| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Welcome to Mock Parliament. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Literacy and Numeracy Bill | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 2 2006, 07:00 PM (80 Views) | |
| miniyoda008 | Nov 2 2006, 07:00 PM Post #1 |
|
Master of the Force
![]()
|
Pupils in years 7 and 11 will be required to take tests in basic literacy and numeracy. Pupils who fail to achieve the expected grade in year 7 will be required to take extra lessons. Pupils who meet the expected level, but are still quite far off the average, will be encouraged to receive this extra teaching as well, although this will not be compulsory. Pupils who fail to achieve the expected grade in year 11 will be encouraged to take further classes, either at a school or a college, although again this will nto be compulsory. The tests will comprise of questions on areas relevant to modern day life. These will iinclude working otu finances in numeracy, and being able to fill in forms correctly in literacy. These will ensure that the literacy and numeracy skills learnt will be transferrable to the real world. The money to cover this will come from the extra taxation earnt due to the Enterprise Grants Bill. |
![]() |
|
| Boohistory | Nov 2 2006, 07:02 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Minister for Awesome
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sounds good! |
![]() |
|
| Admin | Nov 2 2006, 10:05 PM Post #3 |
|
Admin
![]()
|
So now you're for standardised national tests? U-Turn Alert!!!! That said, I'll probably support it. |
![]() |
|
| miniyoda008 | Nov 3 2006, 04:21 PM Post #4 |
|
Master of the Force
![]()
|
I only abolished the unnessecary ones. These are necessary to make some way of knowing what the actual standards are in these areas, and to try and rectify any problems. |
![]() |
|
| HRH King Zog II | Nov 3 2006, 07:41 PM Post #5 |
|
Waffler of the House of Boreds
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Fail All averages suffer from the fatal flaw that 50% of people are below them Thus i propose you look for better assesment methods |
![]() |
|
| Admin | Nov 3 2006, 08:05 PM Post #6 |
|
Admin
![]()
|
I hate to say this, but he has a point... It's too late too change it though, I'm putting it to a vote. |
![]() |
|
| Sheepling | Nov 3 2006, 10:12 PM Post #7 |
|
SURVIVOR!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is the most brilliant observation ever made. |
![]() |
|
| eriatarka1 | Nov 3 2006, 10:58 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Home Secretary
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, yet still the bill is sensible - the average attained will then need to be leapfrogged by those below it, making the average prior to the exams the bottom AFTER the exams. Yes from me! |
![]() |
|
| miniyoda008 | Nov 4 2006, 10:09 AM Post #9 |
|
Master of the Force
![]()
|
I think you'll find that you're all talking absolute nonsense. Only the median is guaranteed to have 50% above and below - all other averages can have varying percentages, and this average is referring to the mean. Also, I only referred to people quite a way off the average, which is nowhere near 50%. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Legislation · Next Topic » |










![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)


7:16 PM Jul 11