You are here:  Home Blog
AE Tuition Blog
Can We Assess Intelligence Accurately?
Written by Stephen Curran   
Wednesday, 23 January 2013 00:28
(10 votes)

I start with a story: Inchkeith Island, in Scotland was the site of one of the most bizarre linguistic and educational experiments in history. According to the historian Robert Lindsay, in 1493 King James VI had a deaf and dumb woman and her two infants transported to the island. He ordered they be kept in solitary confinement and away from all human communication until the normal age of speech. He believed he would discover man’s original language by doing this. He hoped they would automatically begin to speak Aramaic – the language of Jesus. The results are the subject of legend but Sir Walter Scott says the likely outcomes was they only learned to ‘scream like their dumb nurse, or bleat like the goats and the sheep on the island.’

This simple story illustrates a very important point about intelligence and learning – it is difficult to make a clear division between what is innate intelligence (IQ) – what a person’s capacity for intellectual development is, as opposed to acquired intelligence (AQ) - what a person can gain through study and exposure to educational opportunity. In other words a person must learn to read and speak before they can do any form of testing. This is further complicated by the fact that it is difficult to devise tests for the many forms of intelligence, even if there is some agreement about what these might be, and there is no such agreement.

This is why the claims that some 11+ monitoring and evaluation organizations are now making about their tests being ‘prep-proof’ in the widest sense of the word are highly suspect. Educational opportunity, social background, motivation and hard work and thorough preparation will affect the results of any form of testing. Working out how bright or able children are from any battery of tests, no matter how cleverly devised they are, is always flawed. However, once this fact is accepted we can see testing in a more positive and helpful light. A range of verbal, non-verbal, mathematical and literacy-based tests can give some idea of a child’s potential and ability level as long as it is not seen as full proof.

Add a comment
 
Prep Resistant 11+ Tests?
Written by Stephen Curran   
Saturday, 12 January 2013 11:02
(16 votes)

CEM (Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring) have claimed they are producing tests that are ‘resistant to prepping’. In my opinion – there is no such thing! There are only so many things an eleven year old can be asked to do in an 11+ examination: verbal, non-verbal, numerical (Maths) or literacy (English - comprehension or writing). After all, a child cannot be asked to do ‘Martian’. The CEM tests are based on verbal, non-verbal, numerical and comprehension skills and all these aspects are tested in two 45-minute tests. There is nothing new in this.

In fact, is ‘there nothing new under the sun’, as one wise ancient writer said. This looks strangely like the old fashioned 11+ tests from the 1950s and 60s where children sat tests that were not subject specific but ranged across a number of skills (i.e. numeracy, verbal reasoning and literacy). The only aspect that is ‘new’ is that CEM are not producing practice papers for children to do outside the normal familiarization materials. The provision of practice test papers is a modern phenonmenon anyway, as I don’t think these were issued in the early days of grammar school tests.

Good teachers/tutors have never taught their children to do ‘tricks’ anyway and I firmly believe it is about educational level and not merely mastering test technique. It is odd that there is an objection to preparation too – after all we would find it very strange if people sat any other examination (e.g. GCSE, A’ Level or degree) without preparation. So I state plainly – there is no ‘prep-resistant’ test and sensible people will always prepare for a test if this test is a means to an end, whether it be a school place, a university or college place or some employment position.

Add a comment
 
The debacle over NFER 11+ Familiarisation Tests
Written by Stephen Curran   
Thursday, 10 June 2010 12:49
(31 votes)

Over last fifteen years 11+ NFER familiarisation tests in verbal reasoning, non-verbal reasoning, mathematics and English have been published under license by Nelson and more recently by Letts. The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) is the leading supplier of tests for 11+ examinations across the country. These particular familiarisation tests are invaluable as they are of very high quality and are similar to the ones used in the actual examinations. Tests of this quality are very hard to produce as it takes a great deal of research and background educational knowledge to create them. It also requires an enormous amount of checking and editing to ensure they are completely free of mistakes.

Recently, Letts were bought out by Harper Collins who pledged to continue the various publishing lines that were already in existence. However, with regard to these particular tests their policy seems very odd. They have not renewed the license or copyright agreement with NFER but instead they have used the original folders that contained these tests and placed their own tests inside them. These tests are probably of a lower quality as they are not authentic NFER tests and have not been subjected to the rigour that NFER put their assessment materials through before release. This debacle has sparked a court action as NFER are challenging the right of Harper-Collins to use the original folders and place their own tests in them. NFER have rightly complained that this will be very misleading and confusing for parents who wish buy genuine NFER test materials.

The publishing arm of NFER, Granada Learning Assessment (GL Assessment), have now decided to publish these tests in new folders with a revised cover design. The only problem is that GL Assessment is not that well known as a publisher to the general public as it usually only produces materials for direct sales to schools. Any parents wanting to buy official NFER papers will now have to ensure they are buying GL Assessment and not Harper-Collins material. This will be clearly marked on the outside of the new folders.

Tagged underGrammar SchoolsSecondary Schools
Add a comment
 
Political Hypocrisy over Grammar Schools
Written by Stephen Curran   
Sunday, 13 June 2010 22:40
(83 votes)

Most people do not know that Gordon Brown went to a grammar school? In fact, many successful Labour Party politicians were educated in grammar schools. They include Dennis Healey, Barbara Castle and Harold Wilson. It is ironic that the Labour government elected in 1945 introduced the tri-partite system of grammar, technical and secondary schools. Ellen Wilkinson, secretary of State for education in 1945 was very sceptical about mixed ability teaching due to her own experience of non-selective schooling in Manchester, "The top few pupils were intelligent and could mop up facts like blotting paper," she explained, "but we were made to wait for the rest of the huge classes ... We wanted to stretch our minds but we were merely a nuisance." (Quoted in ‘Austerity Britain 1945-48 - A World to Build’, by David Kynaston).

Even though Labour created the system that gave so many of its politicians the opportunity to succeed, it has, ironically, promoted mediocrity ever since. The comprehensive system is a failure because it functions on ‘selection by area’ and not ‘selection by ability’. Those of us in education know that testing regimes are not perfect but it is possible to create a more appropriate educational system if children’s abilities and talents are taken into account.

Now, we have a new government that is talking about ‘Free Schools’ and giving all schools the opportunity to become academies. However, there is one sticking point. Will the same mixed ability regime stay in place? If it does, we are just re-creating more comprehensive schools which will be called, ‘Free Schools’. Also, simply freeing up some cash from a local authority and changing a comprehensive’s name to an academy will not radically alter what goes on inside it. If this is all that is happening, it will mean that nothing has really changed, other than moving the pawns to a different position on the chess board.

A fundamental reform is required to ensure that children receive ‘education fit for purpose’. Those who are academically able need to be stretched to the highest level and those who are more vocationally or practically orientated need to receive training, along with being given the numeracy and literacy skills they require. Why should this be so controversial? Why does fairness have to mean watering everything down? Surely, it is about doing what is right and appropriate for each child and ensuring they are best equipped for the place they will occupy in our society. It is not second rate to follow a vocational option, if that is best suited for the child. What is second rate is to offer a non-academic child a highly academic pathway where they will struggle to fulfill their true potential.

Related Products:

Grammar Schools Appeals

Tagged underGrammar SchoolsSecondary Schools
Add a comment
 
A Hung Parliament will ‘Hang’ Education ‘Out to Dry’
Written by Stephen Curran   
Friday, 30 April 2010 14:33
(28 votes)

Unfortunately it isn’t just the economy that will suffer as a result of a hung parliament; educational reform will be paralysed. The current government has made many mistakes in educational policy over the last thirteen years but at least they have been able to make decisions. In the event of a hung parliament there will be intense arguments over what to do next.

Labour wish to continue knocking down bad comprehensive schools and replacing them with academies (new comprehensives). This seems to be inspired by old fashioned socialist dogma – replace the structure and it will change the people within it. The PFI (Private Finance Initiatives) that have been used to build these new schools increases the national debt exponentially and we will still be paying for them when they have become piles of rubble or look just as old fashioned as many of the glasshouses of the sixties. The old top-down approach, ‘nanny state’ solution is alive and well.

The Conservatives want to work from the ground up by giving parents the ability to set up their own schools. This policy is supposed to go hand in hand with continuing to support the academy programme, which is rather odd.  The idea of working from the ‘ground up’ is diametrically opposed to the Labour position, so this is a significant departure from current policies.

The Liberal Democrats want to allow money to follow the most problematic schools and more needy pupils.  The rest of their education policy includes no big ideas on how to solve the educational problems in Britain.

Education ‘Fit for Purpose’ is what Britain needs. Academically able children need a grammar school education and those who are more practically orientated need a vocational approach. This should replace the ‘selection by area’ approach of all comprehensives in this country, which favours the rich and discriminates against the poor.

As it is now likely there will be no overall majority, decision making on education will be paralysed. At least when there is a policy being implemented by a secure government you can oppose it, campaign against it and hopefully change it. Soon there will be nothing to oppose, just a bunch of squabbling politicians acting like schoolboys – A RECIPE FOR CHAOS! Hopefully, the electorate will realise this and vote in a majority government that can make decisions.

Add a comment
 
More Articles...
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 7