EDUCATION EXAM STANDARDS
Exam standards… are they up or down?
Tim Oates, Group Director of Research and Development, Cambridge Assessment – Europe’s largest assessment agency – explains why he is opening up the exam debate
than they were 50 years ago?). To answer this question accurately, you have to go into more detail, and the detail is complex. I believe we need to go into this matter with more sophistication than we have in the past. I worry that the complexity has put people off, both within the education community and in the wider public domain. Cambridge Assessment has opened this area up to public debate, feeling that full engagement with the issues is long overdue. We are not detracting from the effort which young people
I
and teachers put into their learning and into examinations. The evidence suggests that the majority of young people work long and hard for their exam grades. Therein lies a problem. Everyone recognises – far more than in the past – how important it is to get good grades in GCSEs and A-levels. Successive Governments have increasingly held schools to account through exam grades. So it is no surprise that young people have become more focussed in their efforts and ask what they need to do to get good grades, encouraging teachers to be more precise about what will ‘unlock’ higher marks in exams. This is why past papers now appear on the web and are
pored over by all. Marking schemes are made public. Text books are more ‘tuned’ to the requirements of specific exams. It’s clear, open and efficient and a move from what Dennis Lawton called ‘ambush assessment’ – i.e. hit them hard with things they don’t expect. Justifiably, we have moved from exams which tried to ‘catch people out’ to exams which are designed to show precisely what people can do. These changes mean that young people do not necessarily know or understand more than they did in the past, but the proportions getting higher grades will go up. Is the tight focus on what the assessment requires,
educationally, a good thing? Not entirely. We are concerned about this narrowing of focus – ‘liberating learning’ and engagement with subjects should be our goal, not narrow drilling for examinations. A few other trends make this more problematic. The
WWW.FIRSTELEVENMAGAZINE.CO.UK
t’s a straightforward enough question. Society deserves an answer. So why can’t researchers give one, clearly and simply? Perhaps it’s like other questions about complex social systems (such as whether crime is decreasing? Or, are children happier now
structure of examinations has changed, largely at the behest of the Government. Modular examinations now dominate the system. They benefit young people who otherwise would ‘leave it all until a week before the exam’, and modular assessments provide vital feedback to learners (‘I thought I would be doing German, History and Music for A2, but I did very well in my AS Maths and badly in Music, so I took my Maths through to A2 and excelled…’). These benefits tend to increase the numbers getting high grades – people can ‘fine tune’ their subject choices, and re-enter for modules to improve their grades. Awarding bodies have addressed biased exam questions
and improved the accessibility and clarity of questions. Exams measure better than they did 50, or even 20, years ago. This is all designed to better show what young people
know and can do. Increasing access, updating content, switching to modular/unit provision – and transparency in mark schemes, grade criteria and guidance – have all preoccupied Government policy makers. Awarding bodies have delivered on that agenda. In the
increase in A grades (seven per cent gaining three A grades at A-level in the mid 90s, to 17 per cent last year) there’s a large measure of genuine, increased attainment but there’s also a measure of increase which relates to the changes resulting from increased accessibility and transparency. Our debate is intended to throw light on how much the underlying standards of attainment have genuinely improved. Finally, constant change makes it
difficult to maintain standards over time. There have been too many changes in the form and content of qualifications – a pace of change not welcomed by those, including the national regulator Ofqual, who are charged with maintaining standards. Qualifications should be updated to reflect changes in each subject. But the extent of top-down change has far exceeded the level required. Stability and a more precise discussion of standards will help to secure the high confidence we should have in our world-class public examinations. %
SUMMER 2010 FIRST ELEVEN 39
If you wish to contribute to the debate or for further information about Cambridge Assessment, visit:
www.cambridge
assessment.org.uk
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 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84