Examinations; the Be All and End All?

Image by Jack Hynes

How are private schools so different from state schools that their students don’t quite understand the nature and purpose of education? Well, at the least, it would appear that they fail to notice that good assessment does not need to be in the form of an examination and that the education system has accomplishments outside of statistical academic success. However, the coalition government is unveiling a wide range of reforms which ignore these facts, yet massively overhaul the current system.

Yesterday’s announcement by the Government is demonstrable of the belief in the importance of statistics that is held by the commanding body of Parliament. Entirely focused on the results and the value of qualifications, the new reforms proposed by Michael Gove neglect the wider reasons for the education system. Due to come into practice in 2015, the massive changes to GCSEs involve removing coursework, creating one-single exam at the end of the course and changing the grading system from letters (A* to U) to numbers (1 to 8). Aside from this, is a change in the curriculum to focus more on British produce and history; to me, an obvious attempt, to beam beliefs of British superiority into students’ minds, yet it will only make us look uneducated and ignorant to the international community.

Firstly, underlying these changes is the constant narrative that current GCSEs are just too easy – hence, if you fail, you’re an idiot. Why? Well, the inclusion of coursework makes them even easier, so that should be removed. Coursework’s “uncontrolled” nature, prolonged construction period and detailed feedback and help from lecturers makes them simple to pass. Also, I don’t quite understand the change in how GCSEs are graded will make any difference only in that it will devalue any “old-style” letter-graded GCSEs with new number-graded GCSEs being seen as more stringent, tough and valuable and, hence, those with high-grades in the new-style GCSEs are more likely to be seen favourably. Even if we were to accept the premise that old-style GCSEs aren’t hard enough and were easy to pass, it isn’t my fault that I was a student during that system, and why should I have to pay for that?

However, these reforms completely overlook the wider and more positive consequences of our education system. Coursework is vital for many people to help develop their written, independent and research skills that are so important in later life; after all, how often are you likely to be subject to a short examination (memory test) in the general workplace, instead of using these written or other practical skills. I’m sure most companies would find much more value in asking you to write a report, do some research, or apply your practical skills to a task, rather than to sit down in silence for a prolonged amount of time and write an extended response to an overly specific question or statement with no consultation. Removing coursework in favour of single examinations ignores this fact, and makes it much harder for individuals to develop these vital skills. In addition to this, to allow only a single examination in each subject (with those who re-sit looked down upon) will inevitably allow the system to fail those who make one mistake. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone gets a second chance; the new GCSE system will not allow this.

However, it is ludicrous that the Government believes that removing coursework and introducing single examinations would increase results and make us one of the best educating nations in the world. It is fact that people learn in different ways, and that people respond to pressure in different ways. Of course, some people work well in examinations and others work well undertaking research and this is a condition of our human nature. All individuals are different, so to treat them all the same is to ignore that fact. Whereas some people would prefer the increased pressure of an examination, it is bound to destroy and worsen the prospects of others. There are many students who are incredibly intelligent, can write well and fluently, but do not do well in examinations due to the increased pressure, unnatural conditions and, in some cases, simply the wrong question; I beg on David Cameron to sit my recent philosophy examination on whether things that are not temporally present exist – then we can see how much he remembers from his Oxford PPE degree.

You can see why I think that the government only care about results and not the people in between; students are just part of that endless manufacturing line that prepares them for the working world where we are analysed by a jumble of letters (or numbers) next to our name and our workplace adequacy assessed. If your two-sheet piece of paper doesn’t have the right symbols, you’re out, slammed into unemployment or into low-paid employment and then blamed for your lack of success. Surely, this is quite the opposite of what the Government really wants?

Misconceiving the Green Party

The Green Party Logo

It is a horrible misconception of the Green Party to take their name literally and assume that they are a single-issue party – that is to say that their policies are always, at the very least, tenuously linked to environmental policies. However, this is not the case. There’s no denying that the environment is at the core of a lot of Green policies but, despite this, the Greens have a vast manifesto full of policies on education, crime and personal economy. And, unlike other smaller political parties such as UKIP, their policy focus is not one that can easily be solved in one policy change. The Green Party is essentially a left-leaning party with Socialist ideals; hence, similar to the Labour party before it abandoned its roots and repositioned itself under Blair’s New Labour. It’ll be impossible to talk through all of their manifesto points in 600 words, but we can at least look at some of their biggest policy areas.

The basic Green Party policy page alone outlines their attitudes towards the banking system, health and the jobs. The Green Party offer support for policies that attempt to make society a more equal arena, for example, a “living wage” as a new minimum wage which they predict would be around £8.10 an hour. One specific section on young people states “we think it’s unfair that young people are demonised for hanging around on our streets” and then goes on to promise more spending on youth services and free travel on off-peak buses for those under 18 or in full time education. Furthermore, their extended manifesto highlights policies relating to the equality of those who define as LGBTI, women and disabled. They also have a keen focus on further democratising democracy by extending the right to vote to those aged 16 and 17, and changing the voting system to proportional representation for both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and allowing a right to recall your MP.

Of course, it would be deceiving to talk through the Greens’ manifesto points without whipping out their environmental policies. As environmental policies make their way into mainstream politics of the three main parties, it is often questioned what more The Green Party has to contribute to the field; some argue that there are only limited, realistic ways of achieving an environmentally friendly society. It is, in fact, the opposite of this; although the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats do offer environmental policies in their manifestos, these are quite often easy to complete and more anthropocentric (to conserve what is for human consumption). In contrast, many of the Green Party’s policies can be interpreted as ecocentric (focused on the welfare and value of nature).

Using the credible source of Wikipedia, we only have to look at the party’s encyclopaedia entry to note that they are not simply an Environmentalist party, but are often attributed the characteristics of being republican, progressive, democratic, socialist and soft Eurosceptics. Upon Natalie Bennett’s successful election in August 2012, she announced that the UK needed “investment in homes, investment in jobs, investment in energy conservation, renewable energy and public transport.” This clearly shows that, although the party does have an Environmentalist focus, they have room to focus on the wider social and fiscal issues that the people of the nation find important. If you find all of this surprising, visit www.voteforpolicies.org.uk and you will see most participants have discovered that the policies of which they most agree with are those of the Green Party. Try it yourself – choose four policy areas and choose which you most agree with; see what party you should be voting for. The fact that you won’t be able to spot The Green Party’s environmentalism in every area shows that they are not just a single-issue party.

Where Education Fails

Photo by Victoria Kettlewell

Gove’s plans to scrap certain GCSEs in return for the English Baccalaureate was apparently lacking in quality this week as he announced his failure in the House of Commons. Calling them a “bridge too far”, we saw another U-turn in Government policy and a fortunate concession to Labour and teaching Unions who rightfully expressed concerns and fear at the proposals. Unfortunately, however, this is just one change of many that was being pushed through the Houses of Parliament. Alongside this, there are plans to make GCSEs and A-Levels much more rigorous and demanding whilst changing the curriculum dramatically. Schools are being told that the current system for exams are too easy and that students need to be pushed harder and harder; the stress is on the outcomes of exams.

At a recent lecture at the University of Birmingham, Anthony Seldon, author of famous biographies of Blair, argued that the Government (and schools) focus far too much on the measurable factor of qualifications gained rather than the personal development of the individual who spends up to seven years in their institution. Tested solely on their ability to soak up knowledge and regurgitate it on a piece of paper (perhaps in a certain style), schools seem lacking in building up confidence skills, creativity and that flair of determination that you would hope to see in every student as a result. Instead, like battery hens, students are pushed through a system of education where their sole purpose is to gain good grades so their school can demonstrate their “excellence” whilst the student is then pushed along on the factory line for the next institution.

Ironically, it would seem, this kind of approach to pushing children through education is one that causes demotivation, dissatisfaction and, in some cases, anti-establishmentarianism. Simply being pushed by their “superiors” to achieve A-grades in the core subjects, it is often heard that a lack of A-grades simply translates to a lack of success. Hence, if you don’t achieve A-grades, you are a failure and you will get nowhere in your life. Yet, this could just end up as a self-fulfilling prophecy; being told you will achieve nothing means you will achieve nothing. You might be putting your all into it, but being told that there’s no point because you’ll get nowhere – why not just give up?

Meanwhile, the different learning styles of individuals are overlooked; alternative qualifications such as BTECs and apprenticeships are deemed inferior, “for stupid people”. Apprenticeships are not accepted on UCAS, and many universities and employers overlook or do not display the criteria in any other form than A-Levels. Despite being more specialised in their area, those with BTEC or similar qualifications are told their qualifications are not of equal worth to A-Levels. This is quite simply outrageous.

Of course, this article is not true of every educational institution. There are many across the country that do realise the full potential of individuals and do accept the qualifications that others are too elitist to do so; those whom do give people a chance without judgement. These are the places we should be drawing inspiration for. It is argued that those who are given a chance to strive for something and work at their rate learn better and faster than those are forced into a strict schedule and discipline. Surely, these children would become passionate about a certain field, develop for that field and become better workers.

In the current British system of education, there are many flaws that do need fixing. You can argue that exams may be too easy and that different exam boards are competing for schools by offering lower boundaries for grades, but the truth is that full potential can be realised through the self-development of individuals. Rather than focusing on exam grades, focus on their passions, their skills and their needs.

Choosing a Leader

Image by Cabinet Office on Flickr

It’s a funny thing choosing a leader for your country and essentially choosing someone to place your trust in to for a prolonged amount of time, with no real ability to recall your vote. It’s a big decision we must make, and most often one people end up regretting by the time the chosen one has finished dismantling the hard work that someone else has put in.

In the wake of Obama’s victory and re-election in the United States, it’s a little overlooked that we are now halfway through our Condemned Government (of course, unless by some stroke of luck, Parliament is closed) and that means we can officially count the days until we are certain their mandate will end. That wonderful time at which we can hold Clegg and Cameron to account and completely humiliate them with what will probably be a resounding Labour win is now closer than the time we voted them in (although this is arguable in itself.) The end is nearer than the beginning, although not exactly nigh yet.

It’s no secret that all of the parties are already planning their election campaigns for 2015, deciding who will lead their campaigns and what their manifestos and key policies will be, making predictions for what will happen over the next few years and be high on the agenda in 2015, so I’m going to make some of my own:

• Nick Clegg will be replaced as leader by Vince Cable either for the election or as a result of the election
• The PCC elections will show to have little support and little turnout and the decision will be reversed or reduced
• The Labour Party will not have tuition fees as a key policy or will only reduce fees by a small amount
• UKIP and the Green Party will see a small rise in support
• Labour will win an overwhelming majority, but still not match Blair’s 2001 majority. Lib Dems will lose a large number of seats and Nick Clegg will not win the Sheffield seat.
• The UK will enter another recession in 2013.
• Another European country using the Euro will collapse.
• There will be further military intervention in the Middle East, Syria or the Faulklands.

Some may seem far-fetched, and some might seem plain obvious. I think all of these are highly possible, but let’s see how the next two and a half years pan out, shall we?

Staff and Students Dig for the Truth

Calls of “shame” filled University Square last Wednesday as staff and students gathered in protest against the University’s decision to close the Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, where a reduction of funding in the department will have a massively negative effect on current and prospective students in the area. Furthermore, the proposal is forcing staff members in the department to question the certainty of their future at the University with a possible 17 compulsory redundancies.

Almost comically, the Save The IAA Campaign’s protest simultaneously coincided with Vice-Chancellor, David Eastwood’s visit to Chicago where he was presenting and publishing the work of the department. Despite hailing their renowned work, he has initiated such a far-reaching threat. It is nothing more than hypocrisy and a method to build his and the University’s international reputation.

With over 1800 people having signed the official petition (something Simon Furse tells us spans 30 metres if laid out) and a turnout of around 200 people to the protest, it is evident that this campaign has a vast amount of support outside of the IAA department. Following cuts made to the Sociology department, students have recognised what effects actions like this will have, and that the decisions are not contained.

The closure of this department would set a dangerous precedent for other departments at the University, with minds immediately drawn to the futures of the Social Sciences, Law and Business. Despite the University’s colossal turnover of £125 million in the previous five years, and the trebling of tuition fees, we are expected to sit back and accept the possible closure of these departments.

Simon Furse, Guild Vice President (Education) branded the University as having “real contempt for students”, and “keeping students in the dark” about the process by holding the consultation during the summer break.

The attitude was no different within the crowds; it was clear that the same thought was on everyone’s minds, despite their course or their position. Theology PHD Student, Will said it seemed that “once they’ve finished cutting Archaeology, they’ll cut other courses which don’t seem so lucrative”.

Meanwhile, also amongst the protestors, was Robert Killick OBE, who studied Archaeology at PHD level in the 1980s. Asked why he was at the protest, he said “I am here to support my fellow Archaeologists. It is a disgrace the University is closing such an illustrious institute, one that has many achievements to its name and is often reported in national press”.

Well-supported and a success, the march began at the Main Library before heading to the Vice-Chancellor’s Office in the Aston Webb building (where protestors were, hilariously, greeted with a small police presence) before returning to the main library.
It is appalling and disgusting that the University are considering such destructive action against such a fantastic department at the University, seriously affecting both students’ and staffs’ futures. These decisions are life-changing and it’s not something we should sit back and accept.

Also on Redbrick: http://www.redbrick.me/2012/10/staff-and-students-dig-for-the-truth/