CEM comments

[equilibro]

who spend more time and resources learning

To which I would merely add, "with the right focus, and who have the necessary IQ".

As I stagger "Brownlee like" towards the DIY finish line at (high) noon on 24/9, with our two-part 11+ then done and dusted until the results in October, it is heartening to read an otherwise spot-on comment. So many here IMO are well-intentioned but misguided (cue strident protestations).

This is my penultimate post on the site; the final one will be in October, when for better (hopefully) or worse I'll let you know whether it's cheers or tears!

A bientôt

[salsa]

The article reveals the flaws in a system which relies on measuring something which changes all the time, ability, on a single day of testing.

The tests are also problematic as they only measures a very narrow range of total abilities - so a child who is gifted in art or sport would not get a place, or even a child who is gifted in maths OR English but poor at the other one, where they are both tested. It's all a bit arbitrary - you could get a place at some schools with no requirement to write at all, while other schools, like HBS or DAO, require you to be excellent at creative writing. I think all schools require you to demonstrate some maths ability, but beyond that, 'ability' is not an agreed construct, even across those schools using CEM's own exams.

Clearly a test in which wide reading is the best preparation will be harder for those children who read less, or don't read in English, because it is not their first language or their parents' first language. I can see why schools would want to attract kids who read widely, because it's an accepted predictor of academic success in all fields (including maths). That's not to say that kids who don't read widely in English can't also succeed academically, but there is a reason for choosing that as a selection criteria which goes beyond a desire for social engineering.

+1
It could be argued that if you were more able in the arts that you should go to a school which selects on that criteria. However, children change so much. My own son was sure of what he wanted to be from age 3 to 10 and then he has changed rapidly every year. His new career preferences were all to do with technology and science, but lately, he's changed towards the arts.

Salsa

[Guest55]

This is my penultimate post on the site; the final one being in October, when for better (hopefully) or worse I'll let you know whether it's cheers or tears!

A bientôt

I would hope that posters would stay to help others and not just 'take' from the advice and help on here. There is a lot of help on GCSEs and beyond ... do reconsider.

[neuralc]

who spend more time and resources learning

To which I would merely add, "with the right focus, and who have the necessary IQ".

As I stagger "Brownlee like" towards the DIY finish line at (high) noon on 24/9, with our two-part 11+ then done and dusted until the results in October, it is heartening to read an otherwise spot-on comment. So many here IMO are well-intentioned but misguided (cue strident protestations).

This is my penultimate post on the site; the final one will be in October, when for better (hopefully) or worse I'll let you know whether it's cheers or tears!

A bientôt

ha! and this is one of my first posts - and I agree the right motivation and intelligence are key factors.

To make a test completely tutor proof I suppose you could design it so the kid would have to do the learning and the testing in the same session. But even then, a disadvantaged kid would bring baggage.

[equilibro]

This is my penultimate post on the site; the final one will be in October, when for better (hopefully) or worse I'll let you know whether it's cheers or tears!

Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! DC passed