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.