Changing the Examinations System
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the RSA, has written a very thought provoking
blog. He makes excellent points about Mr Gove’s latest idea to change the examination system from modular exams to terminal exams. That Mr Gove’s proposals are risky and untested.
Matthew questions the concept that making the hurdles higher will motivate more children to reach them. What happens to children who early on realise that they cannot achieve the new higher benchmark? All teachers know how important motivation is to the learning process.
For me, it brings into question the way that we seem to manage education policy in this country. We do not have a clear vision, nor a consensus on a vision. We seem to be able to lurch from one policy to another depending on who is the latest Secretary of State for Education, and whatever whim takes their fancy.
In the case of Mr Gove we are not only lurching, but speeding backwards, in one after another risky experiments. And the debate on these experiments is minimal.
Comments
Mr. Gove commented on the Andrew Marr Show (see link) that he thought the debate on academic selection was fascinating. For what it’s worth, I think selection at 10 is a tragic waste of talent. However, I will give him the benefit of doubt on increasing chances for all - I would therefore like clarification that he will provide opportunities for all post 16 students who wish to study academically, that vocational training will not be forced upon them.
Mr. Gove, “fascinating debate on selection” and the expansion thereof (50 minutes in) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012b68j/The_Andrew_Marr_Show_26_06...
One other point if I may, slightly off topic. I think Mr. Gove is right to re-evaluate the application of the contextual value added (CVA) for league tables so the effects of selection are exposed. In other words, there are other factors, as well as deprivation, that account for underattainment, for being in the bottom fifth nationally grades A-C GCSEs. There should be a focus on the effects of selection at 10 in cut-off rural areas such as ours, 1500 students 125 places is without doubt a bottleneck to success or failure.
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6090247
Inclusion should include the widest possible meaning to capture the potential of all children. Sadly, as far back as I care to remember, education has never really managed to pull this off, with all of its differing systems fighting for supremacy no wonder why children fall by the wayside.
Our locality is rated as being in the 10 percent most deprived areas of England in terms of opportunities for children and there are many factors beyond our school’s control.
In terms of raising aspirations, we should make greater use of extended schools to involve parents in their children’s learning. However, travelling large distances to school in rural Lincolnshire means it can be difficult for teachers and families to devote additional time.
As you will know, statistical integrity is dependant on intended use. For example, the omission of FSM as an indicator to low attainment (see link) whilst using CVA as a smokescreen to detract from the effects of selection at 10 is unacceptable. How one compensates for lack of transparency I do not know, but agree, the removal of CVA does not provide a solution.
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/Deprived-youngsters-Lincolnshire-far...
"Children from lower income families are unlikely to pass the tests to gain access to selective schools because they are more likely to go to weaker primary schools and lack access to private tuition, the research claims."
So, not passing "the test" is blamed on "weaker" primaries and parents being unwilling, or unable, to pay for private tuition. Nothing to do with the fact that in a selective system such as in Lincolnshire the non-grammar schools are viewed as a poor second, even when these do a good job with their skewed intake.
Selection, plus or minus deprivation indices still equals rejection whichever way they mix it.
Add new comment