England's good PISA results: how much credit does Gove's GCSE reform truly deserve?

[ParentOfOne]

England did reasonably well in the latest PISA results, much better than Scotland and Wales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgy6n0l4rdo

I'd be interested in comparing opinions on how much credit Gove's GCSE reform of 2013 deserves for this.

I don't like Gove (a Brexiter who famously said that all schools should be above average...) but I am open to admitting that I can disagree with someone on a topic but still agree on another.

It's not clear to me what the main difference between Gove's GCSE and the previous system was: did coursework use to count in the previous system, whereas he made the GCSE reliant only on the final examination? Has this made the results fairer and more reliable, to the extent that the test and the marking are the same across the country?

It's also not clear to me how the Welsh system differs. I remember many comments from Welsh politicians against teaching to the test and in favour of a more comprehensive approach, but I do not understand what it means in practice.

What was most striking for me was that the results were not driven by socio-economic factors, and that English students in deprived areas still did better than Welsh students in less deprived areas (based on the press - I haven't analysed the reports myself), so it's not a matter of London being richer and skewing the results.

Thoughts?

Was it just GCSE reform or was it across the board higher SATS standards?

I really admire Michael Gove as I think he is one of the very few politicians in recent years who has successfully delivered a positive change that has made a real difference to the country.

That’s incredibly hard to do, especially when you consider the opposition he will have faced from the teaching unions.

I read that having been to private school he felt very passionately that the same high expectations and standards should be achievable by state school pupils and set out to make it so. That makes him sound like a very decent and right-thinking person.

It is disappointing, though not unexpected, that the first comment on here opposing higher standards comes from a teacher.

Higher standards will filter through into the economy. Children nowadays have bad mental health because they have been taught that this is a thing, instead of being taught to do their best, do their duty and not give up, as we were. They are indulged beyond measure and given too many choices and it is this that leads to poor mental health. When you have no choice, you get on with it.

Well, that is certainly one view of Gove. He is definitely an effective politician, unlike many others.
He also is behind a lot of current problems in the education system even if educational outcomes have remained fairly stable while those around us have fallen. The RAAC crisis in schools, for example wouldn't have been such a problem if he hadn't cancelled the schools rebuilding programme. The teacher recruitment crisis and painting teachers as the enemy of education rather than the experts in delivering it has been deeply damaging to the profession.

And his support for Brexit was really damaging to the country. He lies as easily as he breathes.

I fully agree with you re Brexit. Had not realised about the school rebuilding programme!

@Minasama I read that having been to private school he felt very passionately that the same high expectations and standards should be achievable by state school pupils and set out to make it so. That makes him sound like a very decent and right-thinking person.

On one hand, yes. On the other hand, I find all of this impossible to reconcile with Gove being the same person who wanted all schools to be above average, and with all the lying and the bs on Brexit. Anyway, I am more interested in the school reform than in an overall analysis of Gove's merits and flaws.

It is disappointing, though not unexpected, that the first comment on here opposing higher standards comes from a teacher.

The sad truth is that heavily unionised and ideological groups will always oppose any kind of change and of external testing, because they hate accountability.

In California, some school districts cancelled advanced placement classes in maths and science, because not enough black and Latino kids were taking them, so of course the classes were racist.

In New York, standardised literacy tests for teachers were scrapped, because non-white teachers were failing them much more than white ones, so of course the test was racist.

In Italy, where teachers are government employees and impossible to fire, the resistance to PISA and to standardised tests have always been huge. Their A-level equivalents are not corrected centrally. Universities have come up with their own admission tests, because they have realised that the A-level equivalents are useless.

In France, they are rioting. And the crazy thing is that France spends more than many OECD countries on education.

The sad truth is that heavily unionised and ideological groups will always oppose any kind of change and of external testing, because they hate accountability.

It always amuses me that people think the teaching unions hold any particular power. If we did, Gove wouldn't have screwed our pensions, cut our pay and underfunded schools.

@noblegiraffe I never said nor implied that teachers in England (no idea about the other parts of the UK) hold any particular power. I made examples of countries where they do.

In England, teachers are not unfireable employees of the central government. In Italy, they are. Maybe also in France, not sure.

How did Gove screw your pensions?
Teachers continue to be in the Teachers Pension Scheme, which is an incredibly generous defined-benefit scheme. Very similar to the NHS pension.

If I remember correctly, Gove changed it from being based on the final salary, to being based on career average revalued earnings, which is much much fairer (especially on the rest of the taxpayers, who foot the bill).
If you work 40 years, and get a big salary bump only in the last few years (eg because you become a headteacher), is it fair for your pension to be based on the salary of the last few years only? I think not

The sad truth is that heavily unionised and ideological groups will always oppose any kind of change and of external testing, because they hate accountability.

Wow, that's a big shift from your first few wide eyed posts.
There's a big difference between standardised testing at say 16, and making it so frequent and high stakes from age 5/6 that 15 year olds (the ones who take PISA) are so drilled at test taking it makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons with other countries.

Kathryn Birbalsingh has recently covered Gove's reforms on her podcast Strictly Education. There's an episode called 'The most hated man in education' but she gives him huge credit as to how we've ended up high in the PISA table. It was an interesting watch.

You literally answered your own question. The suggestion that teachers should be fine with their pensions being made worse is odd.

And the good pension was a trade-off for the crap pay and poor working conditions. Now it isn’t good enough to keep people teaching.

@noblegiraffe The suggestion that teachers should be fine with their pensions being made worse is odd.

That the new pension is worse doesn't mean that the previous one was fair - especially on the rest of taxpayers footing the bill (remember, your Teacher Pension Scheme is an unfunded liability of HM Treasury).
Basing your pension on the very last salary only is not fair. For reference, it was one of the many things which contributed to out of control public debt in certain European countries.

@napody
Wow, that's a big shift from your first few wide eyed posts.
There's a big difference between standardised testing at say 16, and making it so frequent and high stakes from age 5/6 that 15 year olds (the ones who take PISA) are so drilled at test taking it makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons with other countries.

Why? I said that I see standardised tests as a necessary evil, and I stand by that.
Nowhere have I said, nor implied, that I support frequent and high-stake testing from the age of 6. Where did you get that from?

I see them as an "evil" because any metric can be biased. Because it can lead to teaching to the test. Because schools notoriously play dirty to get rid of certain students who might otherwise bring down their precious stats.

But I seem them as a necessary evil, because you still need a way to come up with an assessment that has a modicum of reliability.

It's not perfect. Far from it. We can say it sucks. But what's the alternative?
Take Italy. No standardised testing. A final exam which is meaningless. Universities having to come up with their own standardises tests for admissions. Is that really better?

Over the years, I have made posts against the 11+, which I view as elitist and unfair https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/5250645-11-test-i-think-its-unfair-and-elitist
And I have been very vocal against Mossbourne Academy https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/5459337-mossbourne-academies-investigations-into-alleged-emotional-harm-and-abuse-part-2

@waltzingparrot On Birbalsingh: when she started to gain popularity, I could relate to some of the things she said about a culture of excuses vs a culture of high expectations. But I think she takes it too far. Her method seems based on constantly repeating and drilling the same concept till the student loses the will to live www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/4661381-michaela-school-experiences?flipped=1&page=1 . And some of the things she forces her kids to do, like saying what they are thankful for, sound cultish.

But AS levels still exist, so surely pupils could still study 4 subjects in year 12 and then do an AS in one subject at the end of year 12?

At my daughter’s school, all year 12 pupils start studying 4 A levels, but drop one after the October half term. I think starting with four is sensible. It gives pupils a low-risk opportunity to try out certain subjects at A level - especially ones that they won’t have studied before, like psychology and sociology (which my daughter teaches), politics and economics. And of course it also gives teachers the opportunity to assess the pupils’ suitability for those subjects.

What I don’t understand is why the school doesn’t allow pupils who want to do so to carry on studying all four subjects until the end of year 12 and then to take an AS in the subject they plan to drop. Is it just to save money?

My instinct is that the pressured curriculum is causing some of the poorer mental heath we are seeing and the difficulty for many children of just doing the work set is contributing to behavioural struggles as well as making it much harder to run inclusive classrooms..

I’d say it’s at least because of immigration. A much higher percentage of England is not white and every study shows that white children (boys usually) are falling behind and BAME children are more academically successful whether due to parental or cultural influence who knows.

Yes, we cannot afford to enter pupils for AS levels, they aren’t funded, would need extra staffing and if the pupil does well and wants to continue the subject to A-level as a result, the AS doesn’t count towards the A-level.

Preparing for the AS would also mean you lose teaching time.

That the new pension is worse doesn't mean that the previous one was fair

I’m not sure why that should be any particular concern of teachers who saw their pension slashed and their colleagues getting a far better deal than they ever will. Oh, you saying it’s fair means the money and better retirement won’t be missed? Hasn’t had an impact?

@noblegiraffe which part of fair for the taxpayers who foot the bill because your pension is an unfunded liability of HM Treasury was unclear?

The TPS is an unfunded liability. It means that the money to pay your pension doesn't come from a pot which had been set aside, invested, etc. No. It comes out of general taxation.

It would be unsustainable to have this for everyone.
I understand and support that it still exists for certain categories of key workers, like teachers and NHS. But not based on final salary. No.

As a teacher, sure, do complain if your pension is made worse.

As a taxpayer, I will continue to think that defined-benefit pensions based on final salary are unfair (to the taxpayers) and unsustainable. It is a fact that they contributed to the explosion of public debt in some European countries.

Still not sure why you are lecturing me about why it doesn’t matter that my pension is worse.

My comment was if the unions had any power, screwing our pay, pensions and working conditions wouldn’t have happened in the way it did.

I don’t care if you think it’s fair or not!

@ParentOfOne
Yes I understand that Birbalsingh's methods are not to everyone's taste, but it was her analysis of Gove's measures that was particularly relevant to this thread.

Thanks.

If I remember rightly your final point about losing teaching time is one of the reasons why the AS was decoupled in the first place.

When it counted for 50% of your final grade it was worth it! Not worth it when it counts for nothing.

But Wales and Scotland don't have either better behaviour or better mental health among their students, which suggests that behaviour and mental health are not linked to the English curriculum.

Does doing an extra AS really broaden your education that much? There are trade-offs between breadth and depth (because there's only so many hours in the day) and to me post-16 seems like a good point to start focusing on depth rather than breadth - breadth should have been achieved in the previous 11 years of compulsory education.

The exception I would make would be where a student isn't sure which A levels they want to do; in that case it would be good if they were able to start 4 courses and drop to 3. I don't think that should be the norm though.

I think there is a link between goves reforms and our change in pisa scores but lots of others things went on. The teaching profession really had to work out how to deliver it. A sort of we dont quite agree with this but we have to do it so let's make it work by researching, developing and delivering the best way. So I think the teaching profession had the biggest impact.

I dont know much about the gcse end but im yet to be convinced that some of expectations that were put in place in the earlier years were necessary to achieve the outcome in later years. (My son failed phonics because he was August born essentially - he is now at a high ranking uni doing a reading heavy degree). Thats not to say i disagree with phonics but why year 1 when pass rates correlates so strongly to age.

It’s depressing isn’t it?

I’ve worked with unions (factory rather than teaching) in the course of my job, and they can be quite unreasonable. One example was when they went out on strike because they disagreed with us adding an extra shift. Eventually we had to cancel the plans for an extra shift in order to get the factory working again and rescind the job offers we’d made to new starters. So a number of people ended up with no jobs - because of the union!

But I digress, your examples are shocking and you raise the topic of fear of the perception of racism being seen as a worse outcome than lower standards, opportunities (our outright abuse) of the less well off / working class white children.