Gove's philosophy on examinations

The popular right wing mantra that exams have got easier over the past number of years was wheeled out by Michael Gove today. This fits in with the general 'declinism' arguments made by people of a conservative persuasion for nearly sixty years. Even Harold Macmillan in his 1957 speech which said "most of our people have never had it so good" went on to talk about an 'era of decline'. It is this strand of declinism that Cameron called upon to give us 'Broken Britain' and it is heavily reliant on nostalgia, and an implication that things used to be so much better. 
So having established some kind of history behind an attack on the exam system what is Gove's justification for radical overhaul of the exam process? The answer is really two-fold, firstly Gove believes that exams are easier and secondly he seems to have taken a dislike to modular subjects. 

The exams of today are different to the exams of thirty of forty years ago. In many subjects a move has been made from predominantly fact based courses to predominantly skills based courses. I wrote about this back in May with specific regard to history, but of course it applies to many other subjects. I remember a teacher once said when he took his exams they were 75% knowledge based, he estimated that they are currently around 25% knowledge based. What this means is that instead of merely reciting the 'facts' one learns how to apply them. I am of the strong belief that it is these skills - which can be applied across subject boundaries - That best prepare students for life after education. So Gove's perception that the exams have gotten easier is based on a misunderstanding of the change which has occurred.

The second issue Gove raises is even more interesting in many ways because I have not heard this criticism before. The argument presented by Gove is that a modular structure to courses means that students are being taught to pass exams, it also means they can resit. I fundamentally disagree, firstly I resent the idea that a resit is something to be looked down upon it is an important part of the examination process as it gives people a safety net. More importantly it surely the natural consequence of exams you will be taught how to pass them. That is the same for all exams whether modular or otherwise. Indeed I remember spending year 6 being taught all year how to pass my SAT's at the end of the year. So if you accept that being taught with exams in mind is part of having an exam, it cannot justifiably be used to attack a modular system. 
This is not my only concern regarding a shift back to some kind of end of year tests. My GCSE's were modular meaning I got parts of my study out of the way early on this being said I still had 17 exams at the end of year 11. Moving away from modular exams will mean that those exams are longer and may even increase in number as students can't get things out of the way. It also puts more pressure on students to succeed on that one exam, because the rest of the two years they are not assessed. It is absurd to heap yet more pressure on those final GCSE exams and it is simply unfair to judge a persons understanding of any given two year course through one exam at the end. 

Gove seems to have a Victorian outdated view of education. He spoke on the Andrew Marr show today about a education system fit for the 21st century. Quite frankly his vision wouldn't look out of place in the 19th century. It is based on an over reliance on learning knowledge not applying it, and a belief that education should be about one exam at the end of the year not regular smaller assessments. These changes won't make our education system better, but rather more outdated than before. This debate should be framed around helping students, not making it harder for them to succeed, both in school and when they finish. These changes will make it harder in both respects.

Libya - a few months on

At the turn of the year, something remarkable swept through North Africa with successful demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt. The Arab spring as it came to be known also affected Libya. Unlike the other two countries the situation quickly escalated from demonstrations to a country at war with itself, the UN had to act, and did, just in time to save Benghazi from Colonel Gaddafi's forces. Several months on since the passing of resolution 1973, I would like if I may, to set out my thoughts on Libya.

I did not, and do not oppose as the resolution puts it 'protecting civilians'. This is after all one of the vital roles of the United Nations, and a more muscular UN on issues of basic Human Rights sounds appealing (although the realpolitiks of the UN makes that unlikely). I am also glad that a multilateral coalition of nations was formed to take part in the operations in Libya. A lesson obviously learnt from Iraq, and I hope one that won't be forgotten.

All of this being said, I have grave concerns with operations currently undertaken in Libya. Firstly it seems that our mandate to act in Libya is based on 'the protection of civilians' as I said earlier a mandate I agree with. However that is not what we are doing per say. Instead we have taken a side in a Civil War. Indeed we have taken the side of previously untrained soldiers, who like it or not are likely to cause some 'collateral damage' the cost of this is always felt by civilians. Whether it is the destruction of a house or some more horrific actions the consequence of taking a side in a civil war is having to live with those actions. This is not to suggest that it is a deliberate policy of either the international coalition or the opposition groups in Libya, but as history tells us untrained soldiers commit atrocities. It does not seem logical then that we can both protect civilians and take a side.

It also seems that we are escalating the campaign against Gaddafi. We were told that the no fly zone would be the limit. It would then be down to the rebels to shape their history so to speak. Perhaps inevitably in reality we have seen a slow escalation of the conflict from strictly a no-fly zone, to 'special' advisors on the ground to now sending in apache helicopters to provide low flying support for the 'rebels'. My fear is that as this conflict unfolds and political success at home becomes more and more entangled with a military success in Libya, we will see more and more 'final' acts, until we are in a situation where we have some form of army on the ground.

This fear is compounded by my final concern. Former general turned Conservative advisor Richard Dannat said about a month ago 'they are looking to set up a democracy of sorts, not as we know it'. This has not been the impression given by the media or government sources who have repeatedly shown the conflict as a struggle for 'western' democracy. Of course democracy is different everywhere and should be allowed to evolve organically, but I have to say 'democracy of sorts' does not sound like what we in the west have been promised.

So we are by implication aiding a group of people more and more every week, who are untrained and do not even necessarily want democracy 'as we know it'. To me this does not comply with resolution 1973, because we have taken a side rather than attempted to protect civilians. International lawyers and politicians may say that relative to allowing Gaddafi to cling to power, supporting an untrained rabble is protecting civilians. I just hope those people will equally accept some responsibility if -heaven forbid- an atrocity is committed by rebel soldiers. 

Facebook debate about my blog on reform to the House of Lords

• Michael Rubin Interesting! I think the Lords reforms are very good and am personally fully behind them. The 15 year terms are designed to ensure we don't have massive swings from one party to another akin to the kind we have at general elections, and they're non-renewable, so someone will only be a Lord for a maximum of 15 years. As for the electoral system, the proposals leave open the choice between a list system and STV.

  21 May at 18:01 · 
• 

  Rob Jackson 

  Some interesting points. Firstly I know that the list system is not excluded from the legislation, that being said the preference seems to be for STV. On your point regarding the 15 year term I understand that voting for 1/3 of lords at any one time is a mechanism for halting large swings, however the actual time frame is largely irrelevant having a six year term for the lords rather than 15 to me would make more sense. Although as I pointed out in the blog this would only work with a four year term for the house of commons. Finally regarding the provisions to ensure that after 15 years you cannot stand for re-election, surely the whole point of electing the upper house is to have them held accountable to the electorate. Surely then having a long single term does not give the electorate the accountability desired? This being said I have been a supporter of lords reform for a long time, so just with the referendum on AV I will probably begrudging back the change.

  21 May at 20:50 · 
• 

  Matt Jones 

  Robert,
  Am I allowed to make a very obvious point, if we elect a house of Lords in a country where governments sometimes last more than 10years, won't the two houses inevitably end up synchronizing, thus defeating the object of a second house as a balance.........and annoyingly on the flip side, will be entitled to more influence due o being elected, and when the two house are opposed, it gets all American and we can't get anything done.
  So unless you have a constitutional court like in Germany, it could be unworkable. And if you had that, it becomes full of horrible old unelected men who oppose abortion reform.........

  21 May at 22:58 · 
• 

  Rob Jackson 

  I think Matt your points carry merit. That being said I would like to raise a few points of my own. Firstly that yes if you have elections for the House of Lords at the same time as a general election for the house of commons and a governme...See more

  Sunday at 02:05 ·  ·  1 person
• 

  Matt Jones 

  I have had a few pints......so consider this response not to b my best work. But compromise politics annoys me, it means ore back-room deals and less open execution of a mandate.
  If we are going to reform the house of lords, why not look ata regional assembly idea, such as the German Lander system........but then that doesn't always really work anyway.
  Realistically, in a society which overwhelmingly rejected, or were completely indifferent to, a small change to the voting system, is there any hunger for constitutional reform at all.......annoyingly, the answer is no. Its just another case of politicians adding 2 and 2 and arriving at 5........I was in favour of AV......but people didn't seem to care. Won't politics become even more boring and alienating for people if we carry on about this kind of thing, isn't it always "the economy, stupid" in this day and age? Sorry to be pessimistic, but I nobody on the doorstep this year has asked me about lords reforms.......xx

  Sunday at 23:59 · 
• 

  Rob Jackson 

  Firstly I'm sure you are aware the German Lander system has developed because of the geography and history of Germany which of course was not unified until 1871, and is much larger than Britain. Having said that I am not in theory opposed to greater local accountability, however that would fundamentally alter the Bi-camerol British system and as such would be revolutionary rather than evolutionary.
  I don't see how having more accountability would make politics more boring? However as I said in the blog I do think the timing is all wrong for Lords reform precisely because we have other issues to face. This being said 35% of people did not vote in the 2010 General Election. That is one in three people, so how do we re-engage (or sometimes engage for the first time) people who have given up on Westminster? It has to start (and I must stress that word) with greater public accountability over the political process. People have to feel empowered by politics not belittled by it. To me that means breaking down the elitist nature of Parliament and the House of Lords is the starting place. Again I would say that it is just that a 'starting point' but I fundamentally believe it is an important step.
  You are of course right like AV this is unlikely to captivate most people on the doorstep, constitutional reform rarely is, and without other measures in place it won't help people engage in the political process. But I think it is a step toward breaking down the barriers that divide normal people from politics and that can only be a good thing.

  Yesterday at 15:18 · 
• 

  Matt Jones 

  I was a bit stuck on Germany I think.......I was thinking about how cool Obama is and if I could go back, who would i like more between him and Willy Brandt, but then i realised that my knowledge of Brandt is very limited and I just like the idea of him..........that said.....the Lander system is not viable here, but maybe more power to local councils and a way for them to more easily oppose the government nationally in a more meaningful way.....
  I just can't see this debate coming to a close, Lords reform has been on the cards for yonks because its a right old pickle.........all other viable options are either a damp squib or a revolutionary change to the system, and there is hunger for neither of those.
  Is literally anybodym not already involved in politics, sat at home thinking "i wish the Lords was elected".......i think they are thinking "oh shit, prices are rising, i cant find a job, it cost millions to go to uni, benefits are being cut, the economy isnt growing, the defecit is getting worse, and how the hell did it come to the point where the government of this country is associated with people with such disgustinng attitudes towards rape and womens issues". That is my main point, just who cares........I am quite enthusisatic about constitutional reform but this bored me and I can't see any sensible solution.......

  20 hours ago · 
• 

  Rob Jackson 

  I would add on to that list NHS waiting times increasing, the pension age increasing, public sector pensions being slashes, and a worry about a government that stops and thinks half way through a bill rather than at the start. I agree with you lords reform is not an issue outside of the Westminster village. Your right this won't interest people on the doorstep. However as I said in the last post we had at the last general election 35% of the electorate decide not to vote. So the question is how do we bring people like that back into some kind of political discussion? I believe that parliament has to become more in touch with the values and beliefs of ordinary people, the House of Lords is institutionally incapable of being in touch with the average person. so it needs reform. But it is not just the House of Lords that needs reform, we still have the issue of representation we had an even less eclectic mix of mp's elected back in 2010 with 90% now having a university degree and the vast majority of those coming from the background of a lawyers, we had more Etonians and Oxbridge graduates than before and we had less minority representatives than were elected in 2005. Parliament still looks like an old boys club. An old boys club that is still struggling for legitimacy in the minds of most people after the expenses scandal. So it is not just Lords reform that is necessary, but a genuine look at how to break down the barriers which have been put up around Westminster (probably subconsciously). Which has meant people feel isolated from the institutions which are supposed to represent them. obviously reform to the Houses of Parliament is not enough on it's own, but people have to believe that the they control their representatives not the other way around. So whilst I accept that this debate will largely take place in the Westminster bubble I hope the effects of it will be lasting on the nature of politics in this country.

  17 hours ago · 

House of Lords Reform

It is no secret that I believe in reform to the House of Lords. The idea of a liberal democracy in the 21st century still having an appointed non-specialized chamber baffles me. I am exactly the type of person who should be a wholehearted supporter of the coalitions reform package for the House of Lords. But I have some serious issues with the reforms as set out by Clegg last week. I know during his speech he several times warned against making 'the great the enemy of the good' but I believe if we are going to have constitutional reform, because it is a once in a generation thing it has to be gotten right.

 I am not, by nature a cynical person. However even to me the timing of this announcement looks poor. Partly because it looks like Cameron has given this to Clegg because of how poorly the AV referendum went - people will no doubt comment saying it was in the Coalition agreement, and that is correct however that is not how it comes across. Add to this the fact that we are only two weeks past the AV debacle and it begins to look like a bit of a farce. 

But it is not just the timing that troubles me. It is also the idea that you could elect someone to a post for 15 years. That is quite frankly an absurd amount of time to elect someone for. They got into this mess because they insisted on having a five year fixed term parliament, which is a tricky number to put other elections around because it is prime (so for example election every two years for the new elected House of Lords would quickly get out of cycle) the way to solve this is to have a fixed term of four years, but that is for another blog. I have digressed somewhat from my original point about a 15 year term in office, that means a lord who stood for election today would not have to face the electorate again until 2026. One of the biggest arguments the Yes2AV camp used to justify changing the voting system was to eradicate the so called jobs for life for MP's, why are the same people trying to maintain jobs for life, for Lords?

I am equally baffled by the decision that the voting system (deep sighs all round I know) chosen is STV. The House of Lords has no need for constituencies, that should be the preserve of the House of Commons. This would help to keep the House of Commons as the main voice of the people. It is quite right that MP's questioned Clegg on this as it will inevitably create some confusion around who to go to. Using a list system (whether open or closed) does not create the same problems.  

Other people will have many other problems with the Lords Reform as it stands, for example the 20% of lords who will remain appointed or the fact that this really should be lower down the list of priorities for the government at the moment. So whilst I agree with principle of Lords reform, I am at this time struggling to place my support behind it. As with the referendum I am worried that this will be another failed attempt at constitutional reform.

What is to become of the Liberal Democrats?

What is to become of the Lib Dems? Last may like many people around the country, I sat in a polling booth considering whether to vote tactically in order to try to oust the Conservative MP. Thankfully I did not vote Liberal Democrat and four days later I felt vindicated in sticking to my values.

A year on the Lib dems are undeniably in trouble. They spent a lot of last week 'prospect managing' for the election, so that any result slightly better than expected and could be used as some kind of success. However this tactic backfired, the performance was worse and I'm not sure they quite know what to do.

I've said this many times over the last few days but if I was a lib dem I would be worried. They got hammered across the board including completely capitulating in Scotland. It seems they have a choice. To stick with Clegg who is now toxic and deep in trouble or to attempt to change leader.

Both strategies are risky if they stick with Clegg and a coalition in it's current form then it is likely they will continue to take the hit for the coalition. However if they change and attempt to redefine themselves within the coalition the conservatives could smell blood and let the coalition fall apart to gain electoral advantage. I personally would be tempted to try to rebrand the party, meaning that Clegg would have to go. He is beyond salvation in the mind of the British electorate and sticking with him condemns the Liberal Democrats to electoral oblivion.

We have already seen some movement within the Lib Dems, potential replacements jostling for position. Huhne having his cabinet argument with Osbourne in a bid to look strong and Cable this weekend criticizing the tories. Neither will make the first move for fear of doing a Hesletine and wielding the knife without any reward, but both have positioned themselves just in case. The question now is will anyone be brave enough to attempt to take Clegg down? I suspect not. Though if more party members like the former leader of Nottingham Liberal Democrats continue to call for his head perhaps some MP's will feel pressured into it. Only time will tell. 

Under-Representation

PMQ’s today should have been remembered for a debate on the economy. Or for Cameron looking sheepish on the NHS reform. Instead it looks likely to be remembered for a comment made by Cameron towards Angela Eagle MP. At best it was a poorly judged joke, at worst it represents the sexist misogyny that still haunts the corridors at Westminster. It is disappointing that we now stand 14 years past the 1997 election, an election heralded as the opening of the door to women in politics but we still see women under-represented and talked down to by male counter-parts.

One good thing that may in time come of this row is a reopening of the debate around representation in this country. Not just the representation of women but across age, ethnicity and class. This is a debate that has not properly been held for a number of years. I have for example heard several people both inside the labour Party and indeed in seminar groups around campus complaining about all female shortlists. The argument is of course that they want the best people to represent them and that person may not be a woman. This argument would be stronger if meritocracy existed within politics, however we can now see that strong candidates were being held back from running for MP because of gender. We see this most profoundly in the fact that many of the all women shortlist candidates now sit on Labours front bench because they are amongst the most effective members in the PLP. 

But as I alluded to earlier under-representation is not limited to women. 90% of MP’s now have a degree whereas only 40% do in the wider population and that decreases the higher up the age scale you go. This is significant because it means that the life experiences of the people governing us are very different, it would be easy to attack the coalition government and the make up of cabinet here but I don’t feel I need to the facts are not hidden. Also all parties are responsible in part for this staggering rise in university educated MP’s and making a political point would only serve to antagonise some and mean the issues are not examined.

Perhaps though it is ethnic minorities who have the most under-presentation. It is disappointing that Baroness Warsi was given what can only be described  as a token role in government, Minister without Portfolio. It is also disappointing that the liberal Democrats have no ethnic minority MP’s.

But how do we tackle this? One way is for the party structures to dictate that all women shortlists will happen. It has after all been effective in getting women into politics. Or it can perhaps start at grassroots level, people like me and my fellow in the DMU Labour Club can play a role in getting into communities and saying how do we give these people a voice. In practical terms I believe this means no longer focusing solely on women’s under-representation but broadening the debate to all under-representation. In practical terms this means looking at the role of the Women’s Officer within the DMU Labour Club, and seeing if we can broaden the responsibilities to all under-represented parts of society, with the all encompassing title Equalities officer, and fighting for representation of all not solely women.  To highlight the need for this I would like to use one more example, I recently heard of a group called “Chinese for Labour”, in fact they have members in and around De Montfort University. Yet as a group we have not made contact with them and seen what we can do to help. This seems ridiculous, but if no one is responsible for doing it then it gets forgotten. In truth if people no longer want to see all women shortlists then politics has to change from the bottom up, because the top down answer will always be positive discrimination.    

When it comes to constitutional reform the status quo won't do!

I feared, last May when Clegg was put in charge of Constitutional reform, that it may just be about the Voting referendum. I feared, that the government no matter which way the vote went would say enough reform for this term and not complete the most urgent reforms the system needs. I am sad to say that at present it looks like I may be right. 

Let's first start with the referendum on how we vote. I am disappointed that real debate about the best system for the country, but rather which is better out of what are quite an average two proposals neither of which have a proportional element. To my mind this seems illogical, why have a referendum on changing the system if most of the choices have already been ruled out? That's not direct democracy at all but rather a gimmick.

However constitutional reform is bigger than the voting system used for the democratically elected part of our Houses of Parliament. Surely before we try to make one house more democratic we should make the other slightly democratic? It is ludicrous that in the 21st century the House of Lords is appointed not elected. The senate in America was modelled initially on the House of Lords, but one of the few reforms they have made to their constitution was to make the upper house accountable to the people. This is a much more important debate to have than which non proportional voting system we should use.

Equally important is the balance of executive, legislative and judicial powers which i'm sure most people would agree are out of kilter. We have in this country what I like to call a tyranny of the executive, that is to say because the Make up of the House of Commons determines the executive bills are passed through half the legislative without a real debate or reforming aspect. I was always told the best politics is the politics of compromise, if this is true then we have an awful system. It is left to the house of Lords (which I have already pointed out is unelected and unrepresentative) to be kind of weak check on the executives power. This system is in much more need of scrutiny than how we elect mp's who when it boils down to it have limited influence on the legislation passed.

What troubles me most is that these discussions about our countries political system are not happening. But only by becoming more reflective of the society politicians serve can politics regain any kind of trust. People can and will disagree with me, that is fine but lets at least have the debate.

Response to DMU announcing £9,000 fees

This week, De Montfort University joined the likes of Cambridge and Warwick in moving to charge the maximum fee of £9000 from 2012. This is a huge blow to the vision of a socially mobile society and suggests that universities are again becoming the bastions of an old elitism. Gifted students from an average background will, no doubt, be put off by the thought of graduating with up to £37000 of debt hanging over them.

It is important that we understand who is to blame: It is not, as it may be assumed, DMU’s fault that fees have been raised so dramatically. Funding has been almost completely withdrawn by government, and so the vast majority of the extra money is replacing funding previously given by government. To this end, the only people who can be blamed are those in government. This rise in costs, and the inevitable effect this will have on social mobility, is on the coalition’s hands alone. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives will castigate this statement and argue that it was Labour who introduced fees in the first place.  That is, of course, correct; however, the fees introduced in 2002 were to give universities more money, and not to replace state spending. This is crucial because it means students spending £9000 in fees won’t actually get any better a service than they have now.

There is also another troubling issue to highlight. Last November, many of our fellow students, DMU Labour members and friends marched through London to voice our protest at this absurd proposal. At the time we were promised that fees of £9000 would be the exception and certainly not the rule. We were promised that most universities would charge £7500 or less, and if they wanted to charge more, would have to put a lot of effort into justifying why. This has not turned out to be true. Most universities who have made the announcement have opted for £9000 fees. Either students were lied to, or the government is guilty of complete incompetence. Which statement is true is for you to deice.
Whilst individual universities have to make a decision as to how much they charge, we should not lose sight of the fact that they have been put in this position by a government that has forsaken social mobility and the right to aim for a better life. We at DMU Labour Club know who to blame for our fee increases and he sits at the cabinet Table.

Rob Jackson, Chair of DMU Labour Club.

Gove's plans for History

it is safe too say that no one in government is more dangerous than Michael Gove to this countries future. The steps he is taking are seriously damaging our schools and pupils. I do not want to focus on cutting the EMA or building schools for the future today, although they will I suspect have dire consequences for schooling in the future. Instead the focus today is the national curriculum. More specifically the national curriculum in History.

I have a vested interest in what happens to history. I am a undergraduate studying history and politics at De Montfort university. I got an A* in history at A level last year and my dad is a history teacher. It would not be an unfair assertion to suggest I have been around history all my life. Perhaps it is this proximity to the subject that has left me' so incensed by Gove's proposals for the subject I love.

Gove wants history to do two things firstly he wants to see a return to 'facts'. Perhaps more sinisterly he also wants to focus on a 'national identity'. Both of these points are worth reflecting on.

Firstly the fact question. It seems that three problems immediately jump out.

Firstly the teaching of facts as the sole role of history negates the finest part of history. The ability to think independently (obviously caveats exist to this you cannot escape the society you live in, so as such independent thought is impossible. Really it should be the ability to think semi-independently) and critically analyse. The development of these skills are the strongest things history at school level has to offer. This development is lost when looking at history solely as the recording of fact. In a sense it matters less that William of Normandy won the battle of Hastings in 1066 and more that we remember this event because it was immortalised in a tapestry and as such the history written is heavily reliant on a peice of cloth created to celebrate the victory. It matters less what happened and matters more why it is in the public consciousness. Taking this analysis out of history then seriously weakens the role history plays in producing well-rounded individuals.

Secondly and heavily linked to the first point it seems counterintuitive at a time when government is focusing university spending on the so called economy driving areas such as science etc. That they should turn something from teaching life skills, to solely teaching little peices of information that have little relevance to everyday life unless you happen to be on a quiz show. The logic behind this seems to be lacking, so much for joined up government.

Finally on facts what constitutes a fact is interesting. Firstly by the very nature of the world we live in and the way we operate facts are subjective. As Carr rightly points out 'a fact is like a sack, it won’t stand up without something in it'. History then cannot solely rely on fact in, instead history according to Carr is 'a dialogue between a historian and his fact'. As such it would be incredibly difficult to teach 'pure fact' as pure fact does not and indeed cannot exist.

On this idea of a 'national identity' created by some kind of common history again I have concerns. It sounds politically motivated. Even if it is innocent (which I fear it isn't) it sounds like something to be hijacked by the jingoistic.

Secondly whose identity will we choose? It seems, perhaps predictably, that Gove's choice is the history of monarchs not ordinary people. To this end the identity being created for us is the identity of kings and great battles. It is by very nature a fallacious identity, one created for people, not by people.

Equally the 'British' identity created will be focused on England, particularly the pre 1707 parts, it is unlikely that the history of other areas of The British Isles will get any coverage. This is a further troubling thought.

History has always been used for political agendas, but the teaching of history should not be subjected to manipulation by politicians. Certainly it should not be manipulated in a way which claims 'objective truth' as Gove seems to be doing. History is about the interpretive process as well as facts, only doing half of this will short change students and lower the standard of historical thinking in this country, not improve it.