|
It took Michael Rosen’s recent article in the Guardian to summarise as pithily as anyone the complete nonsense of Gove’s curriculum plans. So central government is going to lay down a compulsory curriculum for the schools that it’s trying to turn into schools where the curriculum won’t apply – academies, free schools and indeed any other kinds of schools you might invent. Hope you all picked up on this item- another classic example of Gove making it up as he goes along. Education Secretary Michael Gove will firstly ask English Heritage to create a must-see list of local historical sites, so that schoolchildren can visit them and be inspired by “our rich island story”. “We have a rich island story, which can be brought to life by seeing our historical and heritage sites,” he said. Simon Thurley, Chief Executive of English Heritage, added: “Outside every school there is a rich history. In the high street, the housing estate, the park, riverside and field, every town, city and village is full of places in which significant events have taken place. “We want every child, their parents and teachers to enjoy and take pride in the heritage of their local area and to understand the part it played in the rich story of England. “Our Heritage Schools initiative will bring history to life both in the classroom and out of it, weaving it into the life of the community and endowing present and future generations of children with a vivid understanding of the place in which they grew up.” History teachers across the land are trying to work out the full implications of Gove’s latest announcement that GCSE history needs ‘tightening’ for teaching in September 2013. I’m pretty sue that this is simply Gove’s knee-jerk reaction to the exam board scandal featuring WJEC history examiners. As with the Gg and Eng.Lit examples- 2 subjects also being looked at- the issue was one of topic spotting. Gove clearly does not want schools to teach only a small part of a full specification and is anxious that history is being dumbed down because only enough content is being taught to ‘get through’. I’m not sure that the remedy Gove has in mind is for compulsory short questions on everything on the spec or indeed more exams. His main target is the one where topics are examined in random rotation e.g. aspects of Lib gvt 1906-18. Why should it be that teachers who pay to attend training courses run by the board get insider information? OFSTED has just published new guidance for primary history leaders. Well, actually is just 30 PowerPoint slides with nothing new to tell that hasn’t already been documented in History for All published less than a year ago. Ostensibly a CPD resource it is little more than a few leading questions and points for reflection. For those of us who have been conducting OFSTED inspections since 1994, it came as little surprise when Evan Davies of the Today programme on R4 asked the new OFSTED Chief Inspector the killer question about his new plans. When asked if satisfactory is now unsatisfactory, why on earth was it satisfactory before? Instead of some sophisticated answer Wilshaw simply said, ‘I don’t know’. There you have it! Almost 20 years of inspections and they have no idea why the criteria keep changing. You might well have expected Wilshaw to talk about keeping expectations high. But it turns out that he had no confidence in the earlier systems. In my time I have inspected using a 7 level scale, a 5-level , variations of 4-level, all of which still begs the question, If a school improves from good to be almost outstanding why don’t we call it ‘very good’? The figures in a report published today, produced by Chris Skidmore, a Conservative MP on the Commons All-Party Group on History suggest that pupils in areas like Knowsley are 46 times less likely to gain A-level history than more affluent places like Cambridge, where 665 out of 6,038 candidates sat the exam, 557 of whom passed. In Knowsley,just 11 out of 2,000 pupils took A-levels in the subject, with only four passing their exams. Chris Skidmore went on to say “These figures reveal that the study of history in schools beyond 14 is at an all-time low. “Not only is an educational divide opening up between comprehensives and the independent and selective sector, there are now swathes of the country where history is becoming a forgotten subject. The Framework for the National Curriculum One of the more unfortunate revelations unearthed by the Daily Telegraph’s investigation into GCSE exam ‘cheating’ was a comment made about GCSE Geography. Steph Warren, a senior official at Edexcel, one of the biggest exam boards, was recorded by an undercover Daily Telegraph reporter claiming that “you don’t have to teach a lot” and that there was a “lot less” for pupils to learn than with rival courses. Of course this was put down a silly mistake. Just in the same way as WJEC has claimed that the two errant history examiners were simply rogues, two bad apples in a barrel of 500. I don’t think so! I have always fervently believed that GCSE history is harder for lower-attaining students than most other subjects. When I tackled QCA about they squirmed and fudged. I pointed out that the idea of subjects having negative residuals was appalling, especially as neither most students starting the course, nor their parents, were aware of this at the start of the course. I had always struggled to find the evidence. I have now discovered the research undertaken at Durham University . What emerges is what I always thought, but could never prove.– Grade F in Spanish, IT or history is almost the same as a D in textiles, PE or drama –At A* and A, English is harder than history BUT BUT BUT at F, it is 1.5 grades easier
Am I the only one who feels aggrieved? Why not do as they do in Australia and ‘scale’ all subjects.
I have blogged several times on the unethical system that allows examination boards to set the papers, write the books and train the teachers in how to get their kids to pass the exam. The reason this stinks, and why other people are now up in arms is simple. If you pay £200 to attend a training session in which you are given privileged, if not illegal, information about what topics will come up in the exam, then your kids have an advantage. If you would prefer to, stay at school and teach your kids some history, rather than just exam technique, then you are disadvantaged. It was somewhat ironical that the 2 teachers who had the whistle blown by the Daily Telegraph were history chief examiners.They will be investigated, but in many ways they are just scapegoats for a corrupt system. I hope Gove has the moral courage to really root out this problem and not be fobbed off with feeble explanations that it was some how the fault of just a few rogue examiners and that the problem has now been sorted. However, it isn’t just the corruption that I hate: it is the flagrant empty championing of exam technique over understanding. As one of the benighted Chief Examiners said in an appalling gaffe captured on camera, “We would want to do all three topics as educationalists, but …” What else are we if not educationalists? Yes there is pressure for good exam results. but is turning up to a meeting where someone immorally leaks confidential information the real route to success? |
|
|
Copyright © 2012 Keystage History - All Rights Reserved |
|