With the announcements today about the reform of examinations, following  on from the grading problems of the summer, now would be  a good time to step back and take stock. Going back to first principles, beliefs and values is a good thing to do when a system becomes chaotic and the noise of discontent and counter argument abound.

Twitter world is still  full of huge discontent and frustration; and rightly so. We still have no justice for those young people who sat their exams in good faith. The proposed changes to the assessment framework from 2015 must not be confused with this problem,  although the political soundbites only go to undermine further what our young people have achieved.

But let’s take a rationale view of today’s announcement and just “park” the grading problems for one moment.

TERMINAL EXAMS

The purpose of assessment is to determine what students know, can do, and can apply. You can design examinations that can do this, but we are looking for something that gives us a reliable indication of potential and being able to do this, and show this on one occasion, is not fit for purpose. Those countries that we admire as being at the top of the academic tree, rarely do this. It is much more reliable to observe performance across  different methods and over a longer period of time. Finland for instance rely almost entirely on teacher assessment.

However, because over the last few years schools have been concerned about their league positions and raw floor targets, they have taken advantage of a range of different entry approaches. “Do we enter early and bank where we are, or do we wait until June and seek to get the higher grades?” Similarly some schools  have sought out a range of so-called equivalent qualifications to raise the overall level often irrespective of the qualifications educational  value. To call an end to this and for everyone to follow the same  entry process with the same board is something to value.

In Sweden and in LST academies we use the word “bildning”. It is hard to translate it into  English because it means “education”. It is about creating the “educated” person – someone who develops a more complex and informed view of the world through the acquisition of knowledge, skills and values. Everything in our present system means we focus on training not education. Training to pass exams. I have observed hundreds of lessons over the last two decades and see more attention being deployed on how to pass an exam than on the intrinsic value of the learning. Will terminal exams help? Not much?

ENGLISH BACCALAUREATE

It seems that the proposal is separating out the EBACC subjects  for this approach.  That makes sense as  doing a one off terminal examination in Art and Dance and Technology would just be silly. But can we stop and think about this. At the moment only between 15 and 20 % of young people are achieving an EBACC.  Again in many countries students continue  with a broad curriculum including arts and technologies until they are 16. Many of these subjects excite and motivate large numbers of young people. We must take this opportunity to re-evaluate what is in our core curriculum. I’m a geographer by training, and will fight to justify the skills and knowledge I think young people should have. I have come to understand that the answers to the big questions in life and understanding of how this global society works requires a much more integrated approach. We seem to be obsessed with individual subject titles physics, history, music etcetera. “Being educated” is more than that. Can we take this opportunity to think this through and find a truly relevant approach for the 21st century.

ARTIFICIAL BOUNDARIES AND APPLIED LEARNING ROUTES

Kenneth Baker and John Dunford have written over the last couple of days about thinking differently about 16 as the ultimate examination point. In Sweden almost all students continue to study until 18. That is what we are supposed to doing. Some students might take a little longer to get the core subjects to the basic level we agree. Why make 16 a pass or fail point. In addition, I have seen so many young people thrive on  a practical or applied learning route. We recently created a rigorous diploma route with applied learning backed by rigorous core skills. We even had buy-in from industry and business who participated fully in their development. Then we threw it all away….again. University Technical Colleges offer an interesting model that might be more universally available.

I hope through this consultation period that politicians will listen and take advantage of this chance to change to create a world-class system. I hope they will understand best practice in pedagogy and assessment. And whilst we are at it can we stop using phrases like “dumbing down”,  and ” grade inflation” . Can we also build a system that values all young people and encourages them at some point to reach the highest of standards. We may want to have a gold standard that everyone recognises and understands , but having other types of accreditation that marks the journey or is based on a different skills framework is equally as important. Just different.

Change is easy. Improving is not the same thing. Let’s think this through!