Unions are urging a cut in tests on times tables and grammar at primary schools. The Mail has more.
Ministers are facing pressure to make the compulsory basic maths checks in Year Four optional as they can be a “waste of time”.
The most difficult grammar questions would also be removed from year six SATs, under the ideas.
The move – reportedly being put to Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson as part of a review – would effectively roll back the Tory Government’s push for a tough elementary curriculum.
Former Schools Minister Nick Gibb warned it would be a “retrograde step” and “damage the life chances of the next generation of young people”. …
Mr. Gibb said: “All the evidence is that children knowing their times tables by heart is an essential precondition for more sophisticated mathematics, particularly things like simplifying equations and algebra.
“It would be a huge mistake to abolish a very simple computer-based test which actually children enjoy doing.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“One of the issues which should have been picked up is these tests work a lot less well in people who are asymptomatic … “
And yet no such fuss has been made about PCR testing and its inaccuracies.
Isn’t there a massive illogicality here regarding broader issue of the general futility of mass testing and ‘asymptomatic’ positives? Or am I missing something.
What you’re seeing is a lot of confirmation bias which happens when the “gold standard” test is flawed.
As in: “The positive result on lateral flow has to be correct because it was confirmed as positive by PCR”
I read somewhere that in the actual design of lateral flow they use PCR to confirm its validity. So in tbe manufacturing of it, PCR is used as a control.
If that is true it adds another layer of fog
Yes, its the PCR test validity that has to be destroyed, its keeping this shit-show alive.
Check out Dr Reiner Feullmich Crimes Against Humanity.
One gets the impression that the author would like to promote PCR over Lateral Flow testing. The claims around asymptomatic transmission are the basis for lockdown. The belief that 33% of the population is walking around feeling perfectly healthy but spreading the disease is outrageous. It must be debunked.
Likely because the lateral flow process cannot be as easily scammed as the PCR process and its made up diagnostic criteria.
I refer to Will Jones’s article above – item 2. The whole lot is a massive scam, operating as a source of cash for some.
I think the answers to my rhetorical question show that we’ve all clocked the scam: PCR testing is more likely to allow manipulation for the next panic, where as LFT might damp it down.
The strategy is childishly transparent, and yet people will fall for it.
Of course, the next casedemic will blow the story of vaccine efficacy out of the water – but 2+2=1 will be the public conclusion.
Of course the truth is that it is the PCR tests that are wildly inaccurate, not the lateral flow tests.
The response from Dr Hopkins sums up the mindset of this government. Referring to highly infectious asymptomatic people, it’s the same tired discredited nonsense every day. I just don’t understand why?
I watched a panel of scientists at Birminghan Uni in ‘Mapping the Virus.’ One of them expressed confidence in LF tests because there were fewer infections among people having them regularly than those testing for the first time. I’m sure the Uni will post this hour and a quarter seminar. It’s worth watching as these are research scientists superior to Whitty & Vallance. They also seem obsessed by variants-as were questioners, and oblivious to the cots of NPI’s or their (in)effectiveness.
Worth reading Richard Tice’s article in the Conservative Woman
https://conservativewoman.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6378530ea3dde9537bada99f7&id=6ca47b21d4&e=b567db0fed
Did Mike Yeadon not say months ago that the only way out of this whole thing is to stop mass testing?