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

53 replies

ParentOfOne · Yesterday 18:25

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?

Students in green school uniforms sit at desks reading books during a classroom lesson. Pencil pots and study materials are visible on the tables, with a noticeboard and classroom displays in the background.

England up in reading, maths and science rankings as Scotland and Wales dip

The latest Pisa report also warned of a global decline in teenagers' reading skills.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgy6n0l4rdo

OP posts:

Minasama · Today 07:21

Putneydad7 · Yesterday 18:45

Wales’ slump is mainly down to the abolition of league tables and standardised testing. It was supposed to mean that schools focused on true education without having to spend time coaching to tests. Then some years later the pigeons came home to roost that if you don’t spend time coaching to tests, you’ll do badly in tests and everyone will assume that you are thick and you can enjoy the enrichment of your education as you mop out the toilets in McDonald’s

It gives the lie to the old adage “what doesn’t get measured doesn’t get managed”.

napody · Today 07:37

ParentOfOne · Yesterday 22:57

@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.

You said that teaching, because it's a 'heavily unionised profession', resists all accountability.

Teachers in England aren't resisting all accountability. They're resisting the excessive amounts in the current system. Which has probably improved PISA results as children are so used to being tested they're likely to perform well. But at what cost?

PinkMicrowave · Today 08:49

I think he deserves a fair bit of credit, if only for forcing the implementation of unpopular but evidence-based reform, which is all too rare when politicians generally like to go for the popular, voter-friendly options, regardless of whether evidence suggests they are actually effective or for the greater good (which is part of what has gone wrong in Wales imo). I believe he genuinely put the long term achievement of children above his own popularity. He didn't get everything right however - Ofsted, school buildings.

Flip

1 2 3