1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Assessment for Learning - what do people think?

Discussion in 'Assessment' started by Rach567, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. Whay you have said here has nothing to do with literacy and its connection to your extremely nebulous concept 'social justice'. Also, you haven't answered my question. That is not what I asked. I said: if you lived in an area with a rubbishy comp, would you 1.'go private' 2.move to a better catchment area 3.stay where you were?
     
  2. I would stay where I was. As it happens my boy is dyslexic and you would probably regard him as 'thick', 'dim' or 'dense' - probably some of the teachers at his school do too, but I know that here are many who don't, who believe in him. I would not be happy if his performance alongside his peers were regularly publicly displayed.
     
  3. So you have the opportunity to send your kid to a better school, but you purposefully do not send him to a better school? (In the example, the comp is a terrible one: awful results, drugs, high non-attendance figures, mostly supply staff, etc.) Are you sure about that? You would be willing to sacrifce your child's education because of some kind of hazily-defined political ideology, would you? Are you absolutely certain you are being honest here? No, I have taught dozens and dozens of kids who were dyslexic and I certainly wouldn't classify them as dim because of their dyslexia. They may of course be dim, but that's not a consequence of their dyslexia.
     
  4. I would want my child to go to their local community comprehensive school, and I would want the teaching in that school to be highly skilled. Beyond all measure, I would not want to go to a school where low attainers were labelled 'dense', where teaching was seen as just preparation for an exam, and where the concept of social justice was regarded as 'nebulous'.
     
  5. You haven't answered the question. It's not about what you would desire, it's about the facts. We would all like every comp to be as good as the best private schools and the best comps, but the fact of the matter is that they are not. So in this hypothetical case, what would you do? Teaching is primarily a preparation for an exam, for only with an exam can you ascertain if the kid as obtained the subject-knowledge required. There are other things as well of course, (sport, games, extra-curricular activities, etc, etc.) but, in point of fact, they come second. I said that your concept of 'social justice' is nebulous, as it indeed is.
     
  6. Erm... no it isn't. I would send my child to their local community comprehensive school, which is what I did.
     
  7. Right, so let's be absolutely clear. You would send your kid to a failing comp although you could send them to a better one by relocating?
     
  8. Well, I think most of us would say that that is immoral. It's a certainty that your child wouldn't want to go to such a school: he would want to go to a school where there are no drugs, good staff and not an endless procession of supply teachers, good facilities, comprehensive extra-curricular programmes and so on. The sort of school where he can actually learn stuff, not the sort which is merely a holding area before the job centre or prison takes over. Therefore, you are sacrificing your child's education on the altar of political ideology.
     
  9. I presume your silence on this point means that you agree. It's always the same with middle-class socialists; everything is fine in theory until their theory brushes up against reality, and then they either refuse to answer difficult questions, or purposefully refuse to see the logical consequences of their opinions.
     
  10. No, it means I was watching the Olympics... I suppose your contention that my thinking is 'immoral' is fairly objectionable, but there you go, you are entitled to your views. Interested in who the 'most of us' you mention is, and to hear the views of others...
     
  11. It's nothing to do with being 'objectionable'; it's a statement of fact, as you well know. I notice that you don't attempt to refute it. By purposefully sending your child to such a school, when you could, by relocating, send him to a better one, means that you are acting immorally. You are acting immorally because you are putting the welfare of your child after your political ideology. By sending your child to such a school, you are condemning him, in all probability, to a prolonged period of misery, hardship and failure. By any definition, that is immoral.
     
  12. Thank you for your reasoned and well-informed critique of my morality. I will add your views to the long and growing list entitled 'things on which I fundamentally disagree with stpaul'.
     
  13. The 'critique' is profoundly rational in that it logically follows from your statement that you would willingly and purposefully send your child to a failing school. Why have you not even attempted to refute the point? As I previously said, I have never, ever, encounterd a middle-class socialist who is willing to see the logical consequences of their beliefs; they either take refuge in the type of meaningless comment you have just made, or refuse to even entertain reasoned responses to their views. Either way, they are guilty of intellectual cowardice. For a third time: refute the point. You are condeming your child, as a consequence of political ideology, to a prolonged period of misery, hardship and failure, and are therefore deliteriously affecting them, in all probability, for the rest of their life.
     
  14. Ok then, I refute the point! Consider it REFUTED!!
     
  15. That is not a reutation, as you well know. That is yet another meaningless statement. Why are you squirming so much over this? Is it because you know it to be true?
     
  16. Not sure I'm squirming really... not aware of any squirmy sensations anyway. Your suggestion seems to be that for a parent to send their child to a local comp (one with a poor reputation in middle-class circles) is immoral. My only refutation can be that for a parent to send their child to a local comp (one with a poor reputation in middle-class circles) is NOT immoral. Will that do?
     
  17. Sorry, that will not do, for that's not what was said, as again, you well know. You have purposefully skewed the example. No one mentioned the school being poor in relation to 'middle-class' parents. What was said, was that the school in the example is, by all objective criteria, a terrible school: staffed by supply teachers, high non-attendance figures, high suspension/ expulsion rates, clear evidence of drug use, awful local reputation, etc., etc. It is by all objective criteria, an overwhelmingly failing 'school'. Yet, you would purposefully send your child to this school because of your political ideology, thereby, in all probability, deleteriously affecting them for life. And that, by any definition, is immoral.
     
  18. Parenthetically, It is entirely likely that you are a member of the middle-classes. Class means membership of an economic group. ('I am part of that social class' etc.) Most people in this society earn between £24 and £26K per annum. If you earn more than that, which I suspect you do, then, by definition, you are a member of the middle-classes. Which is why I have referred to you as a 'middle-class socialist'.
     
  19. Are you going to reply?
     

Share This Page