This is what I think. It might not be right but I'm going to tell you anyway.
I think we've forgotten what education is about.
I took O levels. You couldn't get an A if 6% of the country got more marks than you. One year you could get a C with a certain mark and the next year it would be a D (FAIL) with the same amount of correct answers. This seems so unfair. Many of my peers were forced to decide which exam to take. Did you risk a fail at O level or go for a CSE and hope for a grade 1 which supposedly was equivalent, although everyone knew you only took CSE if you weren't as clever. Teachers panicked and asked your parents to pay for you to take a CSE 'just in case'. I took a CSE in English, even though I had already passed the O level, just because it was the school's policy. I don't know what happened to those children whose parents couldn't afford to pay for the exam. I didn't mind O levels. I've got quite a good memory and although I never quite got the grades I was expected to get that didn't worry me too much. Would I have preferred to do modules and coursework? It really wouldn't have mattered to me either way. The exams were the hurdle that had to be jumped. They were not what my time at school was about. At school I learnt how to think, how to write, how to read, how to learn. I learnt how to get on with horrible people (especially teachers). I learnt how to stand up in front of hundreds of people and play the flute without having to be removed from the stage in a bucket. I learnt how to tell a joke and I learnt that there are many funny people in the world. I also learnt loads of stuff that although I will never use (except when watching University Challenge) I can't seem to get out of my head, like the formula for Boyle's Law (PV = K); the first 20 elements of the periodic table in order (hhelibebcnofnenamgalsipsclarkca); long passages from Macbeth (Is this a dagger I see before me it's handle pointing etc); how to tell someone to open the window in French (Ouvre le fenetre); how to solve a quadratic equation.
The point of education isn't about the exams or the two levels progress, that's just a method by which we can measure it. It isn't necessarily the only method of measurement or the best it's just a check.
As a music teacher, I allow my students to take exams. In fact, I positively encourage it. It gives them something to work for, they get a nice certificate to put on the wall and it is great practice to show your skills to someone else. If a pupil failed an exam it wouldn't worry me. I don't put them in for the exam until they are ready, if they fail it's because they've had an off day. They take them when they are ready not when everyone else is taking them.
GCSE's are more complicated. O levels used to be for grammar school pupils to 'sort the wheat from the chaff'. They were a way of getting rid of pupils who were not able to study to A level standard. A levels were to get rid of the pupils who were not able to study to degree level. Degrees were to sort out those who could still learn stuff while destroying their brains with drugs and alcohol. Obviously, the real no-hopers (and the poor or late-starters) had been ruled out of the system long before and went to secondary modern schools to learn how to make things. But no one makes things any more. Not for money anyway. So, what are those who are ruled out of education early going to do. GCSEs were meant to be a broad exam that allowed late starters and the exam terrified to succeed where they wouldn't have before and as time went on teachers learnt how to teach children so that they would pass and children learnt what they needed to do to pass. The more people that get the top grades the less the exam is respected and so people have less confidence in the system.
Exams have become a way of measuring a teacher's ability rather than assessing an individual child. Teachers have to get every child to achieve a certain grade or they are a failure. This doesn't help children grow and develop. It just causes stress.
(As I'm typing this Boyles Law just came up on University Challenge - is that a bit spooky?)
Exams have become a way of parents competing via their children. Just look at Facebook, "I'm so proud of my Johnny and his 9 A*s," and notice there is no mention of the 2 C's. Then, look at the reply, "that's fantastic Emily got 10 A*s". Children do thrive on their parent's love and approval but wouldn't it be lovely if they could get it without the A*s?
I don't think exam results help people get jobs. People get jobs by being in the right place at the right time, saying the right things and knowing the right people. (Maybe that's not entirely true but it is my cynical observation)
Has all this been thought through properly? The children who have just started their GCSEs now will be the first to be forced to continue in education until 18 and as far as I can see no plans have been made about how this will be enforced. Students are currently not allowed to stay in the 6th form unless they are taking more than 2 A levels and if they don't get the grades the school requires for their league tables they are asked to leave. There is no thought of what a student has gained from taking the course, only the result they get in the exam. Will we be in the same situation in 2013, with no one exam board appointed, no one having any idea what they are meant to teach and no idea what the point of these exams actually is.
I don't know if there are any solutions if the exam system is really broken but I hope someone is thinking about the children.
No comments:
Post a Comment