Sounds about right

11 Mar 2010

Quote by Max777
Then maybe your child is at a good school.
Both of Mrs777's kids went to that very same school I have mentioned above.
I suppose it depends if you are lucky enough to have your child at a good school.
There are many though that are not....we should know.

It doesn't matter what the school is, the examining board sets the curriculum for all the schools taking its exams. The point is that the high levels of success that our children achieve throughout the country are being achieved in a curriculum that children of the 60s and 70s would have struggled with. Education has changed for a changing world.
Can you substantiate that claim? Being a pupil of the 60s and early 70s and having a teenage daughter now, there is no way I would have struggled with the current curricula, nor would the vast majority of my fellow pupils.
and we did it without calculators:grin:
My Mum, bless her, was able to do quite complex mental arithmetic in the time it would now take most students to open their satchels to get their calculators out, let alone switch them on!!
A shopping bill will have been calculated to the last penny a'penny including food measured by cost/quantity with total recall at the till before the teller had sat down!
And she'd have the right change too!
Nowadays, give a shop girl (or boy) £22 for a bill totalling £12 (simply requiring a £10 note in change) and they look at you as if you're daft or simple!

11 Mar 2010

Quote by Mr-Powers
So are you saying we have NO failing schools?
I think you will find there are many.
As I know roughly where you live, check the Offsted report for Bexleyheath school 2007.
The headteacher was sacked and the teachers were vilified in their report.
I think I have said this before on here.
The school had a new headteacher in who has turned the school around but a whole five years of pupils education was wasted by a school that Offsted said was " miserably failings it's pupils " in many areas.
So a headteacher at the top of his profession cannot do his job, and the teachers who have degrees and a minimum of five years experience were also found to be " inconsistant ".
Offsted must be wrong then?

so it about the teachers failings??
what about the kids??
shouldn't they also take responsibilty for some of these failings aswell?
like i said if they don't want to learn you can't force them.
and why not put some of this blame on the parents aswell while we at it,if some parents can't give a monkeys arse what their kids are learning at school then why should the kids. Schools could do alot more with the support from parents and not just blaming it all on the teachers!
The problem with you is like alot of other people,when the exam results come out every year, and it looks like a good one for the pupils,you go and blame the exams being dumbed down,why not just accept that it's down to better educated pupils instead for once!
If you really believe that twaddle that exams have not been dumbed down, then that is your opinion. My opinion is that they have been.
Why is coursework no longer going to be allowed after this year?
Why are kids allowed to take easier exam papers? When I was at school EVERY child took the same exam, and if you got an A then that is what you got, and if you got a D then that is what you got.
Nowadays a C grade means jack shit to an employer. Employers that I know, know that exams are easier now and to some even a B grade means nothing, where as years ago a B grade was deemed very good.
As a matter of interest....are you an employer? If you are not then how do you calculate an employees potential? Or should I say a school leavers potential?
You can even take a calculator into a maths exam as they have one exam where you can. When my parents and even my generation had a maths exam, it was not worked out on a calculator.
A friend of Mrs777'd Daughter last year got 3 B's and one C and three E's. She could just about spell her name yet a lot of those grades were attained by " coursework " which she admitted she copied from the internet. That's fair then?
At the end of the day whether people agree with my stance or yours is irrelevant...it is the employers at the end of the day who make a decision based on exam results as to who they take on....with record 99% pass rates it has had a detrimental effect, and the exams are beginning to become worthless, as with a pass rate that high it makes a lot of employers suspicious.
Bexleyheath school was a failing school, who sacked their head teacher and ran down the teaching methods. Since this headteacher was sacked their Offsted standing has improved hugely. BUT why do we still have failing schools? Yes there are some kids that will not either want to be there, or just disrupt the class, but that was NOT mentioned in the Offsted report....only the headteacher and some of the teachers were mentioned....so is Offsted wrong then or not?

Unknown User

11 Mar 2010

The middle link is really the one that sums it up.
IF the current system was working as it should....why does the curriculum change hugely on a yearly basis? A teacher that I spoke too last year told me that just when he gets used to one system, they change it to something else, and the whole learning process starts over again.
Also another major problem certainly at Bexleyheath school is the ammount of " supply " teachers they use.
There is hardly a day goes by when Mrs777's Daughter does not have a supply teacher for one of her subjects, and as she has stated...they tend not to teach them in the same way as they are used too with their normal teacher..so it just muddles them is also her GCSE year too.
I have heard this is a big problem in a lot of schools now, where supply teachers are used on a big scale.

Unknown User

11 Mar 2010

Oh dear, another thread going round in circles. It's a combination of:
1) Lack of the old "3xRs" skills, especially reading and writing (Maths not quite so important with calculators / bar codes etc.)
2) often it's the subjects that are not what is required, rather than the standards of those subjects
3) Lack of discipline and lower behavioural standards.
Plim :sad:

easyrider_xxx

Sexpert

11 Mar 2010

I've recently done another BSc.
This one was a lot easier to complete - not that the content was easier - just that with the internet and the spoonfeeding you get, as long as you do the work, it's almost impossible to fail.
What I did notice though, was that a lot of the schoolleavers struggled with basic math, simple algebraic manipulation that I learned when I was about 12, they couldn't do. They don't teach calculus now until A level - I learned that at 14 - even the A level math students struggled with stuff that I found simple.
As for written English, the standard was absolutely appalling - but as the structure/layout/english is typically only 10% of the mark for a piece of work, people were getting decent marks with reports that I would have chucked back and said hand it in when you've learned how to write properly!!
Dumbed down - you bet!! these days the emphasis is on all kids getting some GCSE's, in my day we did GCE "O" levels and the less academically able did CSE's. There was also an unofficial, but widely understood, league of difficulty for GCE boards that set and marked the papers - with the Joint Matriculation Board being held in the highest regard and the Oxford and Cambridge Board coming a close second.
In my day, around 90% plus was examination, these days it's 90% plus coursework (that goes for degrees too). I can understand the arguments viz coursework, but it means that anyone can get their work mentored prior to submission and keep improving it until they get the mark they want (assuming they start doing the assignment soon enough) -that's why I found this second degree easier to complete - though I would have preferred exams as it's less work overall as long as you go to the lectures/tutorials/labs and actually do some self study.
I don't have a problem with the internet/calculators/Pcs etc - none of which I had first time around - though scientific calculators were just coming in when I did A levels. We used log tables and slide rules, but at age 12, I was taught what logarithms were, how they worked and thus fully understood why the tables and slide rules worked and how to use them. Try asking an A level math student to define what a log is? all they know is that it's a button on the calculator.
It's easy to check if stuff has been cut and pasted off the net, you just put a sentence between quotes ("...xxx...") and paste it into a google search and if that exact same sentence exists, it will come up. We were drilled on acceptable use of the internet and indeed any source material - verbatim quotes are ok, appropriately referenced, but should not form more than 10% of the word count - the emphasis being on analysis and discussion with appropriate quotes and references. Some lecturers would automatically cap work at 50% if only internet references were used (even though this was in breach of the published assignment brief), their point being that we needed to display evidence of wider and more academic research than just google (haha, but using google books, I just referenced as if it was the book itself - i.e. publisher, edition, year etc - we used Harvard referencing).
Incidentally, we were marked down for referencing Wikipedia (but if you go to the bottom of a wiki article, there are the source references from the author(s) - and you can look them up on google books
IMHO it starts with the 3Rs (yes I know the spelling anomaly!) literacy and numeracy are the key to all subsequent learning. My kids could both read and write before they started school (as could I). With my kids I used flashcard games, alphabet jigsaws, number games, join the dots etc etc - all done in fun, never pushed to boredom, and with content appropriate to their development. I think the important thing was that I made the effort to play with them every day regardless of how long I'd been up and how much more work I had to do that day.
But when they started school, the teacher wouldn't allow them to have books with words in ffs!! I was told that they would be confused as the schools did Letterland, and that different phonemes for capital and lower case letters was far too complicated (my kids enjoyed Letterland, they picked it up in about 5 minutes, I bought the books).
Nostalgia's not what it was :)
But education standards have deffo gone down the pan in the last 30 years - and yet successive governments spin it to try and con us otherwise

Unknown User

11 Mar 2010

Okay I am an academic. I have 4 children. Only one going through University. 2 went to prep schools of which one had no qualifications at 21 and the other is at University. 2 others who left school with very little in the way of qualifications. Were the schools wrong? no. Was I a bad mum? no. Were my kids bad and wagged school? no.
There are 2 things other things
1 - me and my sister both left school with no qualifications. we boths now have masters degrees and I am doing a doctorate.
2 - my parents are postgraduates at the higher level too.
I believe in personlisation. I was bored at school and it wasnt a bad school. I learnt when I needed to. I also believe in life long learning.
The schools are not to always to blame, nor the teachers most of the time. We do not all want to learn at a certain age - many people working in further education left school with few qualifications
So my answer is as long as the kids are loved, they will turn into adults who will learn through life and take qualifications as and when they are required.
All my children are happy so I am blessed.
I have no worries about the balance of exams versus coursework as both are hard when you are going through it. The learning outcomes are the most improtant part not the process of measuring success. A balance of both is good.

Unknown User

11 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Well whatever officials within the education system may say, this high powered business woman surely knows better?

I have said for years that exams are getting easier, what with coursework being allowed as part of your grades or...being allowed to take your GCSE's a year earlier in a lot of cases.
This is a pretty damning statement from an employer who recruits thousands of people.
As an employer we have taken on youngsters, and whilst they never seemed to have a attitude problem, I certainly would not have let any of them write a letter on the companys behalf, or do an invoice as their skills in that department were pretty poor.
It sorts of makes a mockery of the " best exam results ever " brigade.
I deal with a lot of companies who experience exactly what she is saying, and that is why a lot of employers will not take school leavers on, which is sad as a huge percentage are not like this....are they?

You should choose your friends more carefully Kenty.
She's a former civil servant who worked for the worst government in the twentieth century (John Major's sleaze ridden collection of non entities) then used her career in the Civil Service as a springboard to a place on the board at Tesco's despite having no real time experience of the world of work. Quality recruitment that by Tesco's. If you're in the business of playing join the dots, can you think of the most famous Tory Party figure to be associated with Tesco's? Anyway, on to your more substantive points.
Kids have always been allowed to take exams a year early. The 'genius kid gets O level maths at 11' story is a staple of local hacks in August.
Coursework is a way of redressing the balance between those kids who're bright but nervous and those who're good at exams, rather than intelligent.
As for Tescos having problems with the kids they recruit, have they tried some traditional recruitment tactics; like paying a decent wage, giving them decent training, motivating them and giving them a reason to believe there's a career for them in Tescos.
Nah, thought not. They like 16 year olds because they don't even have to pay NMW, and they lobbied the government to allow them to use 16 year olds to sell alcohol they can't even drink.
Class company Tescos.
You have shown your opinions many times on here, and I always knew you hated big business.
I think you will find they pay a decent wage already. Or are you saying they employ youngsters and pay them an illegal wage? Which one is it?
I also think you know nothing whatsoever about the training they offer, otherwise you would not make ridiculous unknowledgable claims.
Sometimes you really overdo the amateur dramatics thing.
Or are you now implying another trade you have done?
Prey tell everyone how you know so much about Tesco's recruitment policies and their wage structure. I am intrigued to know or is it another rant against anything successful in business?
Later in the same thread Kenty said, in response to similar points about Tesco's
Quote by Kenty aka Mr Inconsistency
There are many professions that are well known for not paying decent wages....hotels or retail and supermarkets in some cases.
I have not got a clue what they pay their staff, it depends on the kind of work they do I suppose. But nobody is forced to work there either.

Where have I implied any trade I've done Kenty? You've made assumptions. That's all. You seem to dislike the fact that my job has a high research content, which makes me prone to doing fact checking in threads like this. You've gone from denouncing me to admitting you know the square root of sod all on the topic in two pages - to quote the great Sid Waddell there's only one word for that - magic darts.

Unknown User

12 Mar 2010

Away I do believe you know somethings.....you just Google links.
That ain't hard is it?
Nobody on here knows you or me other than what we write.
Your links are just taken from an internet source...don't make you a smarty pants does it?
Anyone can do that.........no?
Google is your friend.
You use links and I use links....we just do not agree on which ones are right.
Without Google I wonder how many times you would actually post? I would probably post a damn sight less than I do now...now there's honesty for ya!

Unknown User

12 Mar 2010

" it is estimated that approximately 2 million homes in the UK were sold in this manner". Now that's a lot of people happily safe in the knowledge that in their old age they will have a huge asset.
" Proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but they were restricted to spending the money to reduce their debt until it was cleared". What is wrong with having to clear their debts?
" The Labour Party was initially against the sales and pledged to oppose them in the 1983 election but dropped this policy because it was perceived as losing votes". Well no suprise there then eh?
Google is MY friend too.

Unknown User

12 Mar 2010

Quote by varca

" it is estimated that approximately 2 million homes in the UK were sold in this manner ". Now that's a lot of people happily safe in the knowledge that in their old age they will have a huge asset.
" Proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but they were restricted to spending the money to reduce their debt until it was cleared ". What is wrong with having to clear their debts?
" The Labour Party was initially against the sales and pledged to oppose them in the 1983 election but dropped this policy because it was perceived as losing votes ". Well no suprise there then eh?
Google is MY friend too.

An how many of those two million homes have now been repossessed? An awful lot of people who took advantage of the right to buy schemes fell victim to the sub prime market and it's overinflated mortgage rates. People in council homes who were on benefits and those on low incomes were able to buy (some were encouraged to overestimate their earnings at the time) but quickly realised they could not afford to keep up with the ever increasing rates over those years. They and many others lost their homes and those ex council properties were then sold on the open property market probably via auction and anyone could buy them. The now homeless ex council tenant cum private owner was then added to the ever increasing housing waiting list which was caused by the introduction of the right to buy scheme and the government failing to build housing to replace what it had sold. A vicious circle that has gone on for many years.
I do not know....care to tell us all? Or is that just a guess?
How do you not know that very few did as they had smaller mortgages, as they would have borrowed less, with their discounts?
Did John Pressie not start a massive house building scheme? I remember some ridiculous figure being bounded about?
As far as I am aware there are no figures out there seperating people who lost their homes, who had brought them under the right to buy scheme, over those that lost their houses who brought on the open market.
Care to show me some figures Varcs?

Unknown User

12 Mar 2010

Quote by varca

" it is estimated that approximately 2 million homes in the UK were sold in this manner ". Now that's a lot of people happily safe in the knowledge that in their old age they will have a huge asset.
" Proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but they were restricted to spending the money to reduce their debt until it was cleared ". What is wrong with having to clear their debts?
" The Labour Party was initially against the sales and pledged to oppose them in the 1983 election but dropped this policy because it was perceived as losing votes ". Well no suprise there then eh?
Google is MY friend too.

An how many of those two million homes have now been repossessed? An awful lot of people who took advantage of the right to buy schemes fell victim to the sub prime market and it's overinflated mortgage rates. People in council homes who were on benefits and those on low incomes were able to buy (some were encouraged to overestimate their earnings at the time) but quickly realised they could not afford to keep up with the ever increasing rates over those years. They and many others lost their homes and those ex council properties were then sold on the open property market probably via auction and anyone could buy them. The now homeless ex council tenant cum private owner was then added to the ever increasing housing waiting list which was caused by the introduction of the right to buy scheme and the government failing to build housing to replace what it had sold. A vicious circle that has gone on for many years.
I do not know....care to tell us all? Or is that just a guess?
How do you not know that very few did as they had smaller mortgages, as they would have borrowed less, with their discounts?
Did John Pressie not start a massive house building scheme? I remember some ridiculous figure being bounded about?
As far as I am aware there are no figures out there seperating people who lost their homes, who had brought them under the right to buy scheme, over those that lost their houses who brought on the open market.
Care to show me some figures Varcs?
And there was me thinking that you only wanted to see my figure Kenty :grin: (got the camera warming as we speak ;))
Seriously though, I don't have actual figures but as there are an average of 132 repossessions a day in the UK, I do wonder how many of them count amongst those that bought as part of the right to buy scheme. I will do a dig
As for Prescott, his flagship plan to build homes in the countryside was poo poohed due to protestations from the green belt conservationists I beleive. Building could only go ahead in brownbelt areas but as availability was/is scarce, his plan was pretty much halted before it began. Plus circa 120000 homes would hardly have filled the void left by the RTB scheme
Wonder away Varcs.
I would have said a very small percentage of right to buy had their homes taken back, because they would have in some cases got a 60% discount. So in a lot of cases a lot of equity was already in them.
Camera ready eh? Cannot wait.

Bluefish2009

Sex God

12 Mar 2010

Quote by flower411
Some plum in her mouth Oxford educated Tory is criticizing the governments education policies !!!
So what else is new ?

I like plums

Unknown User

12 Mar 2010

Quote by flower411

Took about two minutes to find these ... seems it may be a problem.

Good links and yes there does seem to be a problem here.
I would like to know percentages comparing people who have lost their homes under the right to buy, and compare it with how many have lost their homes who did not buy it under that scheme, and see if there really is any difference between the two groups.
That would possibly not be easy to find?
Yes a lot of people who did buy their homes under that scheme probably have borrowed against their property, but then again so have many others not on that scheme.
Also yes I must admit that a lot of people who did buy their own home, were probably tenants that really could not afford to buy it, but then that has happened with the free and easy borrowing over the last ten years, to people who brought their homes on the open market.

I wonder out of the figures mentioned in this link were right to buy tenants and how many were not.

Unknown User

12 Mar 2010

Quote by varca

" it is estimated that approximately 2 million homes in the UK were sold in this manner ". Now that's a lot of people happily safe in the knowledge that in their old age they will have a huge asset.
" Proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but they were restricted to spending the money to reduce their debt until it was cleared ". What is wrong with having to clear their debts?
" The Labour Party was initially against the sales and pledged to oppose them in the 1983 election but dropped this policy because it was perceived as losing votes ". Well no suprise there then eh?
Google is MY friend too.

An how many of those two million homes have now been repossessed? An awful lot of people who took advantage of the right to buy schemes fell victim to the sub prime market and it's overinflated mortgage rates. People in council homes who were on benefits and those on low incomes were able to buy (some were encouraged to overestimate their earnings at the time) but quickly realised they could not afford to keep up with the ever increasing rates over those years. They and many others lost their homes and those ex council properties were then sold on the open property market probably via auction and anyone could buy them. The now homeless ex council tenant cum private owner was then added to the ever increasing housing waiting list which was caused by the introduction of the right to buy scheme and the government failing to build housing to replace what it had sold. A vicious circle that has gone on for many years.
I do not know....care to tell us all? Or is that just a guess?
How do you not know that very few did as they had smaller mortgages, as they would have borrowed less, with their discounts?
Did John Pressie not start a massive house building scheme? I remember some ridiculous figure being bounded about?
As far as I am aware there are no figures out there seperating people who lost their homes, who had brought them under the right to buy scheme, over those that lost their houses who brought on the open market.
Care to show me some figures Varcs?
And there was me thinking that you only wanted to see my figure Kenty :grin: (got the camera warming as we speak ;))
Seriously though, I don't have actual figures but as there are an average of 132 repossessions a day in the UK, I do wonder how many of them count amongst those that bought as part of the right to buy scheme. I will do a dig
As for Prescott, his flagship plan to build homes in the countryside was poo poohed due to protestations from the green belt conservationists I beleive. Building could only go ahead in brownbelt areas but as availability was/is scarce, his plan was pretty much halted before it began. Plus circa 120000 homes would hardly have filled the void left by the RTB scheme
Wonder away Varcs.
I would have said a very small percentage of right to buy had their homes taken back, because they would have in some cases got a 60% discount. So in a lot of cases a lot of equity was already in them.
Camera ready eh? Cannot wait.
Not many benefitted from 60% as it depended on how long you had been a tenant, many many who had been for not much more than two years took advantage of the scheme. The majority of those who had been tenants for the 60% qualifying period were by that time pensioners and could ill afford to take advantage unless they had kindly kids who would tip up for them. My knowledge is based on a family member who works in housing for my local council so am unable to provide a statistical link to support unfortunately. May not have been the same for all councils I know but it certainly was the case here.
Yes camera was at the ready and I finally went and bought the thing I needed and then left the damn item on the counter arrgh! lol Attempt 2 tomorrow :grin:
It is not a traffic wardens outfit is it??? :lol:

Unknown User

12 Mar 2010

Yes it would be Varcs.
I know a lot of people over the years who have lost their homes, none of them had brought under the right to buy scheme though.
I only know three people who did and they all still have their properties.
But yes would be interesting to find out, but I think it would be hard too.

Unknown User

12 Mar 2010

Quote by varca

It is not a traffic wardens outfit is it???

Is that your kink Kenty? :grin:
'Ooohh Nawty Kenty' says Warden Varca as she licks the pen seductively before writing out his ticket and contemplates what fine she is going to impose...
:grin:
No it is not actually Varcs....I am a bit prone to leather and black hold ups, with a tiny little thong..........not kinky but bloody lovely all the same.

Unknown User

12 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Away I do believe you know somethings.....you just Google links.
That ain't hard is it?
Nobody on here knows you or me other than what we write.
Your links are just taken from an internet source...don't make you a smarty pants does it?
Anyone can do that.........no?
Google is your friend.
You use links and I use links....we just do not agree on which ones are right.
Without Google I wonder how many times you would actually post? I would probably post a damn sight less than I do now...now there's honesty for ya!

I just google links? WTF does that mean? Yes, I find information, and then I deploy it in support of arguments. You should try it sometimes. You're quick to throw pejoratives around, and slow to apologise for the way you drag the debate down t the tabloid gutter level.
You've made lots of assumptions about me, many of them insulting. You've made claims you can't substantiate. A tough of humility on your part would be appropriate.

Unknown User

12 Mar 2010

So................you Google the links then?
Thought so.
Some schools of thought are sharply critical of humility.

Freckledbird

Sex God

13 Mar 2010

Quote by northwest-cpl
Physician heal thyself.

:thumbup:

Unknown User

13 Mar 2010

To clarify an earlier ill informed post, the mortgage value as a proportion of house value has little impact on the likelihood of repossession.

Unknown User

13 Mar 2010

Quote by Ben_welshminx

To clarify an earlier ill informed post, the mortgage value as a proportion of house value has little impact on the likelihood of repossession.

Twaddle.
In this artical it states..." Consumer Focus is warning that targeted Government help is urgently needed for right-to-buy homeowners, as new research shows they are likely to be at much greater risk of losing their homes due to financial difficulties in the recession ". Likely being the word here.
Also......." the number of re-possessions by their members based on second-charge lending was 1,588 in 2008, up 33% on 2007 ".
Countered with the other figures... " More than 1.8 million people bought under the right-to-buy scheme by August 2008 ".
So comparing people against a figure 1.8 million is such a tiny percentage.
Facts are not sometimes what they seem to be?! They can read whatever you want them too.

northwest____cpl

Sex God

13 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Also......." the number of re-possessions by their members based on second-charge lending was 1,588 in 2008, up 33% on 2007 ".
Countered with the other figures... " More than 1.8 million people bought under the right-to-buy scheme by August 2008 ".
So comparing people against a figure 1.8 million is such a tiny percentage.
Facts are not sometimes what they seem to be?! They can read whatever you want them too.

The comparison isn't 1.8 million to 1588. According to your quotes 1.8 million is the total figure of all right to buy from inception (in the 80s?) up to 2008, whereas 1588 is the number of repossessions in 2008 alone, with roughly 1200 in 2007 according to your figures.
I agree, "Facts are not sometimes what they seem to be?! They can read whatever you want them too."

Unknown User

13 Mar 2010

Quote by corrie2010
Okay I am an academic. I have 4 children. Only one going through University. 2 went to prep schools of which one had no qualifications at 21 and the other is at University. 2 others who left school with very little in the way of qualifications. Were the schools wrong? no. Was I a bad mum? no. Were my kids bad and wagged school? no.
There are 2 things other things
1 - me and my sister both left school with no qualifications. we boths now have masters degrees and I am doing a doctorate.
2 - my parents are postgraduates at the higher level too.
I believe in personlisation. I was bored at school and it wasnt a bad school. I learnt when I needed to. I also believe in life long learning.
The schools are not to always to blame, nor the teachers most of the time. We do not all want to learn at a certain age - many people working in further education left school with few qualifications
So my answer is as long as the kids are loved, they will turn into adults who will learn through life and take qualifications as and when they are required.
All my children are happy so I am blessed.
I have no worries about the balance of exams versus coursework as both are hard when you are going through it. The learning outcomes are the most improtant part not the process of measuring success. A balance of both is good.

Excellent point about being loved and taking qualifications when they are required.
Actually, your general arguement is missing one important input - you mention your own family but not your husband/partner - if he was a practical man and from practical stock, then not all of your children should be academic.
By the way, I've got one academic and one practical offspring - and I'm thick!
Plim

Unknown User

13 Mar 2010

Going back to the schools are getting worse and kids are getting less literate thing, there is actually no evidence to support such an assertion is there? I accept theres a lot of rambling and ranting from the ill informed "fings aint what they used to be" brigade but no actual evidence. I did read somewhere that kids are actually cleverer than they used to be which is why if you are sentenced to death in the US its quite a good idea to have an up to date IQ test cos you are more likely to be regarded as of sub normal intelligence which can be a successful reason for the sentence to be lifted.
If Tesco are having problems recruiting maybe its cos we are rearing a generation of people who aint gonna take a shit job on shit money when they know they are worth more. I am increasingly impressed by the young people I happen to meet.

Angel_Chat

Sex God

14 Mar 2010

Kent I'm not sure why you think it's a bad thing that some children take exams a year early... My youngest took a GCSE Biology paper a week or so ago, and is taking Chemistry in June - oh, and Maths GCSE in November. Not just a year early though, she's actually 13 until April so that'll be 2 years early. She's predicted to get A or A* for all of her exams and is clever enough that she can do these exams early. In place of them (assuming she gets the predicted A grades) she'll do triple science and statistics. How can that be a bad thing?
She's also a very well balanced, popular, polite and witty girl. Hardly the stereotypical hoodie/potential teen pregnancy/shoplifting/mugging old ladies type you seem to think every teenager on the planet (or is it just in Broken Britain?) is, or will become

Unknown User

14 Mar 2010

Quote by Angel Chat
Kent I'm not sure why you think it's a bad thing that some children take exams a year early... My youngest took a GCSE Biology paper a week or so ago, and is taking Chemistry in June - oh, and Maths GCSE in November. Not just a year early though, she's actually 13 until April so that'll be 2 years early. She's predicted to get A or A* for all of her exams and is clever enough that she can do these exams early. In place of them (assuming she gets the predicted A grades) she'll do triple science and statistics. How can that be a bad thing?
She's also a very well balanced, popular, polite and witty girl. Hardly the stereotypical hoodie/potential teen pregnancy/shoplifting/mugging old ladies type you seem to think every teenager on the planet (or is it just in Broken Britain?) is, or will become

I really think you need to read some of my old posts.
I have said many times that most kids are perfectly fine young people.
YOU and your child are the lucky ones, as the kind of kids you mention above will NOT get the opportunity to take their exams one or two years early. It is the pupils in the higher streams who will take them early. So the children who are the type above will only be able to take their exams in year 11...is that fair on them just because they are not as academically clever as a brighter child?
Mrs777's Daughter is just like your child. She is in year 11 and took some exams last year. This year she will be taking her GCSe's.
She is clever and bright and is in the top sect in all her subjects, but her Brother was the opposite and could not take any exams earlier than year 11. I always said that was unfair on the less brighter pupils....what is wrong in that?
The only reason children are allowed to take exams early is that their results will be higher in many cases than if they did not. It gives them a further opportunity to take them again if their results are not up to scratch. So a double bite at the cherry only so as to enhance the Governments exam pass rates.......period. Sceptical? You bet I am.

Angel_Chat

Sex God

14 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
The only reason children are allowed to take exams early is that their results will be higher in many cases than if they did not. It gives them a further opportunity to take them again if their results are not up to scratch. So a double bite at the cherry only so as to enhance the Governments exam pass rates.......period. Sceptical? You bet I am.

I'm still confused though. You seem to prefer that the less bright children should also take exams early when they're clearly not ready for them. It's this part of your argument that has me scratching my head
The plan is that my child (and the others in her year that are taking these papers early) will get the predicted A grades and therefore not need to take them again. Surely that's a good thing rather than bad?

northwest____cpl

Sex God

14 Mar 2010

Quote by Angel Chat
I'm still confused though.

It's not just you.
Quote by kentswingers777
I really think you need to read some of my old posts.
I have said many times that most kids are perfectly fine young people.
YOU and your child are the lucky ones, as the kind of kids you mention above will NOT get the opportunity to take their exams one or two years early. It is the pupils in the higher streams who will take them early. So the children who are the type above will only be able to take their exams in year 11...is that fair on them just because they are not as academically clever as a brighter child?
Why would you want them to take the exams early if they are not clever enough to pass them early?
Mrs777's Daughter is just like your child. She is in year 11 and took some exams last year. This year she will be taking her GCSe's.
She is clever and bright and is in the top sect in all her subjects, but her Brother was the opposite and could not take any exams earlier than year 11. I always said that was unfair on the less brighter pupils....what is wrong in that?
Again, why would you want to put him in for an exam early when you say he is not academically gifted? He is almost certain to underachieve his potential because he has lost a year of the curriculum.
The only reason children are allowed to take exams early is that their results will be higher in many cases than if they did not. It gives them a further opportunity to take them again if their results are not up to scratch. So a double bite at the cherry only so as to enhance the Governments exam pass rates.......period. Sceptical? You bet I am.
Children are allowed to take exams early because they are ready to pass those exams early and then take further subjects. Would you prefer them to mark time for a year and become disaffected?
There has always been a facility to resit exams where it is thought the child has underachieved on the day.

Children take GCSE's early because they are ready to pass them early and then take further subjects. Most children are not advanced enough to take them early and so take them at the usual time. Some children would not be able to achieve a level C and so take an easier paper that gives questions that can only achieve a C maximum.
How you can say that it is unfair that children who cannot pass an exam early are not put in for it is beyond me.

Unknown User

14 Mar 2010

We have two kids in this house, both with opposite academic qualities.
The bright ones get help over and above, and the less academic ones get less help. That is how it was in their school.
It is fine IF you have a clever child that gets given extra opportunities BUT...IF you have a child at the other end of that then things are not as rosy.
It gives the clever kids a better opportunity, which is exactly what Grammar schools do, but the Labour Government hated that elite schooling thought.
To get into a Grammar school you have to pass the 11+, so picks out the cleverer ones, that is no different in my book where they are picking out the clever ones, to take exams early and give them more opportunities. I cannot understand how one is deemed ok and the other to many is not?
REMEMBER in this house I have seen both sides of the coin, and yes for one child it has been great, but for the other he feels at now 18 he was not afforded the same opportunities as his Sister, purely based on the fact he was not quite as good academically as his Sister.
I just feel that EVERY child that wants to learn should be afforded the same, but they are not and in an adult world that would be discrimination....and it is surely?

Freckledbird

Sex God

14 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
We have two kids in this house, both with opposite academic qualities.
The bright ones get help over and above, and the less academic ones get less help. That is how it was in their school.
It is fine IF you have a clever child that gets given extra opportunities BUT...IF you have a child at the other end of that then things are not as rosy.
It gives the clever kids a better opportunity, which is exactly what Grammar schools do, but the Labour Government hated that elite schooling thought.
To get into a Grammar school you have to pass the 11+, so picks out the cleverer ones, that is no different in my book where they are picking out the clever ones, to take exams early and give them more opportunities. I cannot understand how one is deemed ok and the other to many is not?
REMEMBER in this house I have seen both sides of the coin, and yes for one child it has been great, but for the other he feels at now 18 he was not afforded the same opportunities as his Sister, purely based on the fact he was not quite as good academically as his Sister.
I just feel that EVERY child that wants to learn should be afforded the same, but they are not and in an adult world that would be discrimination....and it is surely?

They are, just at different levels. Some less academically inclined children are given the opportunity to take vocational courses which provide them with the skills to do a job. Some academically inclined children would love that chance, I'm sure.
It's not discrimination, it's giving them chances that fit with their ability.
It could be argued that it's discrimination to refuse any person/child any opportunity based on their abilities or lack thereof. Which would mean that any employer would be open to discrimination claims. You've said yourself that you are an employer - would you like to be told that you have to employ a particular person, even though you deem them unsuitable for the job, on he grounds that if you didn't that would be discriminatory?