Lots of folk have had lots to say about what went on behind the scenes at the various exam boards this summer and throughout it all I’ve largely kept my peace. Having absorbed the various arguments and counter arguments I feel I’ve arrived at some sort of opinion.
In a nutshell, the issue seems to be that the prevailing (political?) opinion is that since the GCSE was first examined in 1988 (incidentally the year I took my exams) standards have steadily declined whilst grades have inexorably risen. For the past 24 years this orthodoxy has been if not unchallenged, at least accepted by the majority of educationalist and politicos. Then, along came Mr Gove on his well-muscled stallion and set out what all Daily Mail readers had long suspected: GCSEs were not fit for purpose and schools were churning out well-qualified youngsters who were unable to spell or add up. As far back as 2008 Gove made it clear that he would make GCSEs tougher and that pass marks for C grades should be doubled. Earlier this year he warned that, “There are going to be some uncomfortable moments in education reform in the years ahead. There will be years, because we are going to make exams tougher, when the number of people passing will fall.” The only real surprise is that it’s happened this year.
Yesterday he attacked the English Language GCSE as not being “fit for purpose” and added that he intended to “reform examinations at 16, move away from a discredited model and move towards one which is fair and has more rigour.” Well, I’ve got no complaints about making exams more rigorous, but what exactly does that mean? Was this year’s English GCSE really ‘not fit for purpose’? And if so, why?
I’m happy with the idea of modular exams being phased out, I’m delighted to hear that there will be only a single exam board allowed to write specifications for each subject and I’m over the moon to hear that controlled assessment will be culled. Fine. But why do we want to restrict the number of students who are awarded a C grade?
Whether you think the grade boundaries changing between January and June was fair or not, the reasoning behind manipulating figures in order to restrict the numbers of people who have passed an exam just seems bizarre. I can accept some of the issues raised about the problems with criteria based exams and absolutely accept that it’s impossible to avoid subjectivity when marking essays but the examiners are trained to ‘best fit’ a student’s work to a mark band which best describes their ability. If a student shows that they are able to meet the criteria for a C grade then it seems reasonable to suppose that they should be awarded a C grade. Doesn’t it?
Now the counter argument to this attacks the “All must have prizes” attitude that seeks to reward failure and dumb down curricula to the point where anyone can achieve. It may or may not be the case that getting a C grade in English is too easy. As an English teacher I don’t believe it’s particularly demanding (afterall the is C grade we’re talking about, not A*!) and have long thought that setting a target of 100% is a sensible approach: I act as if all students can get at least a C. And mostly they can. If students have earned their prize, why wouldn’t you want to let them have it? What possible benefit can there be from saying that only a set number of students are allowed prizes?
And frankly, a C grade in English is not all that much of a prize anyway. In the past I have taught students I’ve considered functionally illiterate who have managed to get C grades in English. I am not particularly proud of this. Morally, I think I should have spent more time improving their literacy and less time teaching to the test but this is the world in which we live. This, as I’ve been told throughout my career, is what we want. So to then turn round and attack a system which has been designed to make teachers very good at making students pass exams seems silly if you’re still going to bark and drool about standards.
David Cameron has even gone so far as to say that the “All must have prizes” culture is cruel. Why? Presumably on the basis that it somehow ‘robs’ children of aspiration. Isn’t it cruel to tell someone what they need to earn a prize and then refuse to let them have on the basis that you’ve given out too many prizes already and that although they did what you said they didn’t do it quite as well as someone else?
There’s a whole other puzzling argument about the ‘fact’ that criteria based exams will automatically result in grade inflation which is why we need norm referencing. I don’t buy it. Let’s accept for a moment that there has been grade inflation. That can’t be the fault of schools or teachers; they just don’t have the power. Grade inflation, if it’s allowed to happen, is fault of Ofqual and the exam boards. But why can’t we end grade inflation and still see results go up? Surely the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive? I’m not suggesting (as some my claim) that teaching has improved enormously over the past 20 years (I think it has) or that children are more intelligent (I know they’re not). It’s just that we’ve got really good at preparing students for exams. When I took my GCSEs in 1988 nobody gave a stuff whether I passed because schools and teachers weren’t held accountable. Nothing happened when my Elvis impersonating History teacher taught the wrong syllabus and the entire class failed. Nobody ever considered showing me a past paper or a mark scheme.
Now, this may have resulted in a better education, I don’t know. It was certainly more rounded but it’s inescapable that the focus of teaching has changed over the last 20 years and passing exam has become of paramount importance. Small wonder that we would get really good at doing what we’re chiefly held accountable for.
So, here’s what I propose:
1. Let’s speed up the process of moving to a system of single exam boards for each subject. This should do away with the incentive to inflate grades. And while we’re about it let’s expose and exterminate all other cause of grade inflation. Just to be on the safe side.
2. Let’s act as if all students can get at least a C grade and teach them accordingly. And while we’re at it why not act like they can all get A*s?
3. We’ll never get a 100% pass rate because #2 isn’t true. But we should get steadily rising results which we can be sure aren’t due to grade inflation because of #1
4. It’s been pointed out to me that our exam system purports to both rank students and display degrees competence at something. It does neither well so let’s just settle on the latter. This should make #3 possible to achieve.
At that point we can all pat each other on the back for a job well done.
Alternatively, we could rethink exactly what exams are supposed to do and begin again. But that’s crazy talk!
Related reading on the GCSE ‘fiasco’
Geoff Barton’s impassioned and thoughtful blog posts
John Tomsett – This much (I think) I know about…the English Language GCSE debacle!
Andrew Old’s dissenting view here and here.
Related posts
Reading should be our top priority
Teaching to the test
Easy vs Hard
You might be interested in Cinderella’s Comment on my website which has similar sentiments to your post: http://www.morelearning.net/Comment/Comment.asp
Some very pertinent and interesting points. I feel that whatever gets rushed through, no surprise to hear Gove announce on the radio this morning that he does plan to scrap GCSEs (the ‘English fiasco’ only discredits them further), we will still find ourselves in a culture where it is the teachers who get blamed if students do not pass? Whilst league tables and Ofsted have ensured that schools are monitored and there is more consistency, I agree with you that this doesn’t necessarily mean better education. I have fond memories of bizarre lessons from my own schooling that probably bore little relation to what we were studying, or meant to be, and certainly didn’t help me pass my exams…..but (and this is the real point) definitely had value in terms of my real ‘education’ and are things I’ve never forgotten. I think it is about trusting teachers. But that would completely go against everything Gove, and governments in general, seem to stand for.
http://www.thereluctantschoolmaster.blogspot.co.uk/
I was glad to come across your blog! I am not a teacher, so I am coming to this as an outsider, but I am interested in the education sector. Lowering demands for certain groups – for example, expecting less from pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, will not benefit them in the long term (I wrote about this on my own blog). I really liked your point about acting as if all students can at least get a C grade (or an A*) and teaching them as such. I also agree with you on your point about how bizarre it is to manipulate figures to restrict the number of pupils passing an exam. If a student has reached a certain standard, they should get their “prize”. However, I do hope that, in the future, a grade C in English will be a prize that is more worth having! I will be following the debates on this to see what happens.
http://childrenofourworld.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/a-good-education-is-essential-for.html
Thanks all for the comments.
Mary – you’re right, I *was* interested in Cinder’s comment. Excellent
Mr Reluctant – there is still room for bizarre nonsense lessons. If you haven’t already, have a look at this
Catherine – I’m not sure how much I agree of making C grade more ‘valuable’. Isn’t that why we have A*-B? Getting a C at GCSE really isn’t a hallmark of quality. I’d rather that a C grade reflected a student’s ability to navigate the world with functional literacy.
You certainly shouldn’t be proud of getting functionally illiterate people grade Cs instead of teaching them something useful. However, that’s our education system as it stands – run by managers who know the price of a C but not its value. I expect you’ve been trumpeting the successes every year and castigating anyone who has pointed at the naked emperor and stated the obvious?
Teaching has been turned into an unpleasant task by idiots wanting pseudoscientific learning styles, five part lessons, APP and Afl that has been completely bastardised from the benign initial ideas of Dylan Williams into some anti-intellectual nonsense designed to show progress whatever the reality, and the desire for everyone to be graded above average.
The hours I spent in school listening to dimwits always put me in mind of one of my favourite Blake quotes (slightly modified) “The eagles never lost so much time, as when they submitted to learn of the crows.
Yes Chapman – you’ve echoed pretty much every point I’ve ever made on this blog.
But as to your eagles and crows quotes (and to dangerously extend the metaphor,) crows know stuff eagles don’t. Eagles look cool but they’re not half as good as surviving. What does that tell us about these proud, aloof birds and the human archetypes they’re representing here?
i just want to appreciate your post . i have seen many post but i found your post quite different .thanks for sharing this . Grade Essays
[…] 5. OK. Here I wholeheartedly agree. Norm referencing is not the way forward and I have already written my opinions on this here. […]