-I can't say it better than this Guardian story.
Exam system 'diseased', claims former education adviserMick Waters says exam boards 'almost corrupt' and make profits through textbooks that hint at exam questions
The Guardian, Friday 17 September 2010
No conferring, now ... A-level exam in progress.
England's exam system is "diseased" and rife with "insider trading", a former government adviser has said in a book which lifts the lid on the ideological divisions over schools policy at the heart of New Labour.
The book, Reinventing Schools, Reforming Teaching, is the first to look back at education policy under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and interviews several key players of the period, including some of Blair's closest advisers and officials.
In it Mick Waters, formerly a director at the Qualifications and Curriculum Agency, accuses exam boards of being "almost corrupt" and claims they make profits by publishing textbooks that practically tell teachers what questions will appear in the exams the boards set.
He says exam boards boast that their tests are the easiest to convince teachers to pick their syllabus, and they tell schools that their students will pass as long as they buy and follow the textbooks.
"We've got a set of exam bodies who are in a market place ... I've seen people talk to headteachers implying that their examinations are easier," Waters is quoted as saying. "Not only that, they provide the textbook to help you through it. Before I went for this job, I used to think that all this criticism of exams – that they were being dumbed-down – was unfair ... since I've been there, I think the system is diseased, almost corrupt."
The book, written by John Bangs, a visiting professor at the Institute of Education, and two Cambridge University professors, John MacBeath and Maurice Galton, is published today.
The authors argue that while the Blair and Brown governments rebuilt many of England's secondary schools and improved standards, they ignored teachers' views and failed to convince them of their reforms.
The book reveals cabinet tensions over the use of the phrase "bog-standard comprehensive" by Alastair Campbell, Blair's official spokesman, in 2001. The then education secretary, David Blunkett, was said to be furious at its implication of low standards. Peter Hyman, a former government adviser reveals that Blair called Blunkett's office to apologise for the use of the phrase, but privately told colleagues that the comments "had given [the party] some definition".
Fiona Millar, a former No 10 adviser, tells the authors: "There was a real divide within No 10 between people they would see as Old Labour like me and Alastair [Campbell] … and the sort of thrusting young Middle England people who allegedly knew what parents wanted. Some of them had just made their minds up that comprehensive schools were a disaster."
The book also includes interviews with former Tory education secretaries, Gillian Shepherd and Kenneth Baker, and the current education secretary, Michael Gove.
The authors warn the coalition government that the education system would only be improved with teachers' approval. "Many of the Labour government's achievements have been obscured by its poor relationship with teachers," Bangs said.
The exam boards are unlikely to accept Waters's criticisms. Edexcel said it has never said its exams were easier. "We are confident that all our qualifications are rigorous, fair to learners and represent the highest possible standards."
Waters also accuses the exams regulator, Ofqual, of lacking the courage to challenge the exam boards.
"I fully support having a regulator who can ask awkward questions. So, what I'd now want to see is a regulator asking the questions ... I don't think they've got the nerve. They should immediately look up whether the chief examiner should be allowed to write the textbook with regards to pupils' questions. That's insider dealing. You shouldn't be allowed to do that."
The authors argue that Ofqual is unable to ask difficult questions because its chair and chief executive are appointed by government .
----end
Business is good for the economy, stoopid. How else can we teach children how to scam the government?
-Cosmik67
Thursday 23 September 2010
Friday 28 May 2010
Issue 1: abusive students are not removed from class
Definition: I don't mean 'student who talks too much', I mean 'abuses teacher'.
As bizarre as it was for me, when I heard this, it's true. Back home, everybody in class knew how much they could push their luck in a classroom. It took a rare idiot to cross the line and piss off the teacher. Of course, we had one chain-smoking teacher who got pissed off at everything, but he was a waste of space.
Back in the UK, having had a not-so-distant history of abusing students in many ways, let's say up to the '70's, now the system is all kid-gloves with the students. They can't bring themselves to ruin the educational experience of even one child. Unfortunately, that one child can ruin lessons for everybody else. The craziness of the rules came to the point that, last I heard, students who physically assaulted a teacher, let alone verbally, could not be removed from class, not permanently, not for the day, not even for the lesson in which the student hits his teacher!
Can you imagine the belittling of a teacher by students. Of course, that invites other students to do the same. In the end, those kids who abuse will try to impose themselves everywhere in the adult world, and often land themselves in jail. That's why schools are strict. Kids need it. Kids will respect control if it is fair (ask any psychologist). Kids, somewhere inside their noggins, know that they are ever-so-slightly out of control and need a leash.
Well, that doesn't exist in the UK schools. One easy conclusion to draw from this is that the government is seeking to deep-six the state system so that parents will borrow the money to send their kids to private education. As a result, many are doing so, and others have located the best-performing state schools and lie, cheat and steal to get their kids in. Chaos, ever summer!
Anyway, let's not lose sight of the teacher in all this. Many of them go nuts, under this system. The one class I observed some years ago, had a teacher who visibly shook during class, and spent her breaks smoking. Nothing else, but smoking.
Recent case:
One teacher basically flipped out, after the students (they admitted it in court) had been driving him nuts. Teacher took a dumbell (always good to have one in class) to a kid's head causing serious, but not life-threatening injuries. He escaped jail, but lost his job. He's probably a wreck anyway, and has to deal with his PTSD.
Here's a letter to the Metro newspaper from a couple of months ago, after the judgement. Try to read into it the implication of the hell that is the classroom for many teachers, because of the rule-makers ignorance:
Beating a child senseless cannot be right. But no doubt the circumstances that drove him to it were probably not right either. Peter Harvey has probably expressed the feelings of thousands of teachers- they are human too. I have a number of friends and family who are teachers and they have similar feelings. Who is going to crack next? Are the authorities now going to take notice? AG , Surrey
-Cosmik67
As bizarre as it was for me, when I heard this, it's true. Back home, everybody in class knew how much they could push their luck in a classroom. It took a rare idiot to cross the line and piss off the teacher. Of course, we had one chain-smoking teacher who got pissed off at everything, but he was a waste of space.
Back in the UK, having had a not-so-distant history of abusing students in many ways, let's say up to the '70's, now the system is all kid-gloves with the students. They can't bring themselves to ruin the educational experience of even one child. Unfortunately, that one child can ruin lessons for everybody else. The craziness of the rules came to the point that, last I heard, students who physically assaulted a teacher, let alone verbally, could not be removed from class, not permanently, not for the day, not even for the lesson in which the student hits his teacher!
Can you imagine the belittling of a teacher by students. Of course, that invites other students to do the same. In the end, those kids who abuse will try to impose themselves everywhere in the adult world, and often land themselves in jail. That's why schools are strict. Kids need it. Kids will respect control if it is fair (ask any psychologist). Kids, somewhere inside their noggins, know that they are ever-so-slightly out of control and need a leash.
Well, that doesn't exist in the UK schools. One easy conclusion to draw from this is that the government is seeking to deep-six the state system so that parents will borrow the money to send their kids to private education. As a result, many are doing so, and others have located the best-performing state schools and lie, cheat and steal to get their kids in. Chaos, ever summer!
Anyway, let's not lose sight of the teacher in all this. Many of them go nuts, under this system. The one class I observed some years ago, had a teacher who visibly shook during class, and spent her breaks smoking. Nothing else, but smoking.
Recent case:
One teacher basically flipped out, after the students (they admitted it in court) had been driving him nuts. Teacher took a dumbell (always good to have one in class) to a kid's head causing serious, but not life-threatening injuries. He escaped jail, but lost his job. He's probably a wreck anyway, and has to deal with his PTSD.
Here's a letter to the Metro newspaper from a couple of months ago, after the judgement. Try to read into it the implication of the hell that is the classroom for many teachers, because of the rule-makers ignorance:
Beating a child senseless cannot be right. But no doubt the circumstances that drove him to it were probably not right either. Peter Harvey has probably expressed the feelings of thousands of teachers- they are human too. I have a number of friends and family who are teachers and they have similar feelings. Who is going to crack next? Are the authorities now going to take notice? AG , Surrey
-Cosmik67
Sunday 14 February 2010
Intro. Teach the students how to survive
Welcome to my new blog on issues around education. As you can see, I have other blogs, and my 'Now, testify' blog has included education stories, from a political angle.
I believe that, whether intentionally or not, education has been made a political football and every politician has decided to give it a kick or two. This is especially true due to the financial crisis.
So, I think it deserves a closer look, as policy and pedagogy.
I've decided that this is a critical time in British, if not world education.
I'm involved in university education, but my interests spread to other levels as well.
I'm most concerned with tendencies which are denying a proper education
to lots of children over here.
It mostly has to do with politics, but I will critique this stuff
from an educational perspective, because most of it is
sizzle without the steak.
It's about master strokes, and making of somebody's place in history.
Ya, like Machiavelli, and about as bloody.
I'm not of one political party or -ism, but some things are
either right or they aren't.
Some of the awful things proposed do have some positive aspects,
but you have to look hard to find them. So, I will.
Enjoy. I'd like to read your comments as well.
I believe that, whether intentionally or not, education has been made a political football and every politician has decided to give it a kick or two. This is especially true due to the financial crisis.
So, I think it deserves a closer look, as policy and pedagogy.
I've decided that this is a critical time in British, if not world education.
I'm involved in university education, but my interests spread to other levels as well.
I'm most concerned with tendencies which are denying a proper education
to lots of children over here.
It mostly has to do with politics, but I will critique this stuff
from an educational perspective, because most of it is
sizzle without the steak.
It's about master strokes, and making of somebody's place in history.
Ya, like Machiavelli, and about as bloody.
I'm not of one political party or -ism, but some things are
either right or they aren't.
Some of the awful things proposed do have some positive aspects,
but you have to look hard to find them. So, I will.
Enjoy. I'd like to read your comments as well.
-Cosmik67
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
