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 …
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.
-
Ok. But I hate to hark back to the most recent link I sent, that seems to be the result (qv para on Grammar Schools & Attainment)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
what a great argument. Evidence is old, therefore the opposite is now true.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
bright pupils increase average grade but not the measures by which schools are judged.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
evidence has been collated in Kent due the number of grammars in the county. Alternative facts?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.