I end this small run of blog posts with the question posed by Professor Brian Boyd at the beginning of our evening: Do we want to close the achievement gap? We know we can close the gap. It’s been done or almost been done before in Scottish education, but the answers have been ignored as they pass us by. The simple clue is this: poverty is single biggest predictor of achievement, and according to research (Hammonds sic, reference required), aged 10, a child living in poverty is 60% less likely to get to university. Boyd borrowed from his own mother’s report card to ask us what kind of education we desire. Is it the academic success at all costs route, or is there another option we need to value as much, if not more? His mother’s report card, one that prevented her from becoming a secondary school pupil in Glasgow, is filled with G and FG, until the last point: Character and conduct - excellent. What kind of pupils do we want to develop in Scotland? What do we value in our assessment system? Opening up opportunity for all is a tough game to play when the examination system rewards only certain types of behaviour, few of them related to what the Curriculum for Excellence says we stand for. In his own small community in East Kilbride, three secondary schools enter a period of meltdown as the local rag sets about creating its own local league table of performance, with those three ‘teams’ in competition for the top spot (or at least not the bottom one). Therefore, we must stop basing “the gap” largely on attainment. First of all, Boyd would like us to remove the traditional, and non-sensical academic/vocational divide. Is the law or medicine degree we value not vocational? (Are all General Practitioners not Plumbers, as Dr Murray on the panel suggests?) Question: Why is a student 60% less likely to get to a university? Options: - Character   - Conduct   - not enough information   - Poverty === The correct answer is
Poverty

I sure have Shannon. But, not for very long! My apologies as I need to give a little back story first. Please bear with. I first came to the DC/NOVA area via the US Army. It had a very small town feel. I was amazed no traffic, extremely affordable housing market, friendly, helpful and caring people and trees as far as the eyes could see. It was top 3 places I had lived in this country. After the Tech boom peaked near 2000 and after 9/11 the flood gates opened and people spilled in from all over the Earth for the bountiful opportunities. The housing market skyrocketed and people were tripling++ the values of their homes. It is now home to some of the wealthiest counties in the US. Why is this all relevant? All the prosperity brought greed, selfishness and gluttony to a whole new level. People had massive disposable income they had never had before. Nothing is too grossly indulgent anymore and they throw away vast amounts of money trying to one up the last kids party without giving a thought to what a kid needs or the fact they are teaching kids that over indulgence is okay. Now, my son and I were invited to a birthday party for this FIVE year old. The sole Parent had rented the club house, surrounding grounds and pool area of a local country club. I would estimate around 30 kids x 1.5 adults. It was catered with both adult and children's foods and beverages, including Wine and Champagne (few here seem able or willing to parent without it). A company was hired to bring in 6 industrial fair/carnival type rides. A mini Ferris Wheel and a mini Roller Coaster included. She even had hired help that distributed Party Bags/Swag Bags that included cologne/perfume for the kids. I don't think my jaw closed the entire time we were there. This was for a FIVE year old! Could you believe she talks about the daughters poor behavior frequently? My Son asked to leave after around 20 mins, Question: What party did the narrator get invited to? Options: - An old persons party   - A champagne party   - not enough information   - A young persons party === The correct answer is
A young persons party

*Question*
For a moment, Paul wasn't even sure who had walked into the room. Chloe had totally transformed herself since he'd last seen her. She wore a wig for starters, and a very good one. It was light brown and shoulder length. It looked so natural that if he didn't know she had much shorter hair, he would have guessed that she had dyed it. But it was the outfit that made the change. She wore a well-tailored, very professional, gray woman's skirt/blazer combo with a yellow silk blouse. Her wrist sported what looked to Paul's uneducated eye like an expensive and fashionable gold lady's watch from which he thought he detected a glint of diamond. In short, she looked just like the high priced lawyer she was supposed to be. She was certainly the best-dressed person in the room. Chloe reached across the table to shake Greg's hand, stretching forward as she did so. Paul watched Greg glance down at her cleavage while he shook her hand. "I'm Rachel Roth, here on behalf of Mr. Paul Reynolds." "Hi," said Greg. "I'm Greg Driscol, and this is..." "I know the rogues gallery here," said Chloe cutting Greg off and looking around at the assembled board members. "I've learned all about you gentlemen." Marie stood up and shook Chloe's hand. "Marie Cooper, from Johnson, Myers, and Wick," she said. "Nice to meet you," she said. "Ok, we've got the intros down, shall we get on with the dirty business?" "Um, sure," Greg said as he sat back down. "I was just about to turn things over to Marie." The plan was now in action, and so far so good. But Paul knew that this was a crucial moment. Chloe didn't really know the law - just a few points that her friend had helped her out with. She couldn't let the real lawyer take over the meeting. Her dramatic, unexpected entrance had them off guard, and Paul hoped she seized the moment and pressed on. Question: Who came on behalf of Mr. Reynolds? Options: - not enough information   - Chloe   - Paul   - Rachel === The correct answer is
**Answer**

Rachel