My skepticism towards the abilities of the coalition government are quickly melting. More recently the thawing has been spurred on by Michael Gove's proposals for education policy.
A. Fees: universities can charge more and students pay it off after exceeding a higher salary threshold post graduation, based on a percentage of their income.
B. School leaving age: raising this to 18 yrs
C. GCSE's: potentially scrapping
D. Core subjects: broadening this to include sciences, language, history or geography to form the English Bac.
E. Teacher requirements: minimum 2.2 at graduation
I'll leave A for another blog but for the record here - I entirely support this.
B: Great!
The consequence of this is that it brings into question the need for GCSEs since this level is no longer the stamp kinds will need for their first job after leaving school at 16. This has then also opened up the way for discussing what we will do in school during all those years between 11+ and A Levels.
Here D becomes relevant because the proposals broaden students' exposure and education. Arguably, without GCSEs, teachers can now have the flexibility to teach around subjects rather than just focus on passing exams. Great! I'm sure most of us enjoyed those lessons most where teachers indulged in their interests with passion that was not exactly, but perhaps loosely, related to the curriculum. Invariably what makes those lessons interesting are the methods teachers adopt when they veered off the beaten path. This creativity is crucial in capturing the imagination of students to attain that all important moment of inspiration that sparks their interest and motivates them. So, all good proposals so far.
For some people, this flexibility necessitates removing GCSEs and ongoing exams running up to A Levels.
First, because GCSEs impose a goal that needs to be met and so in the run up to them, prevents teaching anything off the map or approaching subjects differently to the prescribed method. Hence stifling the creativity of content and method we would love to introduce to schools.
Second, constant examination brings about undue pressure on kids. Late bloomers will feel like failures for not performing well in exams that take place in lower school years and so in losing self esteem they will work to their detriment when it comes to doing the national exams that matter, hence locking themselves into a downward spiral. Hence let's not have unnecessary exams until the time they are actually needed.
Third, in this age of austerity measures, exams are an expense the government could perhaps do without.
I disagree with all of the above.
Let's start with considering what "examinations" entail. This is simply a mode of assessment. This is valuable for the teacher to be able to know whether her class of 20+ kids is keeping up with her. It also means kids work towards absorbing it otherwise it'll be in one ear and out of the other. Just because we are sitting in a classroom and being talked at, doesn't mean we are actually absorbing the subject. That eureka! moment of understanding a subject and how it relates to another, usually happens when you are on your working your way through homework or revising for exams. Exams, tests, coursework, verbal conversations, pop quizzes, etc are very helpful in providing a gauge for teachers and students as to how they are doing and what needs to be addressed. It's a way to keep on track. What we need to discuss, is the form and frequency.
One of my gripes with the education system is how inadequately it prepares students for life beyond school. Life's tough. Shit happens. Failure precedes success. Kids need to toughen up and realise life is not a bed of roses. Alternatively there are those who work in different ways and need to be able to flex their mental muscles in the way that works for them, so the standardised method of testing isn't a fair test for them because in the real world they would (hopefully) gravitate towards work and challenges of their selection. So why not at these formative stages in school?
I'm certainly not prescribing a set 3hr essay writing exam but frequent assessment does provide that essential experience of surviving urgency, setting targets, achievement, planning, focus and coping with stress.
The form of assessment needs to be flexible in keeping with a flexible curriculum and teaching methods. Teachers determining the details of their own curriculum should also determine the most appropriate methods of assessment appropriate to the content and individual student tendency. This flexibility in these formative years running up to A Levels are crucial in exposing students to a broad range of ideas and subjects and consequently helping them identify their areas of interest and strength. The aim being to identify that match between skills and interest.
At the time of A Levels, or even if GCSEs are maintained, kids have the adequate knowledge foundation and over the years of being assessed, they are able to cope with the pressure of revising for the all important national exams. The reality is that it is easy to get out of the practice of revising and preparing, but very difficult to get back into it when it matters so another reason for constant assessment (at the appropriate frequency) is to keep students in practice.
A concern with the proposal to let teachers decide that details of curriculum is that not all teachers are good teachers. The current close guidance takes away that responsibility from the teacher and limits their input to simply data transfer. I'm not against examinations for this reason but I do think it needs to be addressed. Teachers who are also not experts on their subjects or passionate about it will not make the most of this flexibility which can work to the students' detriment. Hence strengtheningTeachfirst and Teachnext programmes is a tremendously helpful as well.
My rough suggestion for the structure of education is:
Teachers have to maintain assessment through all school years which are based on the content and method of teaching. The national exams remain at A Level standards. Even if GCSEs are kept, the years leading up to A Levels and including GCSEs must be made more complex and challenging in terms of content.
A. Fees: universities can charge more and students pay it off after exceeding a higher salary threshold post graduation, based on a percentage of their income.
B. School leaving age: raising this to 18 yrs
C. GCSE's: potentially scrapping
D. Core subjects: broadening this to include sciences, language, history or geography to form the English Bac.
E. Teacher requirements: minimum 2.2 at graduation
I'll leave A for another blog but for the record here - I entirely support this.
B: Great!
The consequence of this is that it brings into question the need for GCSEs since this level is no longer the stamp kinds will need for their first job after leaving school at 16. This has then also opened up the way for discussing what we will do in school during all those years between 11+ and A Levels.
Here D becomes relevant because the proposals broaden students' exposure and education. Arguably, without GCSEs, teachers can now have the flexibility to teach around subjects rather than just focus on passing exams. Great! I'm sure most of us enjoyed those lessons most where teachers indulged in their interests with passion that was not exactly, but perhaps loosely, related to the curriculum. Invariably what makes those lessons interesting are the methods teachers adopt when they veered off the beaten path. This creativity is crucial in capturing the imagination of students to attain that all important moment of inspiration that sparks their interest and motivates them. So, all good proposals so far.
For some people, this flexibility necessitates removing GCSEs and ongoing exams running up to A Levels.
First, because GCSEs impose a goal that needs to be met and so in the run up to them, prevents teaching anything off the map or approaching subjects differently to the prescribed method. Hence stifling the creativity of content and method we would love to introduce to schools.
Second, constant examination brings about undue pressure on kids. Late bloomers will feel like failures for not performing well in exams that take place in lower school years and so in losing self esteem they will work to their detriment when it comes to doing the national exams that matter, hence locking themselves into a downward spiral. Hence let's not have unnecessary exams until the time they are actually needed.
Third, in this age of austerity measures, exams are an expense the government could perhaps do without.
I disagree with all of the above.
Let's start with considering what "examinations" entail. This is simply a mode of assessment. This is valuable for the teacher to be able to know whether her class of 20+ kids is keeping up with her. It also means kids work towards absorbing it otherwise it'll be in one ear and out of the other. Just because we are sitting in a classroom and being talked at, doesn't mean we are actually absorbing the subject. That eureka! moment of understanding a subject and how it relates to another, usually happens when you are on your working your way through homework or revising for exams. Exams, tests, coursework, verbal conversations, pop quizzes, etc are very helpful in providing a gauge for teachers and students as to how they are doing and what needs to be addressed. It's a way to keep on track. What we need to discuss, is the form and frequency.
One of my gripes with the education system is how inadequately it prepares students for life beyond school. Life's tough. Shit happens. Failure precedes success. Kids need to toughen up and realise life is not a bed of roses. Alternatively there are those who work in different ways and need to be able to flex their mental muscles in the way that works for them, so the standardised method of testing isn't a fair test for them because in the real world they would (hopefully) gravitate towards work and challenges of their selection. So why not at these formative stages in school?
I'm certainly not prescribing a set 3hr essay writing exam but frequent assessment does provide that essential experience of surviving urgency, setting targets, achievement, planning, focus and coping with stress.
The form of assessment needs to be flexible in keeping with a flexible curriculum and teaching methods. Teachers determining the details of their own curriculum should also determine the most appropriate methods of assessment appropriate to the content and individual student tendency. This flexibility in these formative years running up to A Levels are crucial in exposing students to a broad range of ideas and subjects and consequently helping them identify their areas of interest and strength. The aim being to identify that match between skills and interest.
At the time of A Levels, or even if GCSEs are maintained, kids have the adequate knowledge foundation and over the years of being assessed, they are able to cope with the pressure of revising for the all important national exams. The reality is that it is easy to get out of the practice of revising and preparing, but very difficult to get back into it when it matters so another reason for constant assessment (at the appropriate frequency) is to keep students in practice.
A concern with the proposal to let teachers decide that details of curriculum is that not all teachers are good teachers. The current close guidance takes away that responsibility from the teacher and limits their input to simply data transfer. I'm not against examinations for this reason but I do think it needs to be addressed. Teachers who are also not experts on their subjects or passionate about it will not make the most of this flexibility which can work to the students' detriment. Hence strengtheningTeachfirst and Teachnext programmes is a tremendously helpful as well.
My rough suggestion for the structure of education is:
Teachers have to maintain assessment through all school years which are based on the content and method of teaching. The national exams remain at A Level standards. Even if GCSEs are kept, the years leading up to A Levels and including GCSEs must be made more complex and challenging in terms of content.
No comments:
Post a Comment