Exam Factories

[ObjectionOverruled]

My DC is at a grammar school after all the stress of the 11+. Now, I can totally see how kids can leave that place with an impressive string of glittery A*s but not have been properly educated, purely because of the extent of spoon-feeding that is going on in there. And speaking to some friends (i.e. employers) who are receiving similar young people at the other end, they will tell you that they have been seriously let down. How are they going to compete internationally? There is so much pressure to produce "results" for league tables. I don't know if it is any better at the indie schools.
Then, of course there's the kids who can't take X subject at A'level because they only got a B at GCSE, which then limits their access to particular university courses by age 16! I am having serious concerns about what is happening to our education system. :(

[JaneinReading]

There's no hope for mine then who like to live on their wits and learn as little as possible because it involves hard work. Let us hope by the time they do them A levels still involve more analytical thought.

[summerends]

My DC have told me that GCSEs are just testing memory. I assumed that there must be some analytical thought and free-ranging essay writing in them but apparently not. That would explain why well drilled conscientious children with reasonable memories can get A/A* at such high proportions but still not be able to think.

[TalkinPeace]

Some kids thrive on the pressure and recall of exams
others do not
modular systems were brought in so that the potential of the latter set was not completely wasted
unfortunately it then became conflated with grade inflation

• when over 50% of candidates in an exam get A or A* its gone loopy
  

and TBH DDs school is an exam factory for sets 2 and 3

but set 1 - because they can get the exam stuff done easily - have done quite a lot of extension, free learning and education in the original sense of the word

sets 4 and 5 serve a different purpose

[Slipshodsibyl]

I feel the same about the enabling qualification Herc. I knew a wonderful Cambridge don who used to say, with regard to the increase incessant testing and written proof of everything, that we all 'know more than we can say' and that assessment should not all need to consist of written proof and could be better assessed on other ways often. This is specially relevant to any student with any difference in the way they learn, but the opposite has actually happened.

[Beastofburden]

You are all so young... my Oxford interview in 1979 consisted of a long discussion about Beaumarchais. Then the tutor said, "Have you considered doing English and French, Ms Beast?". "I didn't know you could do that at Oxford," I squeaked. "You can't", he said, and left the room.

I assume he got the paperwork muddled up, as they took me anyway .

My school didn't teach you for the Oxbridge exam (which still existed) and I had to take it in my lower sixth, rather than stay for a seventh term and then have a gap yah like the posh kids . But A levels were about reading whole pieces- we did a whole play by each of Moliere and Racine, and a whole book by Gide and er someone else . Same for English- and even for German, we did two whole novels and a Schiller play. That meant I could do Oxbridge entrance self-taught (and indeed S levels in English and French) because I had read whole books.

[HercShipwright]

slipshod My cambridge interviews (almost 30 years ago :( ) consisted of some maths questions swiftly dealt with and then a long rambling discussion about Blake's 7. But I didn't read English. When I jumped ship to SPS after Part I I did have to demonstrate breadth of subject knowledge and relevant reading and luckily I was able to do that because at my school (comp) we had had reading round the subject, and just reading LOADS, ingrained in us as a way of life from the start. That's what DD1 still gets at her school, but there is no denying that some of the kids take the short route and skim/read in extract. There is still scope for the kids like her though, who read everything suggested (and more besides) at least once and in some cases (e.g. her) many times. But then, she possibly focusses on what she likes doing (reading) at the expense of what she finds less entertaining. For her though, English and history lessons through the GCSE years and now into AS level have been a joy whereas for DS they are a torture (despite the fact that he willingly goes to watch serious plays (not just shakespeare) both at the theatre and at the cinema (NT live and similar are a BOON for those of us living in the back end of beyond)). The good thing about GCSE is that it gives an opportunity for kids like him to leverage familiarity with literature in some form, even if not the printed word, into qualifications. He is 'well read' in the widest sense of the phrase, even though until last week I had never seen him read a book for pleasure (dyslexic). Last week he started reading Game of Thrones and hasn't stopped except to eat sleep and go to school so that particular mental block (that reading is to be avoided at all costs when ever possible and should never be considered a viable alternative to audio books, theatre or cinema) may finally have been overcome (although I'm prepared for him to just read and re-read the Ice and Fire books forever, that's certainly what everyone else I know who is like us wants to do, even if we don't all given in to that urge. All the time, anyway).

[Slipshodsibyl]

Hercshipwright. Yes, twenty years ago, a Cambridge admissions tutor extolled the virtues of GCSE to me over lunch for exactly those reasons. The qualification, which I was then teaching, was being criticised even then. He said he was receiving students with a far greater breadth of reading than before and he was happy with that. He felt depth and literary theory could be left until tertiary education (within reason) and he would prefer to teach that himself since few English teachers are actually able keep up,with new developments in theory anyway. What he really wanted were students with a broad experience of literature .

There is never a simple answer.

[Beastofburden]

Rabbit I had an even more exteme experience. One exam at the end of my first term, then nothing, at all, until the end of my fourth year. When we had 17 papers . But to be fair, it was modern languages (also Oxford) so there were prose, translation and essay papers in both languages- that's six before you even start on the literature.

I agree I had almost four years of real exploration and thought and as for teaching to the test- well, when a paper is "19th century French Literature" there's not a lot you can do to teach to the test apart from reading, er, 19thC French books.

[HercShipwright]

slipshod I know that there were several young people in DD1's class who did not read all the set texts even once, all the way through. But there were several who, like her, read the set texts many many times (and this is proving to be the case at AS level too). What they did do though is study additional, non set texts (either all through several times for the conscientious, or in extract for the shoddy) because that is the policy. So even the shoddy minimal effort types still had a much broader exposure to literature than the kids at DS's school who are definitely being taught to the test and only the test.

[wordfactory]

I think some universites are moving towards the HAT, BMAT etc etc

The trouble is, we know that these exams are often off putting to state schooled applicants, so further introduction may not be helpful in respect of widening access.

[Slipshodsibyl]

This has come about within the last 20 years and surely is partly a result of trying to equalise opportunity. It was with the introduction of GCSE that in English, became possible to study parts of a text instead of a whole and/or to focus study on a narrow question and nothing else. I have no objection to studying only part of a text if that is the better approach for certain children, but it shouldn't be as widespread among all abilities as people say it is.

There is also a real problem with over reliance on very specific exam technique. I have come to the conclusion that university-set entry tests are quite a good idea. I think the emphasis on exam results, when they are an unreliable indicator is not good for children's education. The need for constant monitoring,evidence and 'proof' is not good either.

No farmer ever fattened a pig by weighing it.

[wordfactory]

The experiences at Casa Wordfactory so far in year 10 have diverged.

DD has had four assessments in English. Obviously, those assessments were the clear focus rather than the texts themselves. I can understand it, the teachers want the gilrs to achieve well. You could say the teachers would be letting them down if they didn't focus on getting great grades.


DS has had no assessments. This year he's studied Shakespeare. Yes, they studied the set text, but also two other plays and some sonnets. The pinacle of the year so far has been, not how to get an A*, but a house competition for the best rendition of a scene. You haven't lived until you've seen three 14 year old boys as the witches in Macbeth .

All this being said, it may also be to do with the fact that DS school is super selective, whereas DD's school is mixed ability.

[Bonsoir]

Some exams are better than others. Translation is an excellent test of MFL attainment.

[rabbitstew]

My Oxford law degree result was based entirely on the results of the 8 final exams... However, this did mean, apart from moderations in the 2nd term of the 1st year (which have no effect on your final degree, except to the extent that if you fail them, you won't be staying on to take the final degree...), a blissful 3 years of genuine learning, in the form of research, essay writing and weekly tutorials where, with one other student, we discussed, dissected and defended our opinions with the tutor. The barbarity of the final exam system paled into insignificance for me in comparison to the amount I learned from the teaching methods prior to that point.

Basically, in general, I hate exams, but I hate even more the idea of modular exams, and, unless the teaching is poor, fail to see how you could possibly NOT get through more work and build a greater understanding of your subject if it isn't constantly interrupted by public tests. Internal school assessment, including school-set exams at the end of each year in secondary school I have no problem with, but constant testing done externally is ridiculous, time wasting and inane: the quality of the questions will go down because there is so little time to formulate good quality exam papers; and anyone worth marking your work is going to have more important things to do with their time than spend all year marking exam papers.

[Beastofburden]

Yes, I had the same experience with DS1 at a super selective and DD at a comp. DS1 did well at Cambridge as he was prepared for the volume of work and had good skills to manage that.

[HercShipwright]

I have one DD at a superselective (and another due to start there in September) and a DS at a comp. The SS is popularly considered to be an exam factory but in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Whereas the comp seems to be 100% about teaching to the test.

[Beastofburden]

As for ppl not needing instant recall of facts at work, I hope some of them can do it, or I am not going to hospital again in a hurry

[Beastofburden]

I don't think anyone really thinks exams are an accurate way to measure attainment. The thing is that they are not so inaccurate that they are unacceptable, and they are relatively cheap, so you can use them for those stages of education where huge numbers of people need assessing every year in a short timescale.

Eventually it stops. Eventually you get to a doctorate, where it is all controlled assessment, no exams. The problem is, it is a monster to mark and they have to do vivas so you can see if they have plagiarised. We couldn't afford to assess every GCSE that way, and there wouldn't be time. But it's better, no question: that's why we do it for doctorates.

[creamteas]

My DC have also done a mixture of GCSEs some formally assessed at different times and others all at the end.

There has been no discernible difference in teaching to the test in my experience. Both focused exclusively on the assessed learning outcomes only.

The only difference was that in modular, this was broken up during the year, whereas in now they have rushed through the curriculum so they could spend as much time as possible on revision and past papers at the end

[wordfactory]

Well I think linear exams do help. A bit anyway. At least if there are exams at the end, then througout the course, the teachers are free to concentrate on, as you say, an education. Whereas, assessments at regular intervals force the focus on grades again. I can see this very clearly in my twins GCSEs because one is doing linear and one not - the focus and tenor is very different.

[creamteas]

I think it's pretty much indefencible in its current format and certainly bears no resemblence to, nor teaches skills that would help with, assessment pieces at tertiary level

The point is that moving to all exams won't help either.

The heart of the problem is that the whole emphasis is on qualification not education. Changing the form of assessment to exam only, does not address this fundamental issue.

Clearly there needs to be some way of distinguishing between those that can and can't do things. But the system we have at the minute, which is a product of wider society, focuses far too much on the exact numbers.

You can see this clearly on MN. Endless threads asking about sub-levels of progress, comparing schools on their exam results, messages to always appeal if you have just missed a GCSE grade, and the notion that anything less that an A is somehow a fail.

But this is all part of a broader obsession with quantifiable measurement in eduction.

For example, my university, like all the others, sets minimum entry grades onto our degree courses. These are not decided by a reasoned expectation of passing or failing. They are set in relation to league tables and 'market' position. Higher entry grades means higher league table position, regardless of the quality of the eduction provided. Obviously this is just stupid.

But nothing will change within the exam system in isolation. It is not exams, schools, or Ofsted on their own that is the problem.

We need to all value education more and reduce formal assessment to only where it is really, really necessary.

[wordfactory]

I'm sure you're right slip but the reality is an absurdity.

I think it's pretty much indefencible in its current format and certainly bears no resemblence to, nor teaches skills that would help with, assessment pieces at tertiary level.

If anything, it gives pupils and entirely false idea of the supposed purpose.

[Slipshodsibyl]

But Word, that wasn't the intention of c/w at GCSE if done as intended but is a result of pressure on exam grades. It was supposed to prevent excessive help.

[wordfactory]

creamteas I don't think you can make a realistic comparison between extended essays at tertiary level and controlled assessments at GCSE.

The former really does require a student to read and think at a deep level.

A controlled assessment at GCSE is the antithisis of that. With good teaching and a great memory, 100% is perfectly attainable.

[HercShipwright]

If you think about the world after school, there are very few areas in life in which you are required to demonstrate skills and knowledge in a time-limited period without reference to anything else.

Actually, I have to do that all the time, in my job.