Single Integrated Plan – Is It ‘Incredibly Readable’ ?

Home Forums Wrexham.com Forums Wrexham Forum Single Integrated Plan – Is It ‘Incredibly Readable’ ?

  • Author
    Posts
  • #57389

    wxm
    Participant

    You are one of the 50!

    #57376

    Welsh Dresser
    Participant

    Yikes! Not me unless you want an incoherent gibbering wreck as a spokesperson. I go to pieces if someone looks over my shoulder in work. I do not cope well with speaking in public.

    #57390

    wxm
    Participant

    Haha, I think that is the very point. Most of us probably don’t like or want to speak in public, it just happens to be one key skill, if not the key skill, to get elected.

    The debate in these forums has demonstrated to me that what the real community want are a group of down to earth, bright, and caring Wrexhamites to put Wrexham on the right track by governing the Council with a clear agenda, and a set of clear objectives.

    Thinking about it, its not about standing on a platform and speaking in public, its about approving an excellent plan drawn up by experienced council officers, and then making sure that plan is delivered. The 50 or so that put themselves up for election could make clear in the document put forward to the community that we’re not all David Lloyd George – but standing to put education, roads, jobs, the town, on the right path.

    It sounds as if Wrexham needs a fresh start!

    #57391

    wxm
    Participant

    This forum, rightly critiques, the Single Integrated Plan. The majority conclusion by far, is likely to be, that the plan is not of any use to the community.

    We all have experiences of single integrated plans in our lives somewhere, whether large or small plans, in work or outside interests, living in different communities.

    This plan is as bizarre as the budget, or spending survey, that the Council have issued. Why are the people of Wrexham not getting better?

    #57366
    Alunh
    Alunh
    Participant

    @thewayneinspain 6416 wrote:

    Studied it during my A levels and my psychology degree.

    basic stuff on it…
    Education Act 1944 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The butler act was a written by a Tory education minister during the middle of the second world war when people had other things to worry about.

    In context of a war when many kids weren’t even with their parents, it had its purpose as also during the country rebuild. But the data that supported it was flawed and perhaps even faked.

    I think it’s a fundamental human right to be given an equal chance as anyone else to succeed in life.

    Being judged at 11 whether you’re academic enough to learn a language like latin or be consigned to the scrap heap/physical labour job market is wrong. Because if you are from a poor area, it would have been less likely you would have got the schooling/teachers to have passed the 11 plus.

    Everyone deserves equality. Society deserves equality and the best people for the jobs. I find the butler act to be abhorrent and steeped in inequality..

    Odd how someone who has studied Psychology would draw conclusions like this. The Butler Act was actually aimed at producing some sort of equality of outcome by offering students a tailored education to fit their needs and aptitudes. Putting students in a classroom and exposing them all equally to the same curriculum is the highest form of torture. All it breeds is failure. One component of the class is unable to cope with the standards of lesson offered whilst another is bored by the simplicity of it all. The result of this is to hold back working class children beyond anything that Butler might have done. One result of abandoning Butler completely has been the suspension of social mobility as all the evidence (that you claim to cherish) has shown.

    Equality of educational input does not breed equality of outcome or of opportunity. As a simple analogy, it would be foolish to put an unskilled footballer in the same skills set as (say) Paul Scholes and Suarez. All this would do is cause Scholes and Suarez to yawn for the universe whilst a donkey like me would have a complex a mile wide. To get some sort of equality, certainly some sort of equality of outcome, the answer is to tailor the education to the abilities and aptitudes on display.
    Now that’s just common sense

    #57359
    Alunh;6667 wrote:
    Odd how someone who has studied Psychology would draw conclusions like this. The Butler Act was actually aimed at producing some sort of equality of outcome by offering students a tailored education to fit their needs and aptitudes. Putting students in a classroom and exposing them all equally to the same curriculum is the highest form of torture. All it breeds is failure. One component of the class is unable to cope with the standards of lesson offered whilst another is bored by the simplicity of it all. The result of this is to hold back working class children beyond anything that Butler might have done. One result of abandoning Butler completely has been the suspension of social mobility as all the evidence (that you claim to cherish) has shown.

    Equality of educational input does not breed equality of outcome or of opportunity. As a simple analogy, it would be foolish to put an unskilled footballer in the same skills set as (say) Paul Scholes and Suarez. All this would do is cause Scholes and Suarez to yawn for the universe whilst a donkey like me would have a complex a mile wide. To get some sort of equality, certainly some sort of equality of outcome, the answer is to tailor the education to the abilities and aptitudes on display.
    Now that’s just common sense

    everyone should be given the same shot at life… it’s as simple as that. the grammar system did not, and would seem that the education system in parts of wrexham does not as well.

    #57367
    Alunh
    Alunh
    Participant

    ……..on this subject Wayne, it would be helpful if you move beyond these clichés about equality and define your terms. Karl Marx, who I think most people might consider left-wing, actually refined his argument about equality so that the idea of needs and abilities could be factored in. Accordingly, equality as some sort of static entity was ditched and the nuanced idea that an able bodied person might be expected to work harder than a disabled person or that a healthy person might need less from the NHS than an unhealthy person still equated with equality. Following this logic, I would like you to explain whether you believe students should:

    1. Go to school at the age of 5 and be offered an equality of opportunity at school. This might mean that students with some sort of talent advanced at different rates in different subjects because they had a greater aptitude or ability in a subject or a range of subjects.

    2. Go to school at the age of 5 and be offered an equal curriculum taught at an equal pace within mixed ability classrooms providing no advantage to anyone.

    3. Go to school at the age of 5 with the target being to put students at a position of equal life opportunity at the age of 18 albeit discovering the rich variety in student possibilities that exist.

    All of these broad aspects of ‘equality’ have hugely differing educational implications. Sadly the equality that you have referenced probably has produced the direst outcomes of all because it has led to lcd education. Lcd=lowest common denominator

    #57377

    Welsh Dresser
    Participant

    With regards to point 2. My brother was a very quick learner in primary school. He finished his work before anyone else and then he was often bored as he waited for the others to finish. He would distract the others which was unfair to them. The teacher used to send him on errands around the school just to give the rest of the class a fair chance.

    #57360

    AlunH, in reply to karl marx remark there is no need to get a sixth form lecture. ;)

    Nobody should be evaluated at 11 on tests that are only aimed at middle class south east english kids, every child should be assessed on an ongoing basis and development should be progressed from that.

    Clearly that won’t happen in a ‘super’ school because there are too many pupils for teachers to assess and nor is their time to give the pupils the feedback they deserve.

    #57368
    Alunh
    Alunh
    Participant

    @thewayneinspain 6677 wrote:

    AlunH, in reply to karl marx remark there is no need to get a sixth form lecture. ;)

    Nobody should be evaluated at 11 on tests that are only aimed at middle class south east english kids, every child should be assessed on an ongoing basis and development should be progressed from that.

    Clearly that won’t happen in a ‘super’ school because there are too many pupils for teachers to assess and nor is their time to give the pupils the feedback they deserve.

    Hi Wayne. Don’t confuse my arguing style with a VIth form lecture, though as you already know, I have given these to people. I just get hacked off with the idea that Butler was some sort of exercise in elitism designed by some post aristocratic tory types from the shires intent on perpetuating some archaic class system.

    You say that nobody should be evaluated at 11 on tests that are only “aimed at middle class south east English kids”. What does this actually mean? I did the 11 plus in St George Primary school as the son of a cattle-food salesman and went to St Asaph Grammar school. I hardly think I fit the stereotype. Secondly, you presume that supporters of Butler support the 11 plus. I actually don’t and believe in far more subtle methods of evaluating children’s needs and dispositions. The 11+ was very crude and arbitrary. Thirdly, you seem to imply that measuring a child’s progress has some worrying connotation. How do you think that either pupil or institution progress might be measured?

    If truth be told, Butler had much to offer. It’s a cop out to pretend that offering what appears equal actually will lead to equality. Throwing the same education at children with multi-variable abilities is a fruitless exercise for the whole class. Clywedog was (hopely not is) a basket case example of Comprehensive principles producing inverse effects for a generation of Wrexham kids, pretending that exposing pupils equally to a common learning experience would produce equality and high educational standards. Guff

Content is user generated and is not moderated before posting. All content is viewed and used by you at your own risk and Wrexham.com does not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information displayed. The views expressed on these Forums and social media are those of the individual contributors.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.