I got my GCSE results yesterday. My friends got their GCSE results yesterday while older friends got their A and AS level results two weeks ago. Most of us were happy about our results with #Englishgate only upsetting a few. What did upset me however was the few minor mutterings of "Of course they did well; exams are getting easier". I understand the skepticism facing better grades year on year, (with them falling this summer for the first time in 24 years). I would be skeptical myself had I not just sat the exams and invested two years of hard work into them. However, the explanation is not easier exams but improved teaching, better resources, smarter kids and most important of all; hard working kids.
We Have Improved Teaching
Teachers are awesome. No matter your views on their pay and working hours, you cannot deny they do a job fundamental to our society; they educate the young. Education is so important to our society that we are constantly seeking to improve it. There is the entire field of educational research; a science dedicated to improving education. Teachers also do this in the course of their career, honing what works and dropping what doesn't work to deliver knowledge in the most efficient manner. Teacher's also have to teach more now. This is because of the way exams have changed from the previous O-level qualification in which you used to regurgitate everything you know in a way that made sense. Instead, GCSEs not only test knowledge but "skills". For example, my History exam wasn't just having to show vast swathes of knowledge, but being able to organise and present that knowledge in a clear, structured way. This results in teachers having to teach both knowledge and skills. While, in some cases this has led to the lazy practice of "teaching to the test", for most teachers it is an extra task that they perform admirably.
We Have Better Resources
Most people who claim easier exams are over 30 years old. I.e, they grew up without the internet and the many new resources it contains. Pupils can now watch videos and play educational games to break the tedium of revision, enabling them to do more of it without dying of boredom. Those who don't understand a subject can easily text their friends to ask for an explanation or read a blog on the subject. Teacher's can use Youtube to create educational webcasts and share resources with each other. Since the advent of league tables, schools have been under pressure to achieve at or above the grade C threshold, and exam boards (since they are regulated by Ofqual) can't make easier exams, so they race to create more resources for their exams that help pupil's obtain an A*- C. Pupil's can now buy shiny revision guides and textbooks tailor-made to their course as well as downloading vast quantities of practise and past papers with mark-schemes. Finally, since the internet and the past-paper archive is growing every year, the resources are improving in quality and increasing in quantity, thus explaining (along with the other reasons) the high grade inflation we face.
We're (maybe, on average) Smarter Than You!
That ostentatious sub-heading is due to a theory called the Flynn effect which stipulates children are (on average) getting smarter year upon year. There is not yet a scientific consensus on why this is and it's nowhere near being fully explored by science so it should be treated with a small pinch of salt. However, it is still a variable that offers an alternative explanation to the old and crusty adage "exams are getting easier".
We work hard.
There are always those that don't work hard, and their grades reflect that. Most of us do work hard however: we listen in class, we do the homework, we revise and we try our best. Some of us even have break-downs because of the pressure in those final months before the exams (due to the modular form of courses recently, we've had some pressure sustained through the 2 years as well). This hard work allows us to capitalise on the improved teaching and resources mentioned above.
Finally, we've never sat O-levels and don't know what it was like in "the good old days". To us, who are constantly reminded how important they are, whether easier or harder, is irrelevant; we can only do the exam we are given. When you suggest good results were served to us on a plate, you belittle and undermine those who did well while further shaming those who didn't. It's fortunate us teenagers are reasonable and emotionally stable, otherwise we might find that incredibly offensive.
Friday, 24 August 2012
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
Learning from the Riots
The BBC recently aired the first in a series titled "The Riots: In Their Own Words", where it reconstructs interviews conducted by the Guardian and the LSE. These interviews were held because they wanted answers as to why the riots happened. It appeared the program solved little however, as the politically minded still can't find a consensus on what led to the Tottenham Riots.
As always, the "Left" (a horribly vague generalisation) more or less decided the riots were the result of underlying socio-economic problems and a prejudice towards the rioting classes. This argument fits nicely with their ideology of increased social security for the poor. Meanwhile, the more conservative "Right" (see Left) argued it was because of a lack of values and the weakening of law and order, which complements their argument for tougher prison sentences.
However, neither of these ideologies seem to account for all the behaviour shown during the riots. A demand for justice by the rioter's for their ills does not account for extreme arson and looting. A lack of adequate policing does not explain why there are no riots now that police cuts are in full swing. Despite this, the parties still hold their ideas as fact. Nowhere have I seen someone change their views because of the events during the Riots, I have only seen existing views re-enforced.
It is because of this we are unable to create a consensus towards what caused the riots, as we can only see it as between one reason or the other, ignoring the fact they might both be contributing factors. There will have been some rioting because rioters felt indignant at injustice. Some rioters will have rioted out of opportunism and greed. Some will have rioted just for an exciting night out. Most will have rioted for all these reasons combined.
Ask any historian what the cause of World War One was and he will give you many. Ask any historian what the cause of the French Revolution was, and he will give you many. Remarkable events rarely have one cause and this is the lesson we have to learn before we can learn from the riots.
As always, the "Left" (a horribly vague generalisation) more or less decided the riots were the result of underlying socio-economic problems and a prejudice towards the rioting classes. This argument fits nicely with their ideology of increased social security for the poor. Meanwhile, the more conservative "Right" (see Left) argued it was because of a lack of values and the weakening of law and order, which complements their argument for tougher prison sentences.
However, neither of these ideologies seem to account for all the behaviour shown during the riots. A demand for justice by the rioter's for their ills does not account for extreme arson and looting. A lack of adequate policing does not explain why there are no riots now that police cuts are in full swing. Despite this, the parties still hold their ideas as fact. Nowhere have I seen someone change their views because of the events during the Riots, I have only seen existing views re-enforced.
It is because of this we are unable to create a consensus towards what caused the riots, as we can only see it as between one reason or the other, ignoring the fact they might both be contributing factors. There will have been some rioting because rioters felt indignant at injustice. Some rioters will have rioted out of opportunism and greed. Some will have rioted just for an exciting night out. Most will have rioted for all these reasons combined.
Ask any historian what the cause of World War One was and he will give you many. Ask any historian what the cause of the French Revolution was, and he will give you many. Remarkable events rarely have one cause and this is the lesson we have to learn before we can learn from the riots.
Monday, 13 August 2012
Back To Reality
It has finally come to an end. After 3 weeks of nothing but sport ruling the media and conversation, the "greatest show on earth" has ended. The stadiums have been filled (towards the end), the medals have been won and all the sports that are too dull to receive more than quadrennial media attention have been remembered. All that remains is for the Paralympics to step out of the shadow, accept it's mostly hand-me-down venues and have it's games.
As you may have already guessed from my possibly over-critical analysis, I am an Olympo-skeptic, and like the misanthropic sober kid at the party, I have been one throughout the Olympics. The main reason for this is that I don't really enjoy watching sport. I can get wrapped up in the excitement of a good book, drama or Apple Keynote speech easily, yet sport has alluded my enthusiasm. I can muster up a bit of cheer and emotion for occasional, special matches but not every saturday, let alone everyday for three weeks. Just imagining it makes me want to nap.
This sense of detachment has made me realize that despite the hype about the games being inclusive, the very nature of them is exclusive. Think about it; the athletes train for four years before competing in events better than any of us could, while we watch. The Olympics is a spectator event from it's core; the sport. There is only so much inclusivity you can provide by a comprehensive Torch relay and community volunteers. This problem was then compounded by the ticket scandal and empty-seat-gate at the beginning of the games, further frustrating us mere mortals who had to use the official site. Finally, we reach the issue of the Draconian copyright laws set by the IOC and LOCOG which prevent anybody other than the Olympic partners and a few exceptions from using the logo as advertisement. Copyright laws should apply to the Olympics, but to make the Olympics a special case and add further restrictions and sanctions, with heavy enforcement, seems contrary to the spirit of the games.
Then there's also, as always, the money. We could always afford to put on the Olympics because we're an economy with a GDP of 1.6 trillion, of which the Olympic budget of £9 billion is only 0.7%. However, as Liverpool learnt when they bought Andy Carroll, just because you can afford to do something doesn't mean you should. We could have used that money as a financial stimulus or for more permanent and less localised infrastructure upgrades. Unfortunately the country is stuck between a rock and a hard place; the Olympics were bid for when times were good and to go back on our obligation to host the games, now that times are bad, would cause international scandal. Therefore, we have to host the games. In my mind however, there was a silver lining; we were told the Olympics would bring tourists and investors, who would spend money, and therefore help our woeful growth. This hasn't happened. Our economy is going to keep trundling along the path of stagnation for the forseeable future.
However, all that is now over and we can't change the past. The focus now is on "securing the legacy", the only problem being that no-one seems to agree what the legacy is and how we should go about securing it. One of the suggestions at the forefront of the politicians' lips is by learning from the spirit of the games and encouraging competitive sport in schools. What they don't understand is that competition in sports can often put the less able kids off sport rather than enduring until they find one they enjoy. Every child is different and therefore cannot solve the school sport problem with a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Instead, my experience as a teenager tells me we should not aim for gold medals in the future by emphasising competition, but aim for a healthy next-generation who all exercise by emphasising the importance of doing a sport you enjoy. A slight amendment to the old liberal cliche: "It's not the winning that counts, it's the enjoying taking part".
The Olympics wasn't that great for me because I didn't find the games as exciting, cost worthy and spectacular as everyone else. If I'm honest, I found them a bit ghastly. However, on a brighter note, I did like the Opening Ceremony and I am looking forward to watching the Paralympics, which I personally find more inspiring and enjoyable.
As you may have already guessed from my possibly over-critical analysis, I am an Olympo-skeptic, and like the misanthropic sober kid at the party, I have been one throughout the Olympics. The main reason for this is that I don't really enjoy watching sport. I can get wrapped up in the excitement of a good book, drama or Apple Keynote speech easily, yet sport has alluded my enthusiasm. I can muster up a bit of cheer and emotion for occasional, special matches but not every saturday, let alone everyday for three weeks. Just imagining it makes me want to nap.
This sense of detachment has made me realize that despite the hype about the games being inclusive, the very nature of them is exclusive. Think about it; the athletes train for four years before competing in events better than any of us could, while we watch. The Olympics is a spectator event from it's core; the sport. There is only so much inclusivity you can provide by a comprehensive Torch relay and community volunteers. This problem was then compounded by the ticket scandal and empty-seat-gate at the beginning of the games, further frustrating us mere mortals who had to use the official site. Finally, we reach the issue of the Draconian copyright laws set by the IOC and LOCOG which prevent anybody other than the Olympic partners and a few exceptions from using the logo as advertisement. Copyright laws should apply to the Olympics, but to make the Olympics a special case and add further restrictions and sanctions, with heavy enforcement, seems contrary to the spirit of the games.
Then there's also, as always, the money. We could always afford to put on the Olympics because we're an economy with a GDP of 1.6 trillion, of which the Olympic budget of £9 billion is only 0.7%. However, as Liverpool learnt when they bought Andy Carroll, just because you can afford to do something doesn't mean you should. We could have used that money as a financial stimulus or for more permanent and less localised infrastructure upgrades. Unfortunately the country is stuck between a rock and a hard place; the Olympics were bid for when times were good and to go back on our obligation to host the games, now that times are bad, would cause international scandal. Therefore, we have to host the games. In my mind however, there was a silver lining; we were told the Olympics would bring tourists and investors, who would spend money, and therefore help our woeful growth. This hasn't happened. Our economy is going to keep trundling along the path of stagnation for the forseeable future.
However, all that is now over and we can't change the past. The focus now is on "securing the legacy", the only problem being that no-one seems to agree what the legacy is and how we should go about securing it. One of the suggestions at the forefront of the politicians' lips is by learning from the spirit of the games and encouraging competitive sport in schools. What they don't understand is that competition in sports can often put the less able kids off sport rather than enduring until they find one they enjoy. Every child is different and therefore cannot solve the school sport problem with a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Instead, my experience as a teenager tells me we should not aim for gold medals in the future by emphasising competition, but aim for a healthy next-generation who all exercise by emphasising the importance of doing a sport you enjoy. A slight amendment to the old liberal cliche: "It's not the winning that counts, it's the enjoying taking part".
The Olympics wasn't that great for me because I didn't find the games as exciting, cost worthy and spectacular as everyone else. If I'm honest, I found them a bit ghastly. However, on a brighter note, I did like the Opening Ceremony and I am looking forward to watching the Paralympics, which I personally find more inspiring and enjoyable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)