The table shows the Proportions of Pupils Attending Four Secondary School Types Between Between 2000 and 2009 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.
The table illustrates the percentage of school children attending four different types of secondary school from 2000 to 2009. It is evident that the specialist, grammar and voluntary-controlled schools experienced declines in numbers of pupils, whereas the community schools became the most important providers of secondary school education during the same period.
To begin, the proportion in voluntary-controlled schools fell from just over half to only 20% or one fifth from 2000 to 2009. Similarly, the relative number of children in grammar schools -- just under one quarter -- dropped by half in the same period. As for the specialist schools, the relatively small percentage of pupils attending this type of school (12%) also fell, although not significantly.
However, while the other three types of school declined in importance, the opposite was true in the case of community schools. In fact, while only a small minority of 12% were educated in these schools in 2000, this figure increased to well over half of all pupils during the following nine years.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-03 | linhx2 | 100 | view |
| 2022-08-15 | eyraen | 67 | view |
| 2022-07-23 | tarunballa | view | |
| 2022-07-23 | tarunballa | view | |
| 2022-03-22 | khanhkhanhlhp | 84 | view |
- The pie chart shows the amount of money that a children s charity located in the USA spent and received in one year Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
- This diagram demonstrates the process of making bricks that used for the building industry 56
- Life cycle and anatomy of a lady bird 44
- The table shows the Proportions of Pupils Attending Four Secondary School Types Between Between 2000 and 2009 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 87
- The diagram below illustrates how glass is recycled Summarie the information by selecting and reporting the main features and mak Connlparills whiere relevant
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, second, similarly, so, well, whereas, while, as for, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 7.0 43% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 33.7804878049 104% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 900.0 965.302439024 93% => OK
No of words: 168.0 196.424390244 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35714285714 4.92477711251 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.60020574368 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08852099519 2.65546596893 116% => OK
Unique words: 99.0 106.607317073 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.589285714286 0.547539520022 108% => OK
syllable_count: 266.4 283.868780488 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.07073170732 374% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8539914688 43.030603864 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.571428571 112.824112599 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 22.9334400587 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.2857142857 5.23603664747 216% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204189546062 0.215688989381 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108183980541 0.103423049105 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0847286973714 0.0843802449381 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145840065411 0.15604864568 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0567294972702 0.0819641961636 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.2329268293 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 61.2550243902 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.3012195122 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 11.4140731707 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.06136585366 101% => OK
difficult_words: 35.0 40.7170731707 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.4329268293 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.