Westminster Election 12th December 2019

Started by Ambrose, October 29, 2019, 02:24:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

thewobbler

For the life of me I'll never understand how standards of education can be evaluated actress countries.

Do we wait 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 years and see if there has been an economic impact?

Do we take a s sample and measure IQs before and after education?

Do we take a sample just before university and ask them if they're happy? Surely we can't ask them anything else as they can't compare it with anything else?

Do we ask the teachers? But surely their opinions are influenced entirely by either the socio-economic make-up of their catchment area, and b) whether their salary can attain a satisfactory standard of living close to their workplace?

Or maybe we just look at Twitter and see who's making the most noise in either direction?

——

I just can't help believing that the assessors/researchers, regardless of their pedagogical background, are more likely to observe/manufacture improvements when reviewing unusual educational structures.

Basically, bias.



michaelg


thewobbler

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on December 19, 2019, 12:46:01 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on December 18, 2019, 11:45:51 PM
For the life of me I'll never understand how standards of education can be evaluated actress countries.

Wobbler, just because yourself and probably quite a few other people can't understand how it can be evaluated doesn't mean that no one can.


Basically, experts.

(P.S. No, I'm not one)

Fionn. I've got very little expertise in anything in this world, but I can generally accept, and understand comparison tables across subjects.

That some experts have "proved" to other experts that they can measure the immeasurable just doesn't sit well with me. I believe it's a method for delivering educated bias rather than a comparison system.


RadioGAAGAA

#1834
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on December 18, 2019, 11:19:57 PM
Repeated PISA assessments over the years haven't shown NI students to be well ahead of their counterparts south of the border or over in Britain - England in particular.

The the PISA assessments are consistently out of kilter with results. NI is significantly ahead of England in most metrics.

If your assertion is true - then it serves to undermine either the Key Stage 4 & Key Stage 5 exam system or the PISA assessments.


GCSE
https://www.naht.org.uk/news-and-opinion/news/curriculum-and-assessment-news/2019-gcse-results-statistics-england-wales-and-northern-ireland/

20.7% results in England were 7/A or better
67.1% of results in England were 4/C or better

30.5% of results in NI were 7/A or better
82.2% of results in NI were 4/C or better.


A-level
https://www.naht.org.uk/news-and-opinion/news/curriculum-and-assessment-news/statistics-published-2019-as-and-a-level-results-england-wales-and-northern-ireland/

25.2% of results in England were A or better
97.5% of results in England were A*-E

30.9% of results in NI were A or better
98.3% of results in NI were A*-E


I don't know about comparisons outside the system (i.e. across Europe) - it becomes a more difficult and less accurate comparison to make.
i usse an speelchekor

RadioGAAGAA

Quote from: five points on December 18, 2019, 06:24:02 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 18, 2019, 04:59:39 PM
Quote from: five points on December 18, 2019, 03:03:22 PM
Over many decades I have seen enough government and govt agency studies to be very suspicious of what they conclude and advise.

Have you been able to conclude that the presence of a motorway has reduced the journey time from Dublin to Belfast to less than 2 hours rather than 5?

Or are you suspicious of your watch?

If those are the best analogies you can come up with, you don't know the meaning of the word.

If you want to believe every bit of self-serving balderdash you read in an official report, that ain't my problem.

I suspect it is not myself that has the problem.

Are you denying the existence of the motorway network?
Or are you denying that they are of great help to the country?
Or are you denying the EU was deeply involved in the construction of the motorways?
i usse an speelchekor

five points

#1836
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 19, 2019, 09:07:20 AM
Quote from: five points on December 18, 2019, 06:24:02 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 18, 2019, 04:59:39 PM
Quote from: five points on December 18, 2019, 03:03:22 PM
Over many decades I have seen enough government and govt agency studies to be very suspicious of what they conclude and advise.

Have you been able to conclude that the presence of a motorway has reduced the journey time from Dublin to Belfast to less than 2 hours rather than 5?

Or are you suspicious of your watch?

If those are the best analogies you can come up with, you don't know the meaning of the word.

If you want to believe every bit of self-serving balderdash you read in an official report, that ain't my problem.

I suspect it is not myself that has the problem.

Are you denying the existence of the motorway network?
Or are you denying that they are of great help to the country?
Or are you denying the EU was deeply involved in the construction of the motorways?


Yes I'm denying no. 3. 

Most of the motorway network was built in the past 15 years with very little help from the EU. "Free" EU money for Irish motorways more or less dried up in 2002.  The later funding for recent motorway projects was done on the basis that we'd soon be a net contributor so in effect we were spending our own money via a middleman.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/brakes-go-on-eu-money-for-motorway-projects-1.1103127

RadioGAAGAA

So of the contributions to motorways between 1994 and 2006, the funding breakdown was approximately:

EU: 19%
Govt: 67
Private: 14%

~20% of contribution is not deeply involved?
i usse an speelchekor

armaghniac

Quote from: thewobbler on December 18, 2019, 11:45:51 PM
For the life of me I'll never understand how standards of education can be evaluated actress countries.

Do we wait 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 years and see if there has been an economic impact?

Do we take a s sample and measure IQs before and after education?

Do we take a sample just before university and ask them if they're happy? Surely we can't ask them anything else as they can't compare it with anything else?

Do we ask the teachers? But surely their opinions are influenced entirely by either the socio-economic make-up of their catchment area, and b) whether their salary can attain a satisfactory standard of living close to their workplace?

Or maybe we just look at Twitter and see who's making the most noise in either direction?

——

I just can't help believing that the assessors/researchers, regardless of their pedagogical background, are more likely to observe/manufacture improvements when reviewing unusual educational structures.

Basically, bias.

I don't see why it is impossible to measure whether people can read and do maths.
There is a broader education agenda, and this might be harder to measure.

Quote from: five points on December 19, 2019, 10:44:29 AM

Yes I'm denying no. 3. 

Most of the motorway network was built in the past 15 years with very little help from the EU. "Free" EU money for Irish motorways more or less dried up in 2002.  The later funding for recent motorway projects was done on the basis that we'd soon be a net contributor so in effect we were spending our own money via a middleman.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/brakes-go-on-eu-money-for-motorway-projects-1.1103127

You are both right, the EU money was very helpful for the most needed motorways, while the later expanded programme was mainly funded from Irish sources.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

tbrick18

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 18, 2019, 06:02:44 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on December 18, 2019, 10:29:53 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 17, 2019, 04:46:48 PM
My response to the old "integrated education is not a panacea" trope is as follows:

Segregated education is not a panacea either.

If integrated schools are providing lower quality education then that's an argument for giving them more funding so they can attract better management and better teachers. The work they do is too important to be relegated to the bottom of the priority list. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't CCMS schools funded partly by the state? If that's the case then it represents a large transfer of public money to a private institution to further its private goals of brainwashing children into a particular belief system, as well as deepening divisions. Utter madness.

You can't take down the peace walls until kids go to school together.

Another old cop-out I used to hear all the time was that CCMS schools "teach children to respect people of different faiths." What a load of cobblers. The ones lobbing petrol bombs in Kilwilkee over the years all went to CCMS schools. Respect for people is not something you learn in lessons from a book. You learn it between lessons. In the corridors. In the playground. Waiting for the school bus. On the school bus. In the cafeteria. You build relationships and grow up together with people from diverse backgrounds, that's where you learn the most, not by listening to some nun droning on for half an hour about how we should be nice to them "up to no good" protestants.

That's a very narrow view, in my opinion. Respect for people has to be taught at home, school shouldn't bear the full responsibility. You reference Kilwilkee in a way that almost suggests the CCMS schools were responsible, I'd argue that it was more likely the responsibility lay with the parents and families who were probably out doing the same thing.
Were I grew up was a rural area and I attended a CCMS school. In that area it was predominantly Catholic, but there was a sizeable Protestant minority. In my memory, I never once remember any issues between the two communities. Farming was the priority, not politics. Farmers of one persuasion regularly helped farmers of the other persuasion, and still do. In fact, a cross community group was set up and did a lot for the area.
Integrated education is an ideal. It cannot work without the same ethos being applied in the homes of staff and students.

CCMS do get funding from the education authority, but so does the Integrated sector through NICIE, and the Irish Medium schools through an organisation that I can't remember the name of.
In terms of setup, there may not be much difference between the two (though I'm no expert here).

In terms of attracting higher quality staff by giving them more funding....that's not possible. As all teachers and Principles here are civil servants and get paid on a scale. The same scale across all schools. The only way it can be increased is by government, and if its increased for one sector its increased to all.
One of the big issues I've seen in staffing in integrated schools is that once in the integrated system, it is very difficult for a teacher to gain employment in CCMS or state schools at a later point. Not impossible, but certainly there seems to be very few teachers moving out of the integrated sector.

This reminds me of conservative arguments against sex education in schools. "It should be taught in the home!" they say. Great. What if it's not taught in the home?  In that case if it's not taught in the schools then it's not taught at all. Same goes for respect for people from different backgrounds.

The segregation of society in the north is hardly the poster child for community relations. Segregated education has been a failure. It's long past time to move on past it.

That's not what I said. I said full responsibility shouldn't lie with a school. It needs to start at home for any hope of the integrated school to have a chance of having an impact on the child.
Completely different argument than sex education, where I agree it 100% should be taught in schools.  But as far as I'm aware there are no sex education education sectors. I'd also doubt very much that kids will get a conflicting view of sex Ed at home than they would in school.


tbrick18

Quote from: five points on December 18, 2019, 06:24:02 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 18, 2019, 04:59:39 PM
Quote from: five points on December 18, 2019, 03:03:22 PM
Over many decades I have seen enough government and govt agency studies to be very suspicious of what they conclude and advise.

Have you been able to conclude that the presence of a motorway has reduced the journey time from Dublin to Belfast to less than 2 hours rather than 5?

Or are you suspicious of your watch?

If those are the best analogies you can come up with, you don't know the meaning of the word.

If you want to believe every bit of self-serving balderdash you read in an official report, that ain't my problem.

The point is that both Independant and government studies have said we will be considerably worse off after studying the data available.
Whereas the tory government have a vague notion of brexit being good for everyone.

If we can't be guided in our opinions by multiple studies by different bodies coming up with broadly the same analysis then we probably shouldn't take medical advice or sail off on a ship for fear of sailing off tne edge of the earth. Lol.

smelmoth

Quote from: Applesisapples on December 18, 2019, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 18, 2019, 02:39:49 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 18, 2019, 12:18:50 PM
It's easy to forget that there was a point in time when only for the catholic education sector catholics in NI would not have been educated and they weren't fully funded to the 70's.

An interesting point of history but of zero relevance to how best to educate and look after our society today
Not saying that but in the midst of all the criticism on here re that sector we need to remember that was it not for it many like myself would never have been able to go to University.

An interesting point of history but of zero relevance to how best to educate and look after our society today

smelmoth

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 18, 2019, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 18, 2019, 02:36:20 PM
Splitting classes based on ability can work. Matching the pace of work to the ability of the child in the subject can work. Name 1 outright grammar school that does either?

They don't necessarily have to as the 11+ has already done much of the splitting for them.

Remove the 11+ and suddenly you are faced with a much wider gap between top and bottom within the one class. With the result that many at the upper end will be slowed to a speed nearer the slowest in the "herd".

So what do the Grammar schools do with a kid who isn't so good at say languages or science? What speed are they taught at in those subjects?

All ability classes are an alternative but there are other alternatives - ongoing streaming (i.e. comprehensive education) which can stream kids at different levels in different subjects according to their academic ability. I would be very interested in the basis on which you build your seeming claim that the best way to run education is to 1 exam aged 10/11 and stick them in different buildings, never the twain shall meet and plough on with the "pass" kids at a single speed in all subjects. Your overly simplistic approach to this comes across as dogmatic wrongheadedness. 

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 18, 2019, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 18, 2019, 02:36:20 PM
In the global economy what skills does NI need to compete? Do grammar schools provide these skills?

Are you f**king serious?

I suppose all those engineering jobs in Bombardier or those IT jobs are given to folks that can't add.

You aren't fit for an engineer degree if you cannot tackle sums.

I am going to give the benefit of the non inconsiderable doubt here. I do not think you posted that because you believe it. However you justified it to yourself it is easily dismissed as at best inane and otherwise ignorant drivel.   

the idea that non-grammar school can't do sums or that the 11+ is the barometer of what would make a good employee of Bombardier is complete nonsense.

Your failure to address the point of what skills the modern economy requires and whether the grammar school best delivers these skills could be described as complete and utter.


Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 18, 2019, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 18, 2019, 02:36:20 PM
Outline the benefits as you see them of doing a single exam at 10 years old, hinging everything on the result

Everything doesn't hinge on the result. They still have the opportunity to do their GCSEs and A-levels.

If you believe everything hinges on the result then you are acknowledging that the presence of stupider kids in the same class slows the development of said smarter kid.

You are outlining the supposed benefits of  grammar school education. That system is predicated on a singe exam aged 10/11. For the grammar system to work that exam and its results have to be right. So how does it cope with late development for example? What does it do for great music student? what does it do for the great linguist who does get the maths bit? What des it do for the great future scientist who struggles with the language bit?

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 18, 2019, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 18, 2019, 02:36:20 PM
and putting the child in school A where they are taught at a "grammar pace" but don't have the ability at say 15 of the kid that didn't do the test or didn't perform to their ability in it or was sick on the day but then exhibited or developed the ability after the age of 10?

You railing against the performance of kids within secondary schools is acknowledging the impact that a slower pace of lesson has on said kid.
What is happening here is that you are failing to address the point

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 18, 2019, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 18, 2019, 02:36:20 PM
Are you saying that you have thought about it and cannot think of a better system that grammar schools?

If I had my way - it would be quite a substantial departure from now - which is not realistic as no-one in charge wants to grasp the nettle.

I would suggest breaking up second level education into lower and upper schools - and have them exclusively deal within each age band (separated sites).

Lower runs from 12-14 years old (inclusive) - key stage 3 essentially. The number of kids within each year of the school (given that it is only 3 years) is large enough to allow effective streamlining and preserving a high pace for the smarter children.  i.e. you might have 8-10 classes per year.

Upper "school" runs from 15-18 - and is not purely academic.
Those that are more practical than academic would go to technical colleges (where they would do a few GCSEs, including maths & english alongside more practical subjects - i.e. plumbing/sparking/etc)
Those that are more academic than practical would go to a more conventional school, where they would sit a high number of GCSEs & then on to A-levels.

So there would be no 11+, there is sufficient pacing given to lessons across the ability range of children - and kids aren't wasting their time at 15-16 years old doing stuff they have no interest in or need to know.
What is this based on? Genuine question and open to examining the response.


yellowcard

Looks like a deal has been brokered that could see Stormont back up and functioning by tomorrow. Seems to be plenty of financial support in the deal and if parties reject this I think they will have major questions to answer.

Bad day for Jamie Bryson. Irish Sea border approved in Westminster, Irish Language commissioner proposed as part of Stormont deal and Wolfe Tones number 1 in the UK charts!

Snapchap

Quote from: trailer on December 17, 2019, 11:27:19 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on December 16, 2019, 11:01:57 PM
Quote from: trailer on December 16, 2019, 10:05:41 PM
f**k it. Lets just keep on going the way we always have then ram unification down everyones throats in a take it or leave it 50+1 vote. It'll be grand.

In other words, lets ram it down people's throat by sticking to the very guidelines set out in the GFA that those same people voted overwhelmingly in favour of?

So what % do you suggest it should be for a vote in favour of reunification to be valid? Or to put that another way, exactly how much more valuable is a unionist's vote be over a nationalist's vote, in your eyes?

It's about uniting a people not a land. Come back to me when you wake up to that realisation.

Missed this reply. Tell me trailer, do you think you could answer my questions with specifics, rather than avoiding them entirely in favour of trotting out a cliched soundbite? If 51%+1 shouldn't be enough to carry a vote on reunification, then what percentage should it have to be? i.e. How much more valuable should a unionist's vote be over that of a nationalist's?