A test case in reaching the wrong conclusion. For the nth time, grammar's don't improve outcomes in their cohort, make other schools worsehttps://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/831875784256143360 …
-
-
But where's your evidence? This isn't a faith based question. What parts of Cook's FT analysis do you dispute?
-
all "evidence" of grammars is based on 1950s and/or current limited number so not credible on what the effect would be now.
-
So then specify the reweightings you would expect based on a larger population sample. What effect would that have on FT analysis?
-
I'm not a statistician.
-
but that's how the evidence is compiled, I'm afraid. On a population based level, anecdote isn't enough
-
I'm not putting anecdote versus statistical evidence. Why has Germany chosen to return to a selective system, do you think?
-
We are talking about Eng/UK here. If your argument is: brighter kids prosper & we don't mind the rest doing worse, then fine
-
not at all! We shouldn't require bright kids to suffer so that less bright kiss can prosper.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I did O level English with girls who could barely read, for god sake!
-
If u say so. But if there is no evidence to support your conjecture then those without your experience cannot be expected to agree
-
the evidence is very clear in achievement of working class kids who do very well at 11 but just average at 16, after 5 yrs at comps.
-
huge body of evidence of under-achievement of poorer kids at comps while better off kids do ok only because of their parents' input.
-
But that's not the same thing as claiming grammars ameliorate performance
-
it's not the same thing but it gives bright kid a better chance than being stuck in classrooms with kids only capable of C grades.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.