist, mechanic, brain-surgeon or plumber to be “qualified"). “Ability” (your other point) is ambiguous. Because I can spell “cat” or “pistachio” does not make me universally more “able” than someone who can’t (except to be a lexicographer, perhaps): but such is the basis for school testing and the 11+. An “able” student is one who can answer the questions that I, middle-class, university-educated, working-the-system pose: that does not “prove” the intellect of either party.
Example (from an actual “intelligence test”, circa 1954): what is the next term in this sequence?—V1, E7, G5, E8, G6 ? Got it? So what does your “ability” there prove?
Another example (from a multiple-choice US Air Force officer selection test): what color [sic] is a banana? Brown? Yellow? Green? Blue? [Not obvious: the answer will show ethnic and class bias. The Puerto Rican labourer may only see unripe bananas. The Bronx slum-dweller only over-ripe ones.]
All of this is peripheral to the issue this thread origianlly posed: are the Tories right to ameliorate the sheep-and-goats basis of secondary schooling? And: how does this affect party attitudes in NI?
Your punch-line: whatever the flaws of selection by ability, it is still far better than selection by cash, or selection by postcode has validity. However, it ignores the main issue: is schooling something to be rationed? Back in the post-war 1940s/1950s our society had to select for reasons of resources. Why does that apply today? Why not have open choice? And, for the third time in this thread, how do we open up vocational and skills training—the greatest failure of our system?
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 09:46 AMMalcolm Redfellow: The Puerto Rican labourer may only see unripe bananas.
I (too?) have read Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man”. But for what it’s worth, when I sat the 11+ nearly 4 decades ago, the questions were mostly logical reasoning, not general knowledge. Now my children are going through the system, it is Maths, English and Science - all taught at school. But if you want selection to be done better - and I agree it can be and should be - then help.
As for the rationing aspect - strangely enough, the majority of parents, even those who never took an interest in their children’s education before, still allow them to be entered for the 11+. (It’s a bit bleedin’ late, then). But given that most parents see the prospect of their children being Bank Managers or Doctors as a desirable gamble - how can ‘open choice’ (by parents!) work for the benefit of children? If anything, selection is a humane corrective to the unreasonable expectations of some parents, who would only see their hopes for little Thuggo and Thicko dashed, and will see wee Spanners and Sparks frustrated and misdirected.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 12:41 PMI passed my 11+ but I’m still smarting from a simile question which asked “as hard as...” and offered rock and nails as choices.
The answer was Nails. Nails FFS? What Ulster 11 year old knows that?!
Clearly culturally biased.
And if after..ALL THESE YEARS!..I’m that traumatised by the indescribable cruelty and unfairness of it all what must the effect be on people who don’t pass?!
I understand Martin McGuinness failed. Reduced to murderous rage and lifelong shoulder chippery.
Anyway I think that was a content and not a reasoning question.
Sniff.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 02:20 PMjaffa: Anyway I think that was a content and not a reasoning question.
My kids got pages of similes, metaphors, collective nouns and everything else back from school to learn. I think I recall getting that sort of preparation too. That’s an English language question, these days. Complain to your teacher about not being prepped for the test.
The logic tests I remember from long ago were “Jimmy sits on the left of Johnny, the man in the red jacket sits to the right of the man in the blue hat. Who is eating the salad sandwich?”
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 02:52 PM“Complain to your teacher about not being prepped for the test.”
You’re right! I will! Closure!
Now..if I can just find out where he’s buried..
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 03:10 PMReader @ 01:41 PM
Let’s start with an obvious assumption: 11 is too early to determine any child’s future prospects.
But if you want selection to be done better - and I agree it can be and should be - then help.
How do you think I spent four decades of my life?
You still avoid the essential assumption (which, by some abstruse process has even reached Willetts and Cameron): why select?
Is not a better process to offer opportunities, encourage, and counsel?
Example (since this thread is heavy with sob stories), based on a real case, Student A has done well up to the pre-exam year. Suddenly she is struggling in a top-set Maths class which is gender-biased (i.e. mainly boys). What’s to do? We support her, and cope with her immediate understanding problems (that’s what committed teachers do in lunchtimes, breaks, and after school). She passes (with a Grade B) and suddenly conceives a desire to do A-level Maths. A frisson of horror through the Maths teachers. We talk to her and her parents. She decides against Maths, opts for Economics, History and English (as I recall). Result: three “A"s and a walk-in to most Universities. Was that “selection”?
And can that be done everywhere? Yes: that’s what is behind the notion of the “individual learning plan”, so trendy and à la mode. Can it be achieved? Yes: with parental involvement. Will that happen? Err ... well, probably maybe; but more likely if we have the Blairs/Browns, Willetts, and (heaven help me!) MacAonghusai rooting, staffing and financing for it.
But, for the fourth time, what do we do for the student who wants to develop craft skills rather than academic achievement?
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 03:58 PM
