Breaking News... School Adjudicator Upholds KE complaint

pippi · Post by **pippi** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:43 pm

gideon wrote:The application form threatens legal action against 10 year olds if they discuss content. It also threatens parents. Yet parents do not see the paper and there is no duty of confidentiality with parents. If a parent refuses to sign, does it mean the child cannot take the tests?

I'd hardly believed that could be true, but here is the small print:

Warks 11+ Test - Registration Form wrote:Warwickshire County Council provides 11+ test papers for use in selective admissions to grammar schools. It is expected that children sitting these tests are doing so for the sole purposes of gaining admission to Warwickshire grammar schools and not to further any other purposes or to obtain any commercial gain on behalf of anybody else. Disclosure of the content of these tests may compromise the integrity of the 11+ testing process and therefore these papers are imparted to children in confidence. Please note that if anybody discloses or reproduces any of the test content either wholly or partly via means such as (but not limited to) verbal communication, publishing on website forums, publishing on websites, any other written communication, etc. this will be a breach of confidence and the County Council reserves its rights to protect its confidential information and take legal proceedings against such individuals as necessary. It should also be noted that the University of Durham’s Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring owns the copyright to the papers and they may seek to take action for breach of copyright at their discretion also. If you suspect that somebody has been trying to obtain this confidential information from your child or you become aware that the content of the tests may have been compromised please contact the County Council as soon as possible. I am sure all parents and carers can appreciate that it is in everybody’s interests that this process is conducted fairly for all. Please sign to acknowledge that you have read and understood this statement. If there are any persons with parental responsibility for your child, who are not living at your home address, you have a duty to ensure that you notify/consult those persons regarding this registration.

A few legal firsts there I think...

mike1880 · Post by **mike1880** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:11 pm

You always have the option of not taking the test if you don't like the conditions attached. It wouldn't be the first time legal action has been taken by an examining authority against someone publicising the content of an exam, in most other countries it would result in a criminal prosecution.

The schools' defence to the para 1.8 objection will presumably be that they are taking steps under 1.8 to REMOVE an unfair disadvantage suffered by the social group in question. They can (unlike the objector) bring independent evidence in their support so I would hazard a guess that the objection has roughly the proverbial snowball in h e l l's chance of success.

Mike

gideon · Post by **gideon** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:28 pm

Do you care to name the countries it is a criminal offence in? Most countries? I think not.
Do you care to name which UK law is broken?

The admissions policy does not state one must agree to sign a confidentiality clause. One cannot refuse testing if the clause is not agreed. Will anyone prosecute a 10 year old? Will it be in the public interest?

I am sure you are aware Red Hat used to use the same test for certification. There was wide spread knowledge of questions. Red Hat appeared too lazy to create new questions. The entire test questions were leaked and uploaded on Wiki Leaks. Red Hat objected. Wiki said change your question and don't use a corrupt testing system. The test is still uploaded. No legal action. No law broken. It makes them look like idiots.

The 11+ is from a commercial contract. It is not a government test. Which law is broken? If children cannot remember questions as Durham state, what a child states was on a paper cannot be the content as they cannot remember it

Until a party claims the content is real content, what action can they take? Can they admit uploaded content was on the test - confirm content?

Simple solution, do not use the same test more than once.

Sort out the issue... a lazy Council holding the same paper on different days. Isn't this the real issue?

Remove an unfair advantage that cannot be proven and on a test that one does need to prepare for and no need to tutor for. Remove a so called disadvantage by creating a bigger disadvantage. An interesting argument. Has anybody considered they just were not good enough to qualify on merit alone?

rabbie burns · Post by **rabbie burns** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:50 pm

Please stop posting sensible stuff because it just encourages him to come back with another stream of ......On the Warwickshire page people have sensibly left this thread well alone because they know it is just a platform for him to air his increasingly bizarre and repetative views. As someone else posted a few weeks ago, "oh no its groundhog day". Any sensible person knows why they have this clause and no they are not going to prosecute 10 year olds.

gideon · Post by **gideon** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:59 pm

rabbie burns wrote:Please stop posting sensible stuff because it just encourages him to come back with another stream of ......On the Warwickshire page people have sensibly left this thread well alone because they know it is just a platform for him to air his increasingly bizarre and repetative views. As someone else posted a few weeks ago, "oh no its groundhog day". Any sensible person knows why they have this clause and no they are not going to prosecute 10 year olds.

Rabbie thinks people cannot make their own mind up! We all do not have to share left wing communist views. Your posting added a lot to a discussion. Opps, you don't believe in debate unless it shares your blinkered view. Why not put your money where your mouth is and give up your child's place to a PP child?

pippi · Post by **pippi** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:17 pm

mike1880 wrote:You always have the option of not taking the test if you don't like the conditions attached.

I wasn't thinking of taking the test.

I wondered also whether the "publishing on website forums" would apply to this site? There's no time limit on when information can be posted.

JamesDean · Post by **JamesDean** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:19 pm

rabbie burns wrote:......On the Warwickshire page people have sensibly left this thread well alone because they know it is just a platform for him to air his increasingly bizarre and repetative views.

Whoops, sorry Rabbie, I've just bitten ...

JD

rabbie burns · Post by **rabbie burns** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:22 pm

Now now that's a little bit offensive Gideon I think. You know nothing of my politics or family circumstances. This is why I recommend no-one responds to your posts. **** I have gone and done it again.

gideon · Post by **gideon** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:48 pm

rabbie burns wrote:Now now that's a little bit offensive Gideon I think. You know nothing of my politics or family circumstances. This is why I recommend no-one responds to your posts. **** I have gone and done it again.

Does it occur to you I find your posts offensive? Telling others not to respond to my posts is nothing but bullying.

...................

This topic is now closed.
Moderator