Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    So presumably you think the current selection tests are completely accurate measures of ability that are unaffected by the wealth of the family a child comes from?
    Give me one system of assessing ability for which availability of additional help has no influence, even the exams that are allegedly impossible to prepare for are easy to prepare for.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Sooo, what exactly is the point of them?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The responsibilities of assistant headteachers do vary in different schools, as some have their own job descriptions. They usually assist the Headteacher in leading and managing the school and they usually carry on with normal responsibilities of a class teacher.

    This is nothing new. Some schools don't have them but it is not a new role made up for this bill.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. While I like the premise, a complete change in management is likely to cause sufficient short-term dysfunction in a school that it won't be able to improve, and will likely deteriorate, by the next review - and by the way, frequency of review isn't defined in the Bill, which seems like a massive omission.

    Furthermore, I'm not a big fan of access quotas generally; instead, I'd quite like it to be required to take into account background in assessing ability.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Give me one system of assessing ability for which availability of additional help has no influence, even the exams that are allegedly impossible to prepare for are easy to prepare for.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why should I? I was not making an argument that presupposed such a system existed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    So presumably you think the current selection tests are completely accurate measures of ability that are unaffected by the wealth of the family a child comes from?
    They're not perfect. But unfortunately without the proper attention, we would never be able to develop the selection methods for grammar schools (which btw don't have to be tests). Or we can choose to have GCSE onwards only grammar schools, where we have a bit more information on students. Yet, most lefties seem to just want to shut down the idea of grammar schools because of their sad memories of the tripartite system.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    It is happening IRL and it works in most cases, schools do end up improving with new management. It wouldn't help a failing school improve if they kept their failing management, so they must be replaced.

    I'm also pretty sure that some people in this house that I have had debates with did mention that if teachers are rubbish they should be sacked, so it would surprise me if they are against sacking rubbish management responsible for the failure of their own school.

    Glad you support it!
    I would change it so that you give the schools some time after they've received the additional funding and then only sack them if the school doesn't improve. It might turn out that the management was doing a good job (or the best they could with what they had) but funds were just too stretched. Seems a more sensible approach than immediately sacking the staff and raising funding at the same time. How would you know that any improvements were from the new funds or the new staff?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. While I like the premise, a complete change in management is likely to cause sufficient short-term dysfunction in a school that it won't be able to improve, and will likely deteriorate, by the next review - and by the way, frequency of review isn't defined in the Bill, which seems like a massive omission.
    But keeping a failing management won't help improve a failing school... it's better we do something about it than do nothing.

    And also, if you mean by review you mean inspections - then this doesn't need to be defined because the Education Quality Act specifies when the next inspection should be for schools requiring improvement:

    (2) Organisations that fall within Inadequate will have 18 months to improve before a re-inspection. If recommendations and guidelines have not been met, the school shall enter Special Measures.
    EDIT: Just read Ray's response, I can see the issue now.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    The responsibilities of assistant headteachers do vary in different schools, as some have their own job descriptions. They usually assist the Headteacher in leading and managing the school and they usually carry on with normal responsibilities of a class teacher.

    This is nothing new. Some schools don't have them but it is not a new role made up for this bill.
    My point was not that it was made up for the bill but is a stupid title, and doing some reading it really does look like a job title that makes you look more important than you are.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Why should I? I was not making an argument that presupposed such a system existed.
    Given your criticism seems to be the impact of money on results we need to either establish that for any meaningful assessment this is the case, in which case it's an irrelevance, or that there is an alternative, which you seem to agree there is not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I would change it so that you give the schools some time after they've received the additional funding and then only sack them if the school doesn't improve. It might turn out that the management was doing a good job (or the best they could with what they had) but funds were just too stretched. Seems a more sensible approach than immediately sacking the staff and raising funding at the same time. How would you know that any improvements were from the new funds or the new staff?
    That's a fair point raised. I think 18 months is enough time to see if a school has improved with the increased funding.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    They're not perfect. But unfortunately without the proper attention, we would never be able to develop the selection methods for grammar schools (which btw don't have to be tests). Or we can choose to have GCSE onwards only grammar schools, where we have a bit more information on students. Yet, most lefties seem to just want to shut down the idea of grammar schools because of their sad memories of the tripartite system.
    I think GCSE onwards grammar schools are a much better idea and a fair compromise between abolition and expansion of the grammar school system. That said, I don't know why you're bringing up 'lefties' wanting to abolish grammar schools when that's not part of this bill or really relevant to whether one supports the suggested quota or not. At 11 years old a tutored pupil who's parents have time to go through papers with him will beat an untutored pupil who's parents are working all hours desperately trying to keep everyone fed and clothed. I suspect this effect is much less pronounced by the time students ar 16, though if anyone's up-to-date with the research they can correct me. It is very, very unfair to say that one is stupider than the other - indeed I have seen kids who got tutored to pass the 11+ struggle once they got in. Frankly, the quota is one of the best parts of this bill seeing as social mobility is one of the main arguments made in favour of grammar schools by those who support them.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    My point was not that it was made up for the bill but is a stupid title, and doing some reading it really does look like a job title that makes you look more important than you are.
    There's not much that can be done except to make a bill that maybe gets rid of assistant heads? Because arguing whether an assistant head is a stupid job or not isn't really the purpose of the bill lol - I hope you're not opposing it because of that...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    But keeping a failing management won't help improve a failing school... it's better we do something about it than do nothing.

    And also, if you mean by review you mean inspections - then this doesn't need to be defined because the Education Quality Act specifies when the next inspection should be for schools requiring improvement:
    Is this done through existing OFSTED inspections? If so, that needs stating.

    With regards to the management, I believe a more appropriate mechanism is a detailed review of their ability if the condition is met. Getting rid of the entirety of the senior management throws literally any organisation into turmoil. If you replaced the entire management of a public company with a falling stock price, would you expect the stock market to react positively?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Given your criticism seems to be the impact of money on results we need to either establish that for any meaningful assessment this is the case, in which case it's an irrelevance, or that there is an alternative, which you seem to agree there is not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Lol, there's obviously an alternative. The Tories have written it up into the bill before us.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    That's a fair point raised. I think 18 months is enough time to see if a school has improved with the increased funding.
    I think 2 full school years would be an easier way to break it up. Anyways, the staff replacement issue is my only note. I'm sure the second reading will be one I'll happily vote for.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Unless you think we're all going to vote against just cos it's a tory bill.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Is this done through existing OFSTED inspections? If so, that needs stating.

    With regards to the management, I believe a more appropriate mechanism is a detailed review of their ability if the condition is met. Getting rid of the entirety of the senior management throws literally any organisation into turmoil. If you replaced the entire management of a public company with a falling stock price, would you expect the stock market to react positively?
    As stated to Ray, this is a fair point. Because it is requiring improvement, 18 months later after getting their first Inadequate, they should have another inspection (and I don't think Ofsted exists on TSRland but the Education Quality Commission (correct me if wrong)). If they get another inadequate, then there's a motive to remove and replace them.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I think GCSE onwards grammar schools are a much better idea and a fair compromise between abolition and expansion of the grammar school system. That said, I don't know why you're bringing up 'lefties' wanting to abolish grammar schools when that's not part of this bill or really relevant to whether one supports the suggested quota or not. At 11 years old a tutored pupil who's parents have time to go through papers with him will beat an untutored pupil who's parents are working all hours desperately trying to keep everyone fed and clothed. I suspect this effect is much less pronounced by the time students ar 16, though if anyone's up-to-date with the research they can correct me. It is very, very unfair to say that one is stupider than the other - indeed I have seen kids who got tutored to pass the 11+ struggle once they got in. Frankly, the quota is one of the best parts of this bill seeing as social mobility is one of the main arguments made in favour of grammar schools by those who support them.
    Why would the disparity be any less at 16, or 14. Do we not keep hearing about tutoring for GCSEs and A levels? What would really distinguish the 11 plus for a "14 plus", shall we call it for simplicity sake, other than the age at which it is taken and therefore the baseline standard to accommodate this? If you're going to see a reduced effect of tutoring it would likely be when the actual understanding of the core ideas is being tested in an abstract way, but that could just as easily worsen the problem given the tutoring will be based on how it gets applied in the exam, because it will almost certainly be the same things every time just put together in a different way.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I think GCSE onwards grammar schools are a much better idea and a fair compromise between abolition and expansion of the grammar school system. That said, I don't know why you're bringing up 'lefties' wanting to abolish grammar schools when that's not part of this bill or really relevant to whether one supports the suggested quota or not. At 11 years old a tutored pupil who's parents have time to go through papers with him will beat an untutored pupil who's parents are working all hours desperately trying to keep everyone fed and clothed. I suspect this effect is much less pronounced by the time students ar 16, though if anyone's up-to-date with the research they can correct me. It is very, very unfair to say that one is stupider than the other - indeed I have seen kids who got tutored to pass the 11+ struggle once they got in. Frankly, the quota is one of the best parts of this bill seeing as social mobility is one of the main arguments made in favour of grammar schools by those who support them.
    I'm in a grammar school. And I wasn't tutored. These papers really can't be taught. If you've done IQ tests, they're like that. imho, a lot of tutoring is just a convuluted scam. Tutoring may give you hints, or tips on how to tackle questions, but really the skills can't be taught. I haven't seen a clear study showing how tutoring helps 11+, merely assumptions based on correlations based on how rich the family is and success in 11+. But even in all exams. From University exams, to GCSEs to A Levels, tutoring is available to richer parents. Should we have a lower pass mark for GCSEs for students on FSM? Many 11+ exams also test English and Maths skills, which again can be tutored.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I think 2 full school years would be an easier way to break it up. Anyways, the staff replacement issue is my only note. I'm sure the second reading will be one I'll happily vote for.

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Unless you think we're all going to vote against just cos it's a tory bill.

    Ah you see, in the Education Quality Act they would have an inspection 18 months after getting inadequate to see if they improved... so there's a bit of a problem with putting 2 years to improve in this bill because that would conflict with the 18 month time in that Act...

    Spoiler:
    Show

    I sincerely hope not... it really did look suspicious, not only to me!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    As stated to Ray, this is a fair point. Because it is requiring improvement, 18 months later after getting their first Inadequate, they should have another inspection (and I don't think Ofsted exists on TSRland but the Education Quality Commission (correct me if wrong)). If they get another inadequate, then there's a motive to remove and replace them.
    There is a motive but it would still undoubtedly make things worse. You've identified there is a problem without identifying what the problem is. This 'solution' is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    There is a motive but it would still undoubtedly make things worse. You've identified there is a problem without identifying what the problem is. This 'solution' is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    No. As aforementioned, in most cases in real life it does work to replace failing management (obviously after some time to allow them to improve).
    Spoiler:
    Show



    Ain't that an oxymoron?... (edit: lol nvm)

 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 18, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.