NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


Exams: Are we too open with teachers?


I BEGAN examining – English Lang and Lit – in the early days of what became 10 years out of the classroom, raising a family. I was able to mark when


Guest


editorial Hilary


babies slept, and 300 or 400 scripts were actually easier to squeeze into three weeks then than they were when I was back in the classroom. The experience helped me get back: I’d kept my hand in


Moriarty


while officially “out”, I was up to speed on what examiners were looking for. Indeed, when I joined schools doing exams I had not taught before, I examined for the street-cred in the new staffroom. I believed examining made me really useful to both


colleagues and candidates, like a veteran coming back from the trenches. For instance, I had been firmly reprimanded for once saying of a thin last answer on an otherwise very strong paper that this was a good candidate but a poor time- keeper, so he deserved some leniency on this last answer. Wrong. As the chief examiner pointed out, I knew


nothing about the candidate or his knowledge of the books. Maybe he had written all he could recall on the last book, then twiddled his thumbs till time was up. No leniency. Mark what’s on the page. Back in school, we devised a blanket rule for examinees – give each question equal time; but if you slip up, answer the last question with as many bullet points as you can. You may say such advice was common sense. But you


teach in a world where exam boards have for years been telling you exactly what to tell every student, whereas I began my career in a world where exam boards were akin to MI5 in their secrecy. Giving them what they wanted was educated guesswork. In my early – and even middle – career, no-one knew quite what examiners wanted unless they had been an examiner. In the olden days, most of us trawled the last few years’


papers to try to second-guess examiners. If madness in Macbeth came up last year, it was unlikely this year. Every now and then, you came a cropper, and suspected pure mischief on the part of the exam setter: a GCE O level question asking for a thorough discussion of the Porter’s scene (all of two pages in our text) reduced some of my candidates to tears. You work in a time when candidates expect you to


prepare them very thoroughly not just on your subject, but also on the exam. I saw yesterday a poster in a school which declared that 50 per cent of exam success was in exam technique, only 30 per cent depended on knowledge of subject. What do the examiners want? What points will get the marks? And since exam success has of late become absolutely necessary for everyone in the business, there has been an explosion of information about what to say and how it will be marked. Candidates, parents and teachers want passes – future


lives depend on it. Heads want everyone to pass – the very life of the school can depend on it. Exam boards want successful candidates – their business depends on it. The government wants success so they can brag about standards of education rising – their re-election may depend on it. So the slide away from teachers saying “they could


ask you anything so let’s teach and learn everything”, to examiners saying “let’s tell you what we want, then all you have to do is plate it up” has been demonstrable. And, it appears, dangerous for standards. The government has woken up to the torrent of


information replacing the lofty secrecy, and it appears they hope to stem this tide – no more examiners’ seminars for all and take us back to the golden age of candidates going into the exams armed only with what they know of the subject. If they succeed, it’s just possible that the only way


you will be able to find out what examiners want is to become one yourself. And if you did, would that give your candidates an unfair advantage and actually be classed as cheating?


SecEd


• This guest editorial has been written by Hilary Moriarty, who taught English for 25 years in comprehensive, grammar and independent schools. The editor of SecEd is Pete Henshaw. You can email him at editor@sec-ed.co.uk


www.sec-ed.com


Keeping a close eye on education


IF THE House of Commons Education Select Committee is intended to be a critical friend to ministers, it could not have chosen better than Graham Stuart MP as its chairman. The no-nonsense head of the


all-party panel has put tough questions to Michael Gove, the education secretary, and the prime minister on education policy and he makes no apologies for it. As the first elected chairman


of the committee, under changes introduced at the start of the current administration, it is perhaps doubly important to be seen to be applying the appropriate scrutiny. “The government has carried


out a fairly radical change to the education system and is determined to turn around the reversal of fortunes as outlined in PISA and other research,” he explained. “Despite the large investment


in education of the last government this has not been reflected in the level of rising standards that we would want to see. “With so many countries


around the world working so hard to improve their education systems, the stakes have never been higher.” Mr Stuart expressed concerns


about the speed with which the Academies Act was pushed through Parliament, but he added: “After 13 years of another government it is understandable that the new ministerial team would want to give a new sense of direction. “The Act has freed up schools


from the sometimes dead hand of local authorities but we have to ensure we have sufficient checks and balances to support those that don’t succeed. I questioned David Cameron about this.” The prime minister admitted to


MPs during his Select Committee appearance in March that the role of local authorities would be “quite changed” by the expansion of academies and ministers had yet to decide how best to support those in difficulty. In response, Mr Stuart said:


“This is not (an issue) we can continue to avoid. We will soon have more than half of all secondary schools as academies and the prime minister wants thousands of primaries to follow. We can’t wait any longer for answers.” He continued: “These changes


need to occur by evolution and not revolution. What we don’t want is to afford less scrutiny to the larcenous, idle and incompetent. The drive towards academies is leaving more and more people who are not outstanding practitioners at the helm. “Politically and educationally


‘ 6


we cannot have a huge number of failing autonomous institutions spending lots of money. We need to harness the positive energy out there but at the same time ensure that this revolution is sustainable in the long run.”


Scrutiny: Members of the Education Select Committee, including chairman Graham Stuart (centre, top), quiz the education secretary, Michael Gove, at a hearing in January this year


The Education Select Committee plays a crucial role in scrutinising education policy and performance. Its chairman Graham Stuart MP speaks to Dorothy Lepkowska about some key issues, including academies, awarding bodies,


the EBacc, and his relationship with the education secretary Elsewhere, the committee’s


report into the administration of the examination system for 15 to 19 year olds is due to be published shortly. “The central question


concerning us was the dumbing down of examinations, whether they need structural change and whether we need to look at franchising out individual subjects to one board,” Mr Stuart said. “I am concerned about how,


and whether, the examination boards are competing. Are they in competition over how accessible their examinations are – which is another way of saying how easy they are – and do they suggest that if a school chooses them more students will achieve grade Cs and above?” Mr Stuart has also been


critical of the manner in which the EnglishBaccalaureate (EBacc) was implemented. He explained: “It was done


retrospectively as a performance measure, and was harsh by any definition. Many issues hadn’t been ironed out. “I spoke to a headteacher who


offered half courses in history and geography. But because the school scored 0 per cent on EBacc measures he is now going to move to full conventional courses, resulting in a lower uptake.” This focus on a handful


of subjects was one of the key questions put to Mr Gove during


We get on well personally but


as chairman of Select Committee it would not be appropriate to get too close to him


’ ‘ We will soon have more than


half of all secondary schools as academies. We can’t wait any longer for answers


his appearance before the Select Committee in January (pictured). The chairman suggested it


could result in schools targeting pupils capable of reaching grade C, rather than supporting the lowest- achieving pupils and those from the poorest backgrounds. He accused Mr Gove of being


“naïve” in failing to recognise that a framework of incentives would become a “driver of behaviour”, and gave the example of the school manipulating its subject options to increase its EBacc score. The education secretary argued


there must not be assumptions that poorer children could not achieve high results – or that they should not have access to a full range of academic subjects. So what is the nature of Mr


Stuart’s relationship with the education secretary? “We get on quite well personally but as chairman of Select Committee it would not be appropriate to get too close to him. I raise issues regularly with him in the division, and I am in regular contact with ministers and the chancellor.” Mr Stuart is trying to persuade


George Osborne to look more closely at the value that good teachers add to their student’s lives beyond their formal education, with a view possibly to offering better remuneration. He was inspired by a recent


talk on teacher quality given to the Policy Exchange, an influential UK think-tank, by Professor Eric


Hanushek of Stanford University in the United States. “He has looked at the economic


success of students and the correlation between that and good teaching,” Mr Stuart said. “Teachers in the 90th percentile


’


created an impact of £800,000 more in earnings over a lifetime than an average teacher. The ugly corollary is that the 10th percentile of poor teachers will have a negative effect.” Mr Stuart casts doubt on plans


to attract the best graduates with bursaries. Under government proposals, it will become tougher to enter teacher training but candidates offering priority subjects could get up to £20,000. “It might be better to recruit


more people through a wider funnel but to have fewer graduates, so you have the best candidates left at the end of initial teacher training ready to go into classrooms. Who cares if you only have a third- class degree if you can actually teach and inspire pupils?”


SecEd


• Dorothy Lepkowska is a freelance education journalist. The full version of this interview can be found in the summer issue ofMake the Grade, the magazine of the Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors.


Further information


The Education Selection Committee: www.parliament.uk/ education-committee


SecEd • June 14 2012


Image: PA Wire


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16