Profiles and tests for 11 yr olds, right or wrong?

[st333ve]

The UUP called for pupil profiles to be introduced alongside academic selection for 11 yr olds.

Unionists voted for a motion to keep a new form of academic selection.

While Britain and the Republic have long since moved on from such things, unionists want them to remain and added to.
I cant help but think that they are just opposing modern reforms on the basis that Nationalist parties want them, which shows a shocking disregard for the well being of the general public.

In my opinion an 11 yr old child is too young to be judged academically, and putting kids of this age into schools based on their deemed capability is unjust and socially damaging.

"The exams body, the CCEA is currently working on literacy and numeracy tests to use in the future.

The Ulster Unionist motion also called for the pupil profile compiled by primary schools to be used as part of the transfer to grammar schools. "

Caitriona Ruane said she would not bring in even a temporary form of selection.

More..
BBC NEWS | UK | Northern Ireland | Assembly backs 'interim 11-plus'

[imokyrok]

I would definitely advise against pigeon holing children at any stage. Children develop at different rates so much can effect test scores on a specific day. I'm a psychologist and know performance can vary considerably even in the same person. Aptitudinal tests are useful for guidance purposes and to assess services that would benefit the children but not to stream children. One example. My youngest sons teacher felt he had reading issue at age five and recommended testing. Since it would be inappropriate to do so myself I had him assessed by another psychologist who felt dyslexia was a possibility. By the following year the problem was gone and now at age 11 he's one of the best readers in the class. He just found the original teacher intimidating.

[ang]

Much too soon for this sort of assessment. My daughter always had terrible problems during tests. Yet she was always in the top 5 in class throughout the year. These sorts of tests cause terrible anguish for children of that age.

[Laoi]

The unionists opposed the introduction of the 11+ in the 1940's after the Butler education act was passed at Westminister in 1944. In more recent times they have resisted its replacement by selection at 14. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

By the 1960's it was obvious that the 11+ was deeply flawed. Not only did it cause great stress to all the chn. involved, it left deep, life-long psychological scars on those who 'failed' and had/have to go to different schools than their friends and relatives who 'passed'. On top of that, it was not accurate in what it was meant to measure. Many children who did not pass at 11 later went on to university and were very successful in their chosen careers.

The Grammar School establishment are opposed to change through a mixture of reasons ranging from snobbery to politics to ignorance and self interest.

[longmarch]

I would hope the arguement is based solely on the best interests of our children and not on anything at all to do with Unionism or Nationalism....

Its too early to be judged and i'm no fan of the 11 plus