You couldn't make it up
James Forsyth 10:31am
Like Stephen, I couldn’t quite believe it when I read that children now receive marks in English GCSE for writing ‘F*** off’. The explanation from Peter Buckroyd, chief examiner of English for the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, that writing down this expletive ‘does show some very basic skills we are looking for’ does make one think that it must be April 1st. One imagines children up and down the land writing ‘F*** off’ on their homework and responding to any objection from their teachers with the line ‘you get a mark for it.’
PS For contrast, try answering some of the questions from the old 11-plus. The 11-plus might not have been the best possible system but it certainly seems preferable to one where children get marks for swearing.
Previous
Comments
Disraeli's Ghost
June 30th, 2008 11:12amUnf**Ing believable
CS
June 30th, 2008 11:16amHmmmm 7/8 but then I did guess that 23 was the odd number out. Anyone know why?
As for the unspoken assumption that "galloped" is necessarily slower than "raced", I protest.
antifrank
June 30th, 2008 12:37pmI was most worried about the following statement indirectly quoted from Mr Buckroyd in the Times piece:
"He also acknowledged that the language was inappropriate – but added that using the construction “different to” would also be inappropriate language."
He is using the word "inappropriate" in two different ways in that excerpt. In the second example, the use is a grammatical awkwardness. In the first, it is an abusive non-response. These are quite different types of inappropriateness, and should not be categorised together. Either Mr Buckroyd does not realise that these do not belong in a single category or he is deliberately trying to elide two unrelated things together. Either way, this confusion casts doubt on his suitability to carry out the allotted role.
John
June 30th, 2008 12:39pmHello CS,
The difference between one number and the next decreases by one as you go along. So...
9-1 = 8
16-9 = 7
22-16 = 6
27-22 = 5 etc etc
That 22 was a 23 in the test, so it doesn't fit in with the sequence.
Draughtsman
June 30th, 2008 12:41pmCS - 23 should have been 22 so the difference between each pair of numbers decreases by one each time eg 9-1=8 16-9=7 so 22-16 gives 6 and 27-22 gives 5 etc.
Travis Bickle
June 30th, 2008 12:50pmCS - the reason 23 is wrong is that gap between numbers increases by one each time i.e. 1-9 =8, 9-16 =7 etc , the correct number in sequence should have been 22.
Ann
June 30th, 2008 1:08pmStorm in a teacup from people who don't understand the GCSE system or how papers are marked. Getting (say) 5 marks for spelling does not mean that the candidate gets the other 95 marks. S/he would still fail if that's all they wrote.
cuffleyburgers
June 30th, 2008 4:26pmMy Nephew recently scored full marks in his eleven plus and we are all very proud of him, I never had the chance to try myself until now, and am gratified to have managed the same.
Award myself a large pat on the back, G&T and a what might have been...