Are They Thinking In Straight Lines?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23334334
Ok I agree with the 11 plus grammar school selection etc for the brightest kids but labelling the rest at age 11 in varying degrees, surely that's ridiculous. Is there any merit in this latest Liberative madness?

[dzug2]

No more ridiculous than labelling the 'brightest', whatever that means, at age 11

[cassa333]

Lets not do any testing then. Lets not have exams or failure or anything that might make them work a bit harder or show the teachers who needs some extra help or encouragement.

Let them all coast through their education without being pushed to do better or helped to improve.

Let them all finsish in joint first place and let them loose on the employment market and see if employers are happy with mediocrity.

Testing and exams show who is doing well and can be pushed harder and who needs help.

Without it the nation is a dead duck quacking it's last.

[pixie373]

It depends what they're labelled! I went to a grammar school after 12 plus (as we did) and it suited me. My sister went to a secondary school which suited her. The idea is to put children into the environment that is best for them.
I don't agree with dzug2 that they are labelled at 11 either. They are labelled far earlier than that. I could tell (as could the teachers) which of mine would pass, for want if a better word, when they were 2/3 years old.
Clearly, some will be academic, some will be creative, some will be practical,etc,etc. We need all sorts and i think we need to stop thinking of less academic children as "failures". They just have different strengths.

[ToraToraTora]

yes it is dzug

[ichkeria]

There is a difference between testing pupils and grading them or even selecting them, and on the other hand giving them a national ranking which they are effectvely going to be stuck with. If a ranking can help encourage someone achieve a higher standard it's a good thing, but it's presented as a final branding then I fail to see how that can be positive.
A national ranking system? There are all sorts of local variables which make that impossible to do fairly. The system is dubious as it is: making it more finely grained is going to make it even more dubious.

[rockyracoon]

TBH I always thought that the little ones would have some kind of ongoing assessment to make sure their needs are met, I seriously doubt they'll get 5 years olds to sit a test, if they do, good luck with it. Weakness needs to be highlighted and overcome.

[naomi24]

Is it to be presented as a final branding? That wasn’t my understanding of it. I'm not sure that this is much different to the idea of 'streaming' - except that it's on a larger scale - but I really don't see the point of complicating matters, which this would appear to suggest. However, if it does amount to a final branding, and is not part of an on-going assessment, that has to be wrong. I agree that children should be assessed and selected at age 11 for grammar school entrance, but I know several people who at that age did not make the grade, but went on to become rather academic and do very well for themselves.

[ummmm]

When I went to middle school we were put into sets. The same thing really.

[mikey4444]

I am a 60 year old bachelor and I have no kids, or at least none that I am aware of, so my experience of schooling is now about 44 years out of date.

But if I was a parent, I am sure that I would be very interested in knowing how my child was doing in school, from age 5 upwards, so I don't really understand what this fuss about with testing.

How else am I or the relevant authorities going to know if a child is doing well or not without some kind of testing mechanism ?

[ichkeria]

Testing and putting into graded sets: good (as far as I am concerned)
Ongoing localised ranking system possibly a good thing.
National ranking system bad as far as I can see.
Final national ranking on leaving primary school very bad