"Donkeys live a long time" Why I am Cynical About Raising Standards In Education.
 |
| "Donkeys live a long time" |
It's an easy sell for anyone in politics. Nobody in their right mind would argue against the raisng of standards. Take me for example - I am probably all for it, I just want to know what it means...
I am an English teacher, so of course I turn to a dictionary first:
The problem I have is that it is all very abstract. We want education to be better. Better than other in other countries, better than in the past, better than it is at present. We want top quality. We want excellence.
On one level we know what that looks like - if we give children top quality education, then they will learn more, make more progress and get better exam results, won't they? We can see clearly when exam results rise and fall. If they go up then clearly things must have have got better. If they go down then things must have got worse. It all seems simple, straightforward and logical. A bit too simple, a bit too straightforward and a lot too Daily Mail. In other words, "raising standards" doesn't actually mean very much.
It seems to me that the current drive for higher standards is based on some pretty shaky assumptions.
Firstly the assumption that better exam results mean that education is improving. Something is improving certainly, because exam boards (despite what some would have you believe) are not giving grades away - but it is not education unless education means teaching children to pass exams. Because that is what we do now, sadly. Some of us are very, very good at it. We dissect the mark scheme, see where the short cuts are, give our students the "tricks of the trade" and we drill them until they can do those exams in their sleep. If Y11 can't tell me how many minutes to spend on each question, what skills to use in each and recite the mnemonics I have devised for them then I have not done my job. My learners will feel secure going into the exams because they know what to expect and have mastery over the skills they need to be successful.
It's magnificent, but it is not education.
Real education is so much more, because real education prepares us for life. Being able to compare two writers' methods in presenting their contrasting views on a theme is not going to help Alfie much in his pursuit of a career in... well anything really. But Alfie has spent a heck of a lot of time learning to do it, and it hasn't left him very keen on reading as an activity either.
Secondly, there is the assumption that "one size can fit all" which doesn't work in Marks and Spencer let alone in schools. Why does it "raise standards" to have all children sit the same exam? Why do we assume that it is a useful exercise to have some young people fail miserably?
This cartoon is well known of course...
...precisely because it makes the point well.
The GCSE exams which we work so very hard to get as many children as possible through are only useful in that they tell us who has the sort of intelligence that will enable them to go on to do a harder version of the exam in two years time so that they can go on to do even harder exams in the future, and who should go to College and do a useful course like Hair and Beauty or Construction.
I know that at some point next term a learner will say to me something along the lines of, "Why do we have to do all this Shakespeare/poetry/An Inspector Calls? When am I going to need this in real life?"
As an English teacher I have all sorts of answers I could give - some short and pithy, some longer and more philosophical. The response that I usually give is this:
"Son, this IS real life and you need it NOW because it is on the exam paper that, whether you like it or not you ARE going to be taking soon. Who knows what you will do in the future? Goodness only knows how the ability to talk about complex ideas eloquently and persuasively will benefit you. Who knows when pulling out a quote from a 400 year old play will impress the right person at the right time? Who knows when being able to see someone else's viewpoint will come in handy? But when it does - you will be glad."
It sounds convincing, but who am I really kidding? Certainly not Alfie. Alfie is going to work for his Dad's construction firm. He will probably earn a lot more than I do, have a better work/life balance and retire to a little place in the Bahamas and good luck to him!
Finally, the assumption that bothers me most is the one that has silently been accepted by most teachers I know. That when students don't do well, it is our fault. We didn't try hard enough. So "raising standards" means working harder. Schools are full of teachers chanting along with Boxer the willing workhorse from 'Animal Farm': "I must work harder" and, "Napoleon is always right."
We are not stupid, so why have allowed ourselves to be seduced by the idea that us doing more will lead to learners doing better when in fact it leads to learners taking less and less responsibility for their learning? The less they do, the more we have to do. No wonder we are falling over as a profession.
I'm with Benjamin on this one - the cynical donkey from the same book:
"Donkeys live a long time. None of you has ever seen a dead donkey."
That doesn't mean that I am not willing to work hard for my students - heaven knows I will play my part in getting those kids through the exams. It does mean however that I will expect them to be doing the heavy lifting.
So what do I think that raising standards should mean? Well that's a long story and a topic for another blog - what I will say is that it does not mean continuing to value what we measure rather than measuring what we value. It definitely doesn't mean squeezing even more children through the GCSE sausage machine and it absolutely does not mean doing better in some random international test of difficult sums.
standard
On one level we know what that looks like - if we give children top quality education, then they will learn more, make more progress and get better exam results, won't they? We can see clearly when exam results rise and fall. If they go up then clearly things must have have got better. If they go down then things must have got worse. It all seems simple, straightforward and logical. A bit too simple, a bit too straightforward and a lot too Daily Mail. In other words, "raising standards" doesn't actually mean very much.
It seems to me that the current drive for higher standards is based on some pretty shaky assumptions.
Firstly the assumption that better exam results mean that education is improving. Something is improving certainly, because exam boards (despite what some would have you believe) are not giving grades away - but it is not education unless education means teaching children to pass exams. Because that is what we do now, sadly. Some of us are very, very good at it. We dissect the mark scheme, see where the short cuts are, give our students the "tricks of the trade" and we drill them until they can do those exams in their sleep. If Y11 can't tell me how many minutes to spend on each question, what skills to use in each and recite the mnemonics I have devised for them then I have not done my job. My learners will feel secure going into the exams because they know what to expect and have mastery over the skills they need to be successful.
It's magnificent, but it is not education.
Real education is so much more, because real education prepares us for life. Being able to compare two writers' methods in presenting their contrasting views on a theme is not going to help Alfie much in his pursuit of a career in... well anything really. But Alfie has spent a heck of a lot of time learning to do it, and it hasn't left him very keen on reading as an activity either.
Secondly, there is the assumption that "one size can fit all" which doesn't work in Marks and Spencer let alone in schools. Why does it "raise standards" to have all children sit the same exam? Why do we assume that it is a useful exercise to have some young people fail miserably?
This cartoon is well known of course...
...precisely because it makes the point well.
The GCSE exams which we work so very hard to get as many children as possible through are only useful in that they tell us who has the sort of intelligence that will enable them to go on to do a harder version of the exam in two years time so that they can go on to do even harder exams in the future, and who should go to College and do a useful course like Hair and Beauty or Construction.
I know that at some point next term a learner will say to me something along the lines of, "Why do we have to do all this Shakespeare/poetry/An Inspector Calls? When am I going to need this in real life?"
As an English teacher I have all sorts of answers I could give - some short and pithy, some longer and more philosophical. The response that I usually give is this:
"Son, this IS real life and you need it NOW because it is on the exam paper that, whether you like it or not you ARE going to be taking soon. Who knows what you will do in the future? Goodness only knows how the ability to talk about complex ideas eloquently and persuasively will benefit you. Who knows when pulling out a quote from a 400 year old play will impress the right person at the right time? Who knows when being able to see someone else's viewpoint will come in handy? But when it does - you will be glad."
It sounds convincing, but who am I really kidding? Certainly not Alfie. Alfie is going to work for his Dad's construction firm. He will probably earn a lot more than I do, have a better work/life balance and retire to a little place in the Bahamas and good luck to him!
Finally, the assumption that bothers me most is the one that has silently been accepted by most teachers I know. That when students don't do well, it is our fault. We didn't try hard enough. So "raising standards" means working harder. Schools are full of teachers chanting along with Boxer the willing workhorse from 'Animal Farm': "I must work harder" and, "Napoleon is always right."
We are not stupid, so why have allowed ourselves to be seduced by the idea that us doing more will lead to learners doing better when in fact it leads to learners taking less and less responsibility for their learning? The less they do, the more we have to do. No wonder we are falling over as a profession.
I'm with Benjamin on this one - the cynical donkey from the same book:
"Donkeys live a long time. None of you has ever seen a dead donkey."
That doesn't mean that I am not willing to work hard for my students - heaven knows I will play my part in getting those kids through the exams. It does mean however that I will expect them to be doing the heavy lifting.
So what do I think that raising standards should mean? Well that's a long story and a topic for another blog - what I will say is that it does not mean continuing to value what we measure rather than measuring what we value. It definitely doesn't mean squeezing even more children through the GCSE sausage machine and it absolutely does not mean doing better in some random international test of difficult sums.
Comments
Post a Comment