Thick Kids

Gary Askwith · June 2007

I doubt you would find a single lecturer in my Uni who would say that literacy standards among the student intake was increasing
The missus works in a college and confirms the general diagnosis

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

willski · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by willski

Key quote: "In 1979, just over one half of the workforce held some form of formal qualification compared to almost nine out of 10 in 2000.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And soon it'll be 10 out of 10, and all at grade A triple star. At current rates of progress by 2050 every state school child will going on to Oxbridge. What a wonderful thing the government's education service is - if you believe the government and its statistics that is.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If you'd bothered to follow the links, you would see that the National Literacy Trust (a charity, not a Government department) benchmarks its attainment levels such that varying qualification standards make no difference. See here;

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Update/adultlevels.html

By the way, how do you decide which data you want to believe? Are you going to present a critque of Government education stats, explaining the flaws in the method, analysis and reporting? or do you just choose to believe only the data which matches your existing world-view?

_____________________________________________________________________

If I had a baby elephant, I'd write a witty sig line about it - if I had any wit.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Sh4rkybloke

Don't get me started on this subject.... oh, too late [:D]

My 3 and a bit year old goes to Nursery (so far, so good), but the varying uses of grammar are having an effect on how/what she learns.

The carers/nursery staff are lovely people and excellent at what they do, but a proportion of them are reasonably young (early 20s) and seem to have a fairly, errrm, bad grasp of some parts of grammar (don't wish to sound too harsh, but there's no other way of describing it).

'We was all going outside together...'
'We'll learn them things like that when they move into the next room...'
'Can I lend your Bear Hunt book for this moning, please?...'

It's an effort to bite my tongue and not to correct them, but am I wrong in correcting my Daughter?

Still, it'll be amusing if she does, and they actually start to get it correct themselves sometimes... I can dream. [;)]

Nothing in life is foolproof, fools are ingenious
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

she's your daughter, feel free to correct her

who cares if she corrects the staff, as you say, it'd be amusing and as she's little, she'll get away with it, they'll proberbly think its cute

mr_hippo · June 2007

"In 1979, just over one half of the workforce held some form of formal qualification compared to almost nine out of 10 in 2000." I think the keyword here is 'workforce' and the results possibly include NVQs which were not around in 1979. also not all pupils were put forward for GCE or GCSE, some students left school with a 'school leaving certificate' which would have not been counted. With the GCSE, there are 9 grades and only a 'U' is a fail and therefore it will be virtually impossible to fail, in my, never too humble, opinion. What do students have to do to fail? So, if people want to compare then & now, at least have it in a level playing field!

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 9/10 June: Update published: Monday 11 June

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Random Vince

she's your daughter, feel free to correct her

who cares if she corrects the staff, as you say, it'd be amusing and as she's little, she'll get away with it, they'll proberbly think its cute
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">And when she goes to school and corrects her peers, her life will become hell [V]

There is no alternative to home tutoring for any parent who wants not to expose their child to the zoos that are contemporary British state schools.

I have to earn a living, so I don't have children. My conscience wouldn't allow it.

marinyork · June 2007

NickM, there not being enough school children is a problem because the system works on funding per pupil. It leads to merging of schools, superschools and large class sizes. The same thing is happening elsewhere like higher education where numbers are just multiplied up.

Willski, the problem I have with the stats the organisation produces is what is a "formal qualification"? I'm guessing it means GCSEs but also the vast number of qualifications such as NVQs, City & Guilts etc. Whilst this is true I'm not sure how fair or realistic this is when a lot of employers pay no attention whatsoever to these qualifications.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by marinyork

NickM, there not being enough school children is a problem because the system works on funding per pupil.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I'm suggesting that it shouldn't.

Sh4rkybloke · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

And when she goes to school and corrects her peers, her life will become hell<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I'm not too concerned about that time of her life as hopefully she'll have it ingrained in her own vocab and will not be affected by those around her (as much!)... my problem is that she's currently learning from those around her, and if they're getting it wrong... [:(]

Maybe I'm a pedantic parent, but I'd like to think that my child/children will be able to write and talk with pretty much correct grammar (obviously any of my own mistakes will probably be incorporated, but I'd like to think that my own standard of grammar is fairly high - having studied English Language at A Level and having parents who were likewise pretty pedantic about such things [:D])

If it's not addressed when she's at her most absorbant (a little learning sponge!) then it will become more difficult to change later.

Nothing in life is foolproof, fools are ingenious

marinyork · June 2007

Yes, I agree. I can't see it changing though.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by marinyork

NickM, there not being enough school children is a problem because the system works on funding per pupil.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I'm suggesting that it shouldn't.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

willski · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mr_hippo

"In 1979, just over one half of the workforce held some form of formal qualification compared to almost nine out of 10 in 2000." I think the keyword here is 'workforce' and the results possibly include NVQs which were not around in 1979. also not all pupils were put forward for GCE or GCSE, some students left school with a 'school leaving certificate' which would have not been counted. With the GCSE, there are 9 grades and only a 'U' is a fail and therefore it will be virtually impossible to fail, in my, never too humble, opinion. What do students have to do to fail? So, if people want to compare then & now, at least have it in a level playing field!

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 9/10 June: Update published: Monday 11 June
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It is a level playing field. If you follow the links, you can see that the National Literacy Trust benchmarks its attainment levels such that varying qualification standards make no difference. See here;

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Update/adultlevels.html

Aside from this. GCE/CSE system had 8 passing grades (A-C for O level Grade 1-5 for CSE) so the landscape did not shift significantly with the introduction of the GCSE. Trying to explain away a rise from 40% to 90% by changes to the grading structure is fairly heroic, and extending that argument to say that this co-incides with a drop in literacy is yet more heroic. Do you have any data that backs the assertion?
_________________________________________________________________

If I had a baby elephant, I'd write a witty sig line about it - if I had any wit.

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by willski

By the way, how do you decide which data you want to believe? Are you going to present a critque of Government education stats, explaining the flaws in the method, analysis and reporting? or do you just choose to believe only the data which matches your existing world-view?

_____________________________________________________________________
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, I'm not going to present a critique of the government's statistics on the wonderful achievements of its own education service. There's no point. When I want to know how good a product or service is I do not ask the provider for evidence, I look for independent evidence. That the government thinks its own education service is a roaring success as measured by its own criteria is not too much of a surprise to me.

Carlsberg tells me it makes the world's best lager.

Eat My Dust · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by willski
By the way, how do you decide which data you want to believe? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Is it just me or does Simoncp get asked this question about once a week!!

SNAPS

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp
No, I'm not going to present a critique of the government's statistics on the wonderful achievements of its own education service. There's no point. When I want to know how good a product or service is I do not ask the provider for evidence, I look for independent evidence. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/About/index.html

Read.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp
No, I'm not going to present a critique of the government's statistics on the wonderful achievements of its own education service. There's no point. When I want to know how good a product or service is I do not ask the provider for evidence, I look for independent evidence. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/About/index.html

Read.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you'll find that this organisation is mainly funded by the government, and in return it co-operates in government literacy initiative.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp
No, I'm not going to present a critique of the government's statistics on the wonderful achievements of its own education service. There's no point. When I want to know how good a product or service is I do not ask the provider for evidence, I look for independent evidence. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/About/index.html

Read.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Phew, that's a relief - children are much more literate than they used to be. [;)]

Isn't the problem with the subjective element - the reports of barely literate teachers and university students, due to the vast expansion of university education. We may have better overall literacy, but there is a lack of high level literacy.

Going back 30-40 years, only a small percentage (less than 10%) went to university. They were almost invariably highly educated in private and grammar schools. The remaining 90% got an extremely poor education in the local secondary modern and probably a hefty percentage of those were barely literate.

Now, with over a third of children going to university, the barriers have been lowered substantially and entrance is relatively easier than it was when there were many fewer university places. Relatively low level attainment gets you further than it did 40 years ago.

jpembrokecp · June 2007

Being thick is now aspirational isn't it?

well, yes and no......but mainly no.

grayo59 · June 2007

Twenty years ago I sold Olivetti word processors and the company I worked for also sold maintenance contracts as well.

We had the national contract for Allied Dunbar and a young girl (16) would write out the calls as they came in and pass them to the relevant engineer.

This is what she wrote on the form.

Company name:- L.I. Dumbo
Location:- Swinedun

Contact:- misses Jones
Tel: (0793-XXXXXX)
Problem:- Printer ribun jamin

__________________
......heading for the box, but not too soon I hope!

Clive Atton · June 2007

Sod the Literacy Trust, my criteria for starting this thread was that a full ONE THIRD of pupils at a decent school required help reading questions that are the equivalent of the 11+ questions that I read thirty six years ago. As far as I can remember NO 'readers' were required then and there was only one child in my class that was considered a bit below par. Now it's a badge of 'onour guv to have yer thick brat 'statemented' as having learning difficulties and hence then be able to demand all manner of resources to help their poor little Johnnies and Janes 'cos the crappy parents know their rights. This attitude is then pandered to by the government and basically sh*tloads of money is thrown at a problem with seemingly no actual improvement in national literacy.

I have some sympathy with the teachers as they have to wade through reams of paperwork rather than teaching. My son has a reading record that has to be signed by parents and teachers as a continuous assesment of the his reading standard but if a child doesn't read at all and the record isn't signed what happens - absolutely sweet FA; so what is the point of it all?

The system just doesn't know how to waste money and effort fast enough................

DLB · June 2007

before i comment i should state that i am a Secondary Maths teacher in a decent school.

I teach across the full range of abilites from aged 11 to aged 18. I am sometimes amazed (and more so lately) with the lack of basic numeracy skills that some kids have. My eldest son is only 7 and he has better numeracy skills than probably about 250 kids at my school, if not more. I haven't read all the previous posts but i do agree with others that it's to do with parents who couldn't give a monkeys about their kids (education). Not all of the kids are weak because of this but quite a few of them are.

What never fails to amaze me at parent's evening is the number of parents that will openly state "i'm not surprised that our ***** is no good at maths because i'm not". Well if that's true DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Of course i can't tell them that.

*** Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're probably right ***

mr_hippo · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by willski

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mr_hippo

"In 1979, just over one half of the workforce held some form of formal qualification compared to almost nine out of 10 in 2000." I think the keyword here is 'workforce' and the results possibly include NVQs which were not around in 1979. also not all pupils were put forward for GCE or GCSE, some students left school with a 'school leaving certificate' which would have not been counted. With the GCSE, there are 9 grades and only a 'U' is a fail and therefore it will be virtually impossible to fail, in my, never too humble, opinion. What do students have to do to fail? So, if people want to compare then & now, at least have it in a level playing field!

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 9/10 June: Update published: Monday 11 June
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It is a level playing field. If you follow the links, you can see that the National Literacy Trust benchmarks its attainment levels such that varying qualification standards make no difference. See here;

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Update/adultlevels.html

Aside from this. GCE/CSE system had 8 passing grades (A-C for O level Grade 1-5 for CSE) so the landscape did not shift significantly with the introduction of the GCSE. Trying to explain away a rise from 40% to 90% by changes to the grading structure is fairly heroic, and extending that argument to say that this co-incides with a drop in literacy is yet more heroic. Do you have any data that backs the assertion?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Is the playing field level? In the old system, not every student was put forward for exams. Three of my siblings went to a secondary modern and only one sat for CSE and passed the two he sat. The remaining three of us went to a grammar school and sat and passed a total on 14 GCEs. So between the 6 of us we have 2.66 passes each. Now what would have happened if the two who did not sit for any CSEs were allowed to sit? Assuming that they too got the same results then we would have had 14 GCE and 6 CSE passes and our passes would have gone up from 2.66 to 3.33. Our brain power has not increased so what has changed?
Let's fast forward to the present day and we'll not be greedy so we will only sit for 8 GCSEs each and not the 100% pass rate that we had before but let's say 90%, Between the 6 of us we have taken 48 and passed 43.2. That's 7.2 passes each. In the old system, we only had 2.66 passes each but now, new system, we have 7.2 passes each! The playing field changed and not our brain power.

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 9/10 June: Update published: Monday 11 June

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp
I think you'll find that this organisation is mainly funded by the government, and in return it co-operates in government literacy initiative.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/About/funders.html

Read.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

ant41 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by DLB

before i comment i should state that i am a Secondary Maths teacher in a decent school.

I teach across the full range of abilites from aged 11 to aged 18. I am sometimes amazed (and more so lately) with the lack of basic numeracy skills that some kids have. My eldest son is only 7 and he has better numeracy skills than probably about 250 kids at my school, if not more. I haven't read all the previous posts but i do agree with others that it's to do with parents who couldn't give a monkeys about their kids (education). Not all of the kids are weak because of this but quite a few of them are.

What never fails to amaze me at parent's evening is the number of parents that will openly state "i'm not surprised that our ***** is no good at maths because i'm not". Well if that's true DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Of course i can't tell them that.

*** Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're probably right ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

DLB - to change the subject slightly, have exams got easier over last 10 years? I take this opportunity as my 'evidence' for the positive was my A-Level maths, both mock and actual. I found GCSE a bit of a breeze, but A-Level was a totally different kettle of fish and I struggled, especially at first. To get to the point, when we practised for exams by completing old papers, they were significantly more difficult (and I am accounting for the differences in syllabus). I did my A-Level in 95 if it makes a difference.

I always think of this when I see the inexorable march of exam results in both GCSE/A-Level toward the stratosphere.

Bonking is fun . . . but not on the bike.

Phil Russell · June 2007

I have read many examination scripts from undergraduates and theses for post-graduate degrees. Although it is something of a generalisation, my conclusion is that scripts written in English by 'non native' English speakers, particularly the post-graduate students, have a much better standard of English. The grammar is correct, the construction very good and the spelling excellent. I suspect this is because they were taught English grammar as part of learning the language.
When examining for one particular organisation I was told (informally) to ignore spelling and grammatical errors as 'we are only examining their understanding of the science'. Words failed me...

Cheers, Phil

willski · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mr_hippo
Is the playing field level?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

In terms of normalising the changing standards in exams. Yes. Please follow the link this time. Here it is again.

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Update/adultlevels.html

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
In the old system, not every student was put forward for exams. Three of my siblings went to a secondary modern and only one sat for CSE and passed the two he sat. The remaining three of us went to a grammar school and sat and passed a total on 14 GCEs. So between the 6 of us we have 2.66 passes each. Now what would have happened if the two who did not sit for any CSEs were allowed to sit? Assuming that they too got the same results then we would have had 14 GCE and 6 CSE passes and our passes would have gone up from 2.66 to 3.33. Our brain power has not increased so what has changed?
Let's fast forward to the present day and we'll not be greedy so we will only sit for 8 GCSEs each and not the 100% pass rate that we had before but let's say 90%, Between the 6 of us we have taken 48 and passed 43.2. That's 7.2 passes each. In the old system, we only had 2.66 passes each but now, new system, we have 7.2 passes each! The playing field changed and not our brain power.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The statistic counted the number of people who had >1 qualification.

The sample numbers you have given are for a mean number of qualifications across a population which is a completely different thing (we'll ignore all the assumptions that they contain for the time being).

Your example also fails to address the other stats which you editted out of your reply. These were;

> The key indicator, the percentage of pupils reaching level 4 (the level expected for their age) in national tests for English (reading and writing) at age 11, has increased from 63% to 78% in this time. In the mid-1990s just half of children reached the level expected for their age

> The proportion holding a qualification at Level 3 or above has risen from 23% in 1979 to 45% in 1999

_____________________________________________________________________

If I had a baby elephant, I'd write a witty sig line about it - if I had any wit.

spire · June 2007

In real life you don't get things read out to you, and you don't get extra time if you're "dyslexic", so why in exams?

It's a harsh world, and you've got to make the best of what you've got.

No wonder employers have no confidence in qualifications when everyone is helped to be a "winner".

The whole stupid system at the moment is geared up to continually improving headline exam results, while the underlying standards continue to decline.

papercorn2000 · June 2007

So are you saying that dyslexia doesn't exist? Or are you saying that some people use it as a convenient excuse. If the former you are venturing into bonj country!

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by papercorn2000

So are you saying that dyslexia doesn't exist? Or are you saying that some people use it as a convenient excuse.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I haven't said dyslexia doesn't exist.

For genuine dyslexics there are few allowances made in real life, so I wonder what value an exam has that treats them as a special case.

For a whole raft of others, the whole thing is a scam. There are many parents who just can't accept their children are thick, and look for a label that is an acceptable excuse. The middle class are especially guilty here.

willski · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire
the underlying standards continue to decline.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire
For genuine dyslexics there are few allowances made in real life, so I wonder what value an exam has that treats them as a special case.

For a whole raft of others, the whole thing is a scam.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you have a single scrap of evidence (silly anecdotes don't count) that either of these statements is true?

What percentage of claims of dyslexia are untrue? lets see the figures?

Which standards have fallen? how have they been measured?

If I had a baby elephant, I'd write a witty sig line about it - if I had any wit.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

There are many parents who just can't accept their children are thick, and look for a label that is an acceptable excuse. The middle class are especially guilty here.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The head of a private school told me rather ruefully, "I can't get it through to some of the parents that paying money does not make it possible to get a quart into a pint pot."

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by willski

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire
the underlying standards continue to decline.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire
For genuine dyslexics there are few allowances made in real life, so I wonder what value an exam has that treats them as a special case.

For a whole raft of others, the whole thing is a scam.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you have a single scrap of evidence (silly anecdotes don't count) that either of these statements is true?

What percentage of claims of dyslexia are untrue? lets see the figures?

Which standards have fallen? how have they been measured?

If I had a baby elephant, I'd write a witty sig line about it - if I had any wit.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you have a single scrap of evidence (silly anecdotes don't count) that either of these statements is NOT true?

What percentage of claims of dyslexia are TRUE? Let's see the figures!

Which standards have fallen? Degrees, A levels, GCSEs, general literacy and numeracy.

If you had a baby elephant, you'd write a witty sig line about it - if you had any wit. [;)]

Thick Kids

Comments

Categories