Back to the future - 'O' Levels

I know I should welcome the return to a more demanding curriculum and exam, and away from the anxiety inducing GCSE where fear of a mistake replaces knowledge and deep understanding of the subject.

If it includes grading by population distribution again ( which makes garde inflation almost impossible ) then I'll be supportive. ( Bleeding heart lefties note that its this measure, more than any other, that will restore merit based progression and maybe social mobility - though I've argued, and others are starting to also, that an efficient education system combined with fair opportunities may just sort the gene pool and make mobility less not more ).

So why doesn't my heart jump for joy ? The answer is I'm not sure the second half of the equation has been addressed. What about the CSE's ? [ For those too young they were the certificate of secondary education - a 1 in which was the equivalent of - was it a C at O level ? The point being that CSE's weren't respected. To get around this problem 'O' Levels and CSE's were combined, and the ability for everyone to pass built in - no more results distribution ].

Mr Gove will need to address this.

My suggestion would be different exams but single certificates and qualifications. I think some of this is supposed to be part of GCSE's right now - but the CSE tail wagged the O level dog too much and the cause of inclusion and peoples feelings trumped acheievemtn all too much.

Before the educationalist lobby try to lay into me for this, let me give an example. Looking around our local secondary school for one of my children's school choices I came into the English Literature department ( a subject I found very tough going at school - as if your a regular reader you'll have guessed ). They were very proud of two pupils who last year had got 100% in their English Literature exams ! 100% ! Now English literature isn't my subject, but even I knew that was dodgy. The arts 6th formers were always complaining that those of us in the sciences had things easy as things were much more right or wrong than in their subject. 60% for an essay was good, 70% excellent, 100% impossible.


So I asked the question of the teacher in that class room. She didn't even try to justify the outcome but just pointed to the marked paper that sat in the middle of the table.


At that point I nknew GCSE English Literature was debased, and frankly something of a joke.

I spent a little time comparing O level maths to GCSE maths - which you can do if you look at the International GCSE and International O level and reading curriculum and sample papers - see here. My superficial view was that the O level developed deeper understanding, though I can see that it would be less 'accessible' for those for whom maths was not a gift.

So in short I support the idea of going back to the rigour of O levels, but if Mr Gove wants me to love it then it must be handled carefully and the question that GCSE's were invented to answer ( ie Who cares about CSEs?) needs to remain answered.

University degrees haven't suddenly got more expensive - but they do need to get more effective

Its worth remembering that all the current fuss is about funding, not buying.

I have to confess to being uneasy about how the middle class is being set up as the fall guys for some of the provisions required to bribe the Lib Dems into coming along to join the rest of us on planet fiscal reality.

But in principle those who chose degrees and study them should also pay for them. After all who else will or should pay ?

What worries me is that I suspect many top Universities are really charging rent on the names and the access to top employers those names provide ( combined with the self reinforcing alumni effect in recruitment ).

Could better University level degrees be delivered at lower cost and in a shorter time ?

Yes of course ! ( no pun intended. )

However would those degrees perform their real function as the sorter for the next step on the career ladder ?

As things stand probably not. And that is the problem with these reforms.

Like the split between rail track and operating companies a similar split is required for tertiary education if its performance is to be improved in academic terms, rather than as a form of ensuring that certain groups hold access to the top careers and jobs. ( Though I should say that I refute that its just a zero sum game here - better use and education of our population in relevant fields will improve the lives of everyone and the economy ).

For example, it should be possible for anyone to sit Oxford degree level exams - without having to pay for their tuition. Perhaps someone else can provide that part better and at lower cost.

Indeed the exams should be arranged so someone could finish an Oxford degree in two years rather than three - if they are able.

This is the truly radical reform, and perhaps one I've heard hinted at if not directly mentioned by David Willets before !

But without this reform the effectiveness of our education system won't improve and some people with ability and drive won't get their chance ( aka social mobility will stall yet further than it did under Labour ).

See also some reflection on the second great change in University funding - Labour's student fees by GuyTheMac. ( The first was of course student loans ! )

The cost-benefit analysis on education

MiaS has just had a chap round to quote for a new boiler. He seemed smart enough, but as the part of the talk afterwards about the benefits and advantages of this proposition started to stretch on I started to brace myself for the key detail, the price. And it was just as well that I did. Ouch - I could perhaps still expect to save money over the next 10 years, but most of the benefit would be going in the cost of the a certain gas company's services. ( The fact that I might still do it shows they have their pricing point just about right. )

Today the MSM is full of horror stories about student fees being uncapped ( or to put it another way more of the fees being paid by students, less by the general tax payer. Since the general taxpayer is, I'm guessing, much poorer than graduates this is a negative redistribution which is what makes some of the left's defence of it hard to understand. They use a spurious argument about putting poorer students of University - which is an argument that fails on so many levels - including the fact its the poor the state tax collector is robbing to pay for all of this anyway.)

The Universities will need to explain the benefits of these course more fully than the "education is good guff" we normally get, and then they will have to judge from the reaction if they have their pricing points right.

Of course ( no pun intended ) there is loads of room for innovation in the tertiary education market. Cost could be brought radically down. Indeed I've seen this done twenty years ago as Aston University which instead of rolling up a dying when the Red Bricks persuaded the Govt to cut its and Salford's grant by about a third made the necessary changes and became one of the UK's top universities. ( Indeed for all those who bang on about public school types dominating University, Aston is dominated by state alumni and does very well thank you. )

Now there are factors such as reputation which mean that some Universities can charge highly for a poor product, in value terms, but where employers are still happy enough and hence it'll make economic sense to pay their high fees. But surely there is a massive gap in the market developing here for quality and value.

Wat Tyler has all the figures over at Burning our money. MiaS can remember such data coming out from the economist a while back showing the added earning potential of doing a degree. ( Hint if you a chap studying microbiology will actually damage you economically ).

There are issues about certain Universities being able to protect their real market - that for blue chip employers taking their graduates - but these could be addressed.

Its time to sober up and face facts. Tertiary education is not the universal good and benefit that has become an unquestionable article of political faith. Its time for the iconoclasts to get to work.

Update: How an arts degree can damage your life ...

Why do degrees cost so much ?

Various headlines are flying round about the prospect that the cost of degrees may have to be born by those who most directly benefit from them. ( I've just seen one at £80k in the Daily Mail. I'm slightly at a loss as to why only evil middle class students need to pay these bills - surely every student benefits equally and should be charged the same. )

What's strange is there is not enough effort to ask why they are so expensive.

I guess this will become more of a concern when people pay for them directly rather than socialising the cost to other people - when the cost is of no consequence to the individual.

Given that we are competing with Eastern Europe, China, Brazil & India its perhaps time to look at our cost base and ask some hard questions.

Farewell "To Miss with Love"

Another remarkable blog has come to its end. "To Miss with Love" - the blog of an inner city teacher, who doesn't fit the stereo types and has some important things to say about school life and our children in the inner cities has come to an end.

She has just started a new job, and I suspect the ability to blog anonymously is now almost non-existent.

So like Civil Serf before her we will lose a blog that tells us something real about a part of the nation that the media just gloss over with their attention deficit syndrome.

My advice, if you have a bit of time, is to nip over to her blog here and read some of the posts before they get taken down.

Update: I'm afraid the blog has been taken down. But this is interesting ....

Further: Cranmer has made the connection official and has a far more fitting summary of Miss Snuffy's blog life and political evolution here ( its a must read ). I fear that the left wing will want its usual sadistic revenge, but I hope it will be disappointed.

My other occasional comments on her blogs are here.

Also The Guardian reports that there's a book deal on the go. Excellent - I'll be buying a copy.

Later update: Its now a long time since this orginal post and the world knows that it is Katherine Birbalsingh who was Miss Snuffy.

I've noted a lot of hits on this page, I assume from people trying to find out more about her blog.

Well she now writes a more conventional blog over on the Daily Telegraph and has a book coming out very shortly which I imagine will include a lot of the material that was once in the blog.

I have it on pre-order and I wish her well in her battle to tell things the way she sees them, rather than the way left wing ideology insissts she believes.

Labour's hateful ideology against some SEN kids will die slowly

It was another choking on cornflakes morning listening tot he BBC - this time R5Live.

The left is wheeling out everyone it can to prevent socialist control of the education system being undermined.

This morning the excuse against the full implementation of Tony Blair's ( and really John Major before him) academies program was special education needs (SEN in edspeak ).

The man who used his disabled son as a TV prop to try and upset David Cameron with a unreasonable rant during the general election was wheeled out. ( The BBC of course neglects to mention that he's a Lib Dem activist and work for a left of centre think tank. )

He demanded inclusion- and berated those with "ideological" commitment to choice and daring to challenge the almighty socialist state about how is destroys the lives of their children. How dare people want a choice and not accept what the all wise state demands they accept !

All must be treated equally - even if doing so destroy the life hopes of those who must be sacrificed on the road to greater socialism and equality. ONWARD ANIMAL FARM !

The truth is the state control people are the ideologues. Their failure to recognise that for some children special schools are a Godsend is either wilful and heartless ( as is required of much of the abject failures socialism creates - and yet its adherents will never tire of claiming about how they are working for the very victims they create ), or they have missed on on a vital part of their education themselves.

Man in a Shed has recently had a conversation about inclusion concerning a member of his family and the worries of those in the state controlled sector is always about their ideology and control of the money - never about the outcome.

That's why free schools and the academies and parent choice are vital to protect us from the terrible power of the state and those who would use it to crush poor vulnerable children in the name of equality.

Keep going Mr Gove - some of us are right behind you ( though you shouldn't wait for the BBC to give you a fair hearing ).

Teachers and streaming make the difference

The BBC is having great old time howling about education cuts - we'll less money bunged to the construction industry anyway.

But a simple truth is now getting aired. Good teachers teaching teachable children ( ie set by ability ) in a disciplined environment makes all the difference.

Buildings, computers, text books, trips, sports halls, equipment don't.

Which is good, since the money's run out.

Along with returning to proper A levels and GCSE's these are points we all knew yet Labour strived not to take account of ( indeed often working against them whilst borrowing billions we can't afford to spend on things that don't work ).

Common sense turns out to be the lowest cost option and the most effective. I wonder where else this applies in the public sector ?

See this from Harry Mount on the same subject.

Gove getting on with schools

Its heartening to see Michael Gove hitting the ground running on schools today. We had the same old tired response on improving schools not being fair from the dead hand of the Labour party, but they still haven't woken up to not being in power.

I know everyone says Labour governed as if they were running an opposition campaign, but I see the likes of Ed Balls (R4 Today this morning) still giving the sort of blocking statements on fairness in interviews they used to use to avoid scrutiny whilst they got on with the business of socialist destruction in government. It won't work now as no one cares if what they say adds up or prevents further questioning as no ones interested in them right now. No doubt they'll figure this out in a few weeks time.

But education reform is the key plank of this government. The LEA's and left wing educational establishment will squeal and shout, but Gove must push on.

Its time to put the customers of education - the children and their parents first - and in doing so provide our country with a work force that can pay off the debt Labour has saddled us with.

See also Stephen Pollard - Gove's first fight is against the enemy within