The ultra-fashionable cry has gone up again – ‘We must have a Public Inquiry’!

20 years of ever increasing numbers of children getting high grades in their GCSE results, Teacher’s pay linked by a Labour government to those ever increasing ‘standards’, exams broken down into modules so Dumbo doesn’t have to remember the entire course, just the bit he’s told to remember, Exam boards handing out information packs to teacher’s explaining how to coach students through the new short-order modules (whisper it quietly, rumours that they were even given tips on what the questions might be!) and never so much as a whisper in support of a public inquiry!

Suddenly, those pupils who teachers thought would get a “C”- end up with a “D” – and all Hell breaks loose! It is monstrously unfair! It has ruined their entire life. There was Dumbo, barely able to read, Teacher had spent the entire year coaching him through multiple choice questions (he had a one in three chance of guessing the right answer, so actually he was just teaching him how to reject the other answers…) He had already earmarked his bonus for the year…and they move the goal posts! Unfair! Public Inquiry!

The entire focus of this year’s exam results, like so much in the media these days, has been on those who failed.  Those who ‘can’t’. Those who ‘aimed’ for a ‘C’ but got a ‘D’ instead. Those who just lost out.

Nothing has been said of those who succeeded in the face of these ‘tougher’ (politikspeak for more difficult for teacher to get his bonus) exams. We have concentrated on those who tripped at the higher bar.

I do have a Fairy God Motherly interest in this subject, for amongst all the whinging and the wailing, comes news that Ms Smudlett, genetically advantaged offspring of Glorious Mudd, has also received her exam results. A* in the apparently fiendishly difficult English language and literature, in fact A* in a neat tidy row of numerous exam results. That’s what comes of aiming for the stars and spending your Easter holidays revising like mad in the hope of hitting them. You do.

Whereas those who spent their Easter holidays in the local tanning shop, or getting Johnny Depp tattooed onto their backside, secure in the knowledge that teacher had fixed it for them to get a ‘C’ and onto the course of media studies, found themselves bitterly disappointed. Boo-hoo.

I feel sorry for those A* pupils who have seen their achievement in a reputedly tougher exam, not lauded, but ignored in favour of widespread coverage of the average, the content to just coast, the mediocre, who failed. They are caught up in a political argument which basically boils down to teacher’s pay and conditions. Who cared about those who got a “D” in the years when 27% were getting an A* – not the teacher’s, that’s for sure. Were the papers full of hand wringing stories about ruined lives? Did we see endless pundits linning up to explain the psychologically damaging effect of getting a ‘D’?

So? ‘They’ thought they’d done ‘enough’. I guess all those ‘D’s’ in previous years thought they’d done ‘enough’. They hadn’t, and employers are better off without those who think they’ve ‘done enough’.

Hearty congratulations Smuddlett, and all the others like you, for whom ‘enough’ is never enough. You are the people the media should be talking about.

Enough of this spoon feeding by the Union’s press releases.

Boldfield September 5, 2012 at 21:56

I thick the the current education is totally focused on teaching to pass
the exams and not what is required for later in life. I am especially worried
about all this talk about the classics when UK is desperately short of
engineers and other technical training.

C H Ingoldby
September 4, 2012 at 22:27

Just for the sake of accuracy and truth, you should note that teachers do
NOT get bonuses, regardless of how well their pupils do. Pay was never linked
to ‘performance’ as you state. Perhaps you should be a little bit more careful
with your facts.

JuliaM September
3, 2012 at 17:34

O/T: Have you returned to these shores, Anna?

Anna
Raccoon September 3, 2012 at
18:45

No chance Julia – though I would gratefully accept a little of your
rain….

Brass Monkey
September 3, 2012 at 17:17

When I took GCE (not GCSE) examinations in 1960 there was no “grading” as
exists today. If I recall correctly, the pass mark was set at 40% which does
not seem that onerous in spite of me failing in a few subjects. Anyway, marks
above 40% gave a pass, and if much higher marks were achieved, a credit or
distinction was added to the pass. There was no “subjective” view of an
examinee’s paper which might have tipped someones attempt into a pass, and
certainly no coursework was taken into consideration. You stood or fell on
what you did on the day, which of course in the real world of business and
manufacturing is how one is assessed.
Engineer is right. In the world of
constuction at least, goalposts are constantly moved, and us construction
engineers had to get on with it and still hit the deadlines, otherwise we were
deemed to have failed.
Saul is also correct. How can anyone truly
understand anything unless they have a grasp of the “3Rs” , but in the modern
PC teaching world of prizes for all, this is too radical to understand.

ivan September 3, 2012 at 17:56

Hear! Hear!

ivan September 3, 2012 at 18:00

I should have added that when I did GCE exams – late 50s the pass mark
was in the region of 60% to 65% depending on subject and you only got a
distinction if you got 95% or over.

john77
September 3, 2012 at 21:24

In my time (early 60s), and my exam board, Distinctions were only
awarded for ‘S’ levels.

john77 September 3, 2012 at 21:19

In 1961, it was only Religious Knowledge where the pass mark was 40%: for
other subjects it was 50%.

ivan September 3, 2012 at 23:15

So it started to go down even then. My A levels were in 58 and most of
them required 65% for a pass and my one distinction was awarded for
96%.

Even then there was a difference between exam boards. Several from my
school were advised to take the Cambridge GCE exams in odd subjects
because they wouldn’t pass the London ones. We also had several from the
Grammar School come to our school to take the London exams because they
wanted the higher standard.

The teens of friends brought their Maths and Science exam papers down
for me to have a look at. Most of the maths was mental arithmetic standard
and the science was not much better.

john77
September 3, 2012 at 23:47

O&C Joint board were reckoned the highest standard – London was
lower but Cambridge local may have been lower than London for some
subjects.

binao September 3, 2012 at 16:57

It’s easy for some of us oldies to be disrespectful of present education
standards.
Few of us went to university, and there wasn’t the extended
adolescence that seems to be part of todays culture.
So it was O levels if
you were lucky, A levels if you were very lucky. Perhaps day release and
evening classes at tech while doing an apprenticeship- a long week I recall;
it was 7.30 am to 5.30 pm working day in the Toolroom when I started.
We
coped with Lsd, lbs and ozs, and in engineering a wide range of Imperial units
as well as non SI metric.
But we don’t need slide rules and logs any more,
and it’s probably time to throw away the steam tables too.
So I guess we’re
not necessarily the best to judge the content and standard of todays
education.
I just hope they’re getting it right.

ivan September 3, 2012 at 17:52

When I started in engineering, as one of those very lucky ones because of
hard work and determination, I had great respect for those tool makers and
fitters as well as those that dedicated themselves to the rigors of an
apprenticeship to attain the necessary skills. I also made sure I could do
enough of their work to know what they needed from the design department to
enable them to do their job.

We may have progressed from all the odd measurement systems but that does
not invalidate the slide rule – I still have 3 of mine and still use them
for quick calculations – and log tables are still necessary should a
calculator not be to hand.

I think we should be the ones that are judging todays education for the
simple reason that the youth of today are not being taught the basics for
life nor the dedication and stick-ability to see a job well done as it was
in our youth.

Because of my degrees in engineering and also having teaching
qualifications, I have been involved in producing tests for potential
employees for several engineering firms for the simple reason the education
system of today is not getting ir right, I just wish they were.

Engineer September 3, 2012 at 18:51

binao – don’t throw away the steam tables! There are not so many of us
can read a set of steam tables, much less know what they’re for! I still
have my slide rule and log tables, too – used occasionally when I don’t
trust what the computer is telling me.

Ivan’s right – technology may move on, but the basics do not change, and
need to be understood. You can’t build a lasting structure without decent
foundations.

Joe Public
September 3, 2012 at 19:38

You also need a modicum of Common Sense to suspect when a decimal point
*may* be in the wrong place.

binao September 3, 2012 at 21:28

My lovely little folded scale Faber Castell will never be thrown away,
though the green leather sleeve is a bit stuffed. Shame I will never pass
the motheaten old textbooks on though I did refer back for some lighting
calcs a year or two back. A planning officer factually and significantly
misled the planning committee on the impact of some floodlights on
adjacent homes.
Something comforting about units that relate to direct
experience; my hackles used to rise in S.I. mandatory RSA when people
called 0,1mm a thou. And tyre pressures in kpa?
I can’t believe what I
used to know.

Robert the
Biker September 5, 2012 at 11:55

Binao: Don’t throw away the steam tables, steam is still very useful as a
heat transfer method in plants and refineries; no danger of sparks or open
flames after all. Also, it would be useful for some of these budding geneii
to at least understand the principle of logarithms.

Saul September 3, 2012 at 14:09

It’s time we went back to using Jumpers for goalposts. Get back to just
teaching the basic “3R’s”, once an acceptable level has been achieved, then
worry about all the new fangled subjects.

Bunny September 3, 2012 at 19:26

Surely that is primary school’s job? The basics should be in place by
then and secondary school opens up the sciences etc. I recall primary school
getting a lot easier once the eleven plus was scrapped. The down side of my
comment is that when advertising for an admin assistant role some of the
applications I got from people with far better A level results than I ever
acheived were pretty appalling.

Joe Public
September 3, 2012 at 19:33

“Surely that is primary school’s job? ”

And the parents.

john77
September 3, 2012 at 21:16

Actually my five-year-old sister taught me to read …

GildasTheMonk
September 4, 2012 at 05:46

Completely agree with Saul

Bob H September 3, 2012 at 13:05

The goal posts have been steadily moving wider and nearer for the last 30
years. The fact they have stopped or shifted back a smidgen is a terrible
shock to the teaching profession.
Reading some of the MSM teacher comments,
I get the impression they would seriously like to hand out the certificates on
the first day of term to save all the hardship of real teaching.
Oh, and
yes, I was a secondary school teacher.

Engineer September 3, 2012 at 12:52

I somewhat get the feeling that there is a bit of manufactured outrage
involved in this, as there seems to be in many aspects of politics. I wholly
understand disappointment at not getting the grades expected (been there, done
that, survived nonetheless), but I don’t buy the ‘moved the goalposts,
therefore it’s unfair’ argument. Provided the goalposts were moved for all
candidates in the same way and at the same time, then competition was equal.
Had the goalposts been moved for some, but not others, then there would be
cause for concern. So – it’s just politically motivated faux outrage, for
me.

(Just as a brief aside, during my professional life moving goalposts were
not uncommon. Indeed, it was rare indeed for goalposts to stay in the same
place for the duration of any given project. Moving goalposts caused many
difficulties, some embarrassments, and endless hassle, but just had to be
coped with. Ask any engineer….)

gladiolys September 3, 2012 at 13:34

The goalposts were in different positions for those who sat exams in
January than those who sat them in June. I’m not really sure that
administrators providing further education or employers of prospective
candidates will ask in which month they sat their exams.

Engineer
September 3, 2012 at 14:25

Maybe I’m overly cynical, but I’m not sure that I really believe that
one. The problem is that everything done to address problems in the
education system has been bitterly resisted by an entrenched ‘education
establishment’, not always by honourable means. I just suspect a
continuation of that battle.

Engineer
September 3, 2012 at 18:41

A correction – on listening to the Six O’clock News on Radio 4 it
seems that the goalposts did move. There wasn’t much detail about how
much they moved, or why, though the finger of blame was pointed vaguely
in the direction of the relevant exam board. Not an ideal situation for
sure; the rhetoric about blighting young people’s lives does seem
somewhat OTT nonetheless. One slightly dubious exam grade is unlikely to
condemn anybody to the scrapheap; I’m living proof of that.

I was encouraged to hear that the current arrangements are to be
replaced with something nearer the rigour of the old ‘O’ level in 2014.
That – provided it is better administered than the current testing –
would seem a positive move.

gladiolys
September 3, 2012 at 19:26

I don’t disagree with you about this regarding the improvement in
testing regimes Engineer – except that this (sort of) links in with
our previous discussion about ESA. The goalposts are constantly
changing, people are not being given adequate information or support
around this and as a result, people’s lives are less manageable and
seem subject to arbitrary whim and diktat. That may be life, but I
expect better in a democracy. (No, I don’t want to discuss whether
that’s what we have.)

gladiolys
September 3, 2012 at 19:39

And, as if to prove my point…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/03/disabled-benefits-claimants-fines-work

john77
September 3, 2012 at 21:13

NO the goalposts in June were put back into the same place as June
2011. The moans are down to the expectation that the over-generous
treatment in January would be repeated in June 2012.
You are
correct that one slightly dubious exam grade should not condemn anyone
to the scrapheap BUT tick-box attitude introduced by “equality”
legislation that frequently over-rules means that it *can*
significantly disadvantage students.

ivan September 3, 2012 at 17:29

I very much doubt that employers have been relying on exam results when
employing young people direct from school for the past 10 or so years. If
they were then the deserve all they got.

In fact I know of several employers that set tests because they can’t
rely on GCSE results to tell them anything.

gladiolys
September 3, 2012 at 19:27

Which means why bother putting teenagers through tests anyway?

ivan
September 3, 2012 at 20:47

No, it means that if the GCSE exams actually had some definable
standard employers would be able to take them at face value.

As things stand at the moment with vast numbers getting A and A*,
and a lot of them being unable to read very well or do simple
arithmetic, employers have to resort to other methods to sort the good
from the mediocre.

James September 3, 2012 at 11:49

Gildas, being thick as a plank myself, I don’t see what you did there.
Please explain.

Anna, thanks. Yes it’s a new day. Yesterday was a horror.

GildasTheMonk
September 3, 2012 at 12:19

A poor joke James *embarrassed face*

GildasTheMonk
September 3, 2012 at 11:27

First of all, well done and congratulations to the Smudlette. I remember
the dedication and hard work that such grades require. However, Anna, you may
risk being sued for causing nervous shock and upset to those who did not make
the grade (do you see what I did there?). For we live ina world in which all
aer entitled to “high” grades and the idea that they may not have achieved
them may well now ruin their lives. Damages will be enormous.

James September 3, 2012 at 11:16

You may be a fairy godmother Anna, but I don’t think that you appreciate
that some children work very hard for the lower grades. I don’t doubt that
ever rising pass rates are a problem and it is an issue that needed to be
addressed. We need to get back to some more rigorous testing. It’s only fair
to those who are talented that their grades mean something. Still, those who
are not academic have a lot to offer and we have to acknowledge those
children.

Two of my children achieved more than eight A* at GCSE level and both got
four A’s at A Level, and we were so proud. However, we have another child who
did not do so well. And it wasn’t that he was in the tanning salon. He did his
best, and to me, he is every bit as worthy a person as his brothers. His life
will follow a different course, but he is so loved, and he brings something
different to our family. We all take so much from him and he is the one that
holds us all together. He is the most loved family member. It’s not all about
pure intelligence.

Anna
Raccoon September 3, 2012 at
11:32

James, I do appreciate that some struggle at a lower level – but the
current furore is overlooking the fact that event hough the goal posts were
moved, and in spite of, some did very well indeed.
I am glad you are
having a better day!

john77 September 3, 2012 at 22:17

@ James
Yes, of course every child should be measured against his
potential rather than just against his brothers, and you are quite right
that intelligence is far less important than what you do with it. My younger
son’s achievement in getting into the local university at 19 is greater than
my elder son’s getting into a Russell Group university at 17 because he only
transferred from a MLD school into mainstream 5 terms before GCSE.
But
how useful is the marking system for distinguishing between high-quality
students if two of your children got A* results in their *eighth-best*
subjects? (I assume that your last name is not Einstein or Hawking). I am
not *very* stupid but my school would not allow me even to take four ‘A’
level subjects (nor, a generation earlier would they allow my father who was
*not* stupid to take the same four subjects as HNCs) .

gladiolys September 3, 2012 at 09:46

It seems to me you are missing the point. If you are going to move the
goalposts, it is only fair to tell all players in the game you are doing so.
It would change the way all players compete. Who knows, they might actually
improve their performances.

And why do you have a go at Dumbo? Not everyone has equal intelligence or
intellects. Aiming for the stars is brilliant if you have an understanding of
general and special relativity, rocket propulsion, mathematics, teamwork,
engineering etc… but all that becomes moot if you’re less academically gifted
and have never been taught to read or add up. Then it’s not so much aim for
the stars as aim for the scrapheap. (Yes, I know people who can’t read of do
maths can do perfectly good jobs and have other skills, but when every bloody
job advertisement wants people “educated to university standard”, you know a
lot will fail to make it off said scrapheap.)

Engineer September 3, 2012 at 13:14

I think I’d agree that overemphasis on exams and qualifications may not
be altogether a good thing. For me, education is about learning some basic
skills like reading, writing and arithmetic without which modern life would
be tough, and then about exploring your own capabilities a bit. Are you
academic? Are you practical? Are you enthused by the exploration of the
human condition through literature, or by striving to compete on the sports
field? Does the exploration of scientific matters inspire you, or do you
come alive in artistic endeavour?

Examinations against a set syllabus are useful in sorting the gifted from
the rest of us, but they shouldn’t be the be all and and all of education.
It does feel as if there has been a bit of political hubris involved in
seeing that grades get better year on year – “See, our policies are working!
Everyone is getting more intelligent!” – which completely, and
disasterously, misses the point. An education system that tries to turn out
people with confidence that they can make a contribution to the common good,
in their own way, would be more use than one that just teaches people to
pass exams, I think.

john77 September 3, 2012 at 20:59

What actually happened is that, according to Ofqual, they did NOT move
the goalposts for the June 2012 exams and lots of teachers are screaming
because they had assumed that the goalposts *would* be moved.
The reason
why many – NOT “every” – job adverts wants kids educated to university
standard is that the GCSEs have been so debased. One company Chairman who
was also a school governor told me that he insisted on all job applicants
submitting a handwritten letter to ensure that they could both write legibly
and spell correctly without the aid of Microsoft spellcheck!

Frankie September 3, 2012 at 22:36

I agree with gladiolys. Regardless of whether the students are pocket
Einsteins, or as thick as three short planks, the fact that the examining
body changed the assessment process halfway through the year is
reprehensible. To do this is in the circumstances as I understand them to be
is arbitary and utterly unfair.

In addition to supporting gladiolys I think that we should not be so
swift as a society to relegate the school dullards to a life of unemployment
or dull repetitive jobs. Perhaps some of those who have flown under the ‘C’
grade bar will develop later on. Perhaps they are just not suited to the
school environment – I know of many who are, but it is surprising how many
who go on to achieve much in later life.

john77 September 4, 2012 at 00:07

@ Frankie
Some examiners changed standards part-way through the
year. The fuss is because they changed them back again. Not to do so would
be unfair.
The massive debasement of exam standards is unfair on those
who passed more difficult exams in previous years. My elder son actually
*complained* that the two A/S level and A2 Chemistry textbooks were
jointly only two-thirds of the size of the previous ‘A’ level textbook. He
was learning significantly less in two years than my father learned in
one. Lesser mortals might not complain but they still suffer from ending
up with much less knowledge than previous generations of students.

Frankie
September 4, 2012 at 20:24

@ John:

So… the whole thing is an unholy mess… again. I entirely agree that
exams appear to be getting easier but I think that if they are going to
change the standards then there should be a definitive end date for one
and a well advertised start for the next assessment. Catching students
‘between two stools’ as it were is massively unfair to them and can have
long term consequences. If the examining bodies were exemplary in their
conduct of such matters there would be less room for criticism, but the
sad fact is that many of them appear to be massively incompetent and
they are effectively playing ‘Russian Roulette’ with our youngsters
futures. I suggest one national standard examining body. No
equivocation. An ‘O’ level is an ‘O’ level. An ‘A’ level is an ‘A’
level. No equivalency with other qualifications, such that ’3 of that
equals one of those’. It has to be the way forward, so that the playing
field is level for everyone.

I wish your son all the best in his future endeavours. As my child
starts school (Primary School) tomorrow I have all this to look forward
to…

sackcloth and
ashes September 5, 2012 at
11:49

‘If you are going to move the goalposts, it is only fair to tell
all players in the game you are doing so’.

The goalposts have been moved, progressively, over the past two
decades to the point in which the goal is basically as wide as the
pitch itself, and the goalie is standing by one of the posts smoking a
tab rather than actually trying to stop other players from
scoring.

The scandal is not the fact that standards of assessment are
(finally) being applied. It’s the Ponzi scheme of grade inflation that
preceded it.

About a week ago I got to see what passed for a school report for a
13 year old, studying at a pretty decent comp in SW England. The
subjects were listed and broken down into three categories – ‘Effort’,
‘Behaviour’ (in class) and ‘Organisation’ (submitting homework on
time) – with performance rated 1 (crap) to 5 (excellent).

Nowhere on the report form was there a category fo ‘Knowledge’. The
child’s parents had no way of determining how well the kid was doing,
whether he was able to master his subject, whether he had been
struggling with it and had made progress, or whether he was still
struggling and needed remedial work. His academic performance was not
registered in any way, shape or form.

Moreover, his form tutor and teachers for specific subjects did not
register how he had performed over the course of the year, and what
grades he was getting for his homework. It was utterly farcical.

The GCSE system has failed because ministers, civil servants,
headteachers, examiners, teachers and Unions (collectively) have been
involved in a conspiracy of optimism to record progress year-on-year,
without bothering to see if the pupils have the necessary skills in
literacy, numeracy etc required for their subjects.

ivan September 3, 2012 at 09:33

Is this noisy complaining at all surprising when you look at the teachers
and head teachers in the first two photos of this article in the Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196497/GCSE-results-2012-Headteachers-renew-threat-legal-action-exam-regulator-says-summers-tests-graded.html
In
fact if they are representative of the teaching profession then all I can say
is very well done all those that achieved good results, you battled those that
would hold you back and succeeded.

Mudplugger September 3, 2012 at 08:58

Behind this futile furore are a couple of key issues. Firstly, after this
year’s exam results, the prime places on next-level courses and
apprenticeships etc will have been awarded to those pupils who scored better
than others in the same test. That sounds to me exactly the outcome which
should be desired.

The main reason this has become a high-profile issue is that it operates
around the boundary between C and D – the key level on which schools, and thus
teachers, are themselves measured. Had it been between A and B, or B and C, we
would never have heard any more about it. We are simply being subjected to the
noisy self-interest of the incompetents. If the best they can do it to get
kids up to Grade C (by recent grade measures), they really shouldn’t be in
that ‘profession’.

The sooner we revert to a measurement system where it is a rare event to
achieve A*, with a smooth scale of sub-classification, the sooner we will have
a meaningful scale of reference which employers and further educators can then
use with confidence.