Category: Assessment


‘Select’ Universities

Filed Under: Assessment, Education, Relating to University by Rod Grant — Leave a comment
28 July, 2011

Published, Edinburgh Evening News, August 6, 2011

So, only three Edinburgh secondaries have made it into a UK poll revealing the state schools which send the most pupils to the country’s best universities – despite Scottish schools dominating almost half the list. The Capital falls behind other Scottish local authorities, including Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire, taking just three of the top slots. A total of 49 Scottish schools make the top 100. There are seven schools from Glasgow in the top 100, six schools from East Dunbartonshire and six schools from East Renfrewshire.

This news created a little media flurry with concerns being aired over the quality of secondary education here in Edinburgh but, I, for one, do not equate the proportion of students attending ‘select’ universities with high quality secondary education. This would be to suggest that only those students attending universities like Oxford, Cambridge and St. Andrews are achieving full potential. That is absurd nonsense.

Clearly, as the Head of an Independent school, I am often criticized for providing opinion on matters regarding state–maintained schools but that is because I can say precisely what I like and what I believe. My colleagues in the state sector are not afforded that opportunity which is lamentable. So, I hope I speak for many when I say that students select universities on many criteria. And we should not forget that it is actually the student who initially selects the university they wish to attend rather than the other way about. If one of my students is considering a career in sports’ science, for example, I may steer them in the direction of Stirling University; for those considering a degree in fashion or textiles, I may direct them to Heriot-Watt. In other words, the selection of a university should be based on the quality of course offered and not on some notion of generic superiority.

A recent student of my school was accepted to Oxford to study Law and, of course, I was delighted for him. The College he had chosen provided an exceptionally well-rounded degree course in his subject choice. Personally, I do not believe he chose Oxford because it was Oxford, he chose it because it had the best reputation for his particular area of study.

It is quite alarming to read that a councilor suggested that it ‘would be a good idea to look at the other local authorities who have done better to see where we can make improvements’ because this is based on a false premise.

Edinburgh has a high proportion of its students going on to Higher education and that is what really matters, not the particular institutions the students attend. Many of the ‘select’ universities offer a high number of academic degrees which are, quite frankly, not suited to a 21st century global market place. My own degree began its life as English Language and Literature at Edinburgh University, which qualified me for absolutely nothing. Indeed, I was turned down for a job in a well-known bookshop for being over-qualified (at least, that’s what they told me!) but was unable to find a job for which I was qualified. And there’s the rub. Do we not want students to receive an education that prepares them for the world in which we live? And if the answer to that is ‘yes’, then the name of the higher education institution they attend is neither here nor there. Of course, it would be too simplistic to believe that a degree from Cambridge does not appear, at first sight, as highly impressive. However, once that initial good impression is made then it is down to the individuals to sell themselves to potential employers. I have interviewed first class honours graduates from select universities that are eminently unemployable, so there is more to success than the name of the institution on a degree transcript.

We should actually be far more concerned about raising our expectations for our students in terms of driving them to further their education. Too often, we fall into the trap of dismissing a pupil’s ability because that ability is not immediately apparent. Scotland is still highly regarded in terms of its education but we are resting on our historic laurels. Our current education system is in danger of educating creativity out of our pupils. We like conformity, we like right answers, we like hearing the answer we want to hear but we are not so good at allowing mistakes, creating the environment for free expression and for ensuring that our youngsters are given the opportunity to think for themselves.

An essay question that appeared in a University General Paper in the 1970s was set up to create a philosophical debate. Students were expected to write an essay of some 500 words using the title for inspiration. The question was: ‘Is this a question?’

The student who was immediately accepted on the basis of his answer had written, quite simply, ‘Yes, if this is an answer.’

That answer demonstrates the ability to critically engage with a topic and this is the type of thinking to which we should and could be aspiring to for all of our pupils.

We must absolutely stop concerning ourselves with the Universities to which our students are accepted and start concerning ourselves with developing pupils who can think, create and succeed in the face of adversity. And that will require critical engagement of those who teach by those who have the power to make changes. What chance?

Comment

Independent School Pupil Numbers 2010

Filed Under: Assessment, Curriculum for Excellence, Education, Scotsman Articles by Rod Grant — Leave a comment
24 October, 2010

Published in The Scotsman, Thursday, 21st October, 2010

The independent schools’ sector has seen a 2.5% decrease in pupil numbers in the Primary years and a 0.9% increase in the Secondary years over the last twelve months. The oft-quoted reason for this is that external economic influences are curtailing the parents’ ability or desire to fund an independent education in their child’s early years. Personally, I do not believe that this argument really stands up to any serious scrutiny. If money was the main determining factor, then we would see pupil numbers drop across the age groups and that is clearly not happening. Indeed, the total number of pupils receiving an independent education has been stable in Scotland for almost thirty years, regardless of the wider economic backdrop. My own school has seen a 13% increase in pupil numbers over the last year and so we need to dig deeper to establish a more robust reason. For me, there is one very good determining factor in the drop in Primary numbers and it is not simply to do with money. It is the fact that there are a high number of quality primary schools in the maintained sector doing an excellent job in difficult times. As a result, the ‘need’ for an independent education can be dissipated by good quality provision in state schools. However, Secondary schools in the maintained sector have a tougher job, having to operate a full inclusion policy, having to serve disparate and wide-ranging catchment areas and having to introduce a new curriculum without knowing what the future examination system will look like. As a result, parents of children, particularly those in Primary 7, will desperately seek an independent education for their child at Secondary level, particularly when moving from an excellent, local primary, so as to avoid a massive regional secondary which is often seen as remote from the small local communities which they serve. With savage cuts to services on their way, it will be the independent sector that picks up the pieces as parents decide that reduced provision is not what they want for the education of their child. With independent schools now offering financial assistance, parents with low or moderate incomes will have a choice to make and my money will be on the Scotsman reporting in a year’s time on an increase in independent schools’ numbers across the board.

Comment

Curriculum for Excellence 3

Filed Under: Assessment, Curriculum for Excellence, Education by Rod Grant — Leave a comment
11 June, 2010

Published, Edinburgh Evening News, 14th June, 2010

When Is a Curriculum not a Curriculum?

Curriculum for Excellence is the most divisive debate in education in living memory. Its introduction has polarised opinion both in local communities and in education circles.  It has regularly been vilified for its vagueness, for its lack of clarity and for its lack of prescribed content. But, for me, these criticisms miss the point entirely. However, they have come about as a result of expectation: an expectation that teachers will have a prescribed curriculum to deliver. Without this, the security blanket of being told what to teach is removed and this makes even the most able practitioners uncomfortable. So, the biggest mistake of all is that it was named ‘Curriculum’ for Excellence, as it is not a curriculum at all. As well as providing a refreshingly positive methodology, it is a series of outcomes and experiences that all pupils should gain throughout their school years with schools free to develop the content they feel best fits the desired outcome. Whilst that is actually highly desirable, it is also quite a complicated process to introduce, develop and evaluate.

To add further to the confusion, we still have only a limited idea of what the examination system will look like and this makes secondary school teachers extremely nervous. It is simply not good enough to introduce a curriculum, however worthy, if the assessment design is not in place. It is like playing football without goal nets. We still have a lack of quality information regarding syllabi, weighting of marks, length of courses, when pupils will sit examinations and so on and so forth.

Here is one example of the confusion that faces school management teams up and down the country: What is termed third and fourth stage is meant to provide a general and broad education until the end of S3. This being the case, the likely effect is that pupils will actually have a reduced number of examination subjects in S4 as a single year will simply not provide the amount of time required to be presented in 8 subjects (currently the case in S3/S4). So, either schools will present candidates for fewer subjects (narrowing the curriculum) or schools will start preparing pupils from the beginning of S3 (the current situation). Is it any wonder we are confused? Add in to the mix that the Scottish Qualifications Authority in their infinite wisdom has significantly changed the Science syllabi at Higher for the year after next, immediately prior to the changes Learning and Teaching Scotland will announce for the design of the new Higher, and this shows a lack of joined-up thinking that makes Mr. Blobby look like a genius strategist.

In practice, then, primary schools will be doing fabulous work on the new curriculum whilst secondary schools twirl their fingers and await more detail. Parents need to know that teachers, therefore, are not just being ‘dinosaurs’ resistant to change but that they are genuinely concerned about the lack of really important detail.

And yet, there are probably very few teachers indeed who do not believe in the underlying philosophy of CfE. So, all of the criticisms aside, why do I believe in what the new curriculum seeks to do?

Well, it continues to ensure our focus is primarily on helping youngsters to become articulate, literate and numerate but it attempts to go further so that children become better equipped with skills which will allow them to enquire, reflect, problem solve, strategise, analyse and create. It tries to make what children are learning relevant to the world in which they live and, indeed, to a future that we have yet to imagine. It provides context and the opportunity to link learning across the curriculum, not in superficial ways but in meaningful ways.

Further, we need to understand that a national curriculum (and the thinking behind it) is crucial to the development of our young people. These are children who will one day lead their nations and it is therefore essential that they learn in a secure environment, where discipline, self-belief and the value of our fellow human beings is central to the learning process. Without developing an ethos where caring for others or valuing differences in culture or religion is seen as worthy, we create citizens who are intolerant and incapable of perspective. This would be the greatest failure of all. 

 CfE seeks to meet this challenge head on by creating, or at least encouraging, a strong, values-based ethos where children learn in an environment that is thoughtful and mutually supportive.

My fervent belief is that Curriculum for Excellence provides us with the platform for a worthy 21st Century Education and each of us should be applauding it. It is unfortunate, but entirely understandable, that it has not yet galvanized or inspired the profession. Someone, somewhere, really needs to pull their proverbial finger out and engage the profession in a way in which they have thus far failed to do.

Comment

University Entry Requirements

Filed Under: Assessment, Education, Relating to University, Scotsman Articles by Rod Grant — 1 Comment
9 June, 2010

Published, The Scotsman, 31st May 2010

Am I alone in questioning the importance our Universities attach to the subject of Mathematics? I can understand the need to be numerate, the need to be arithmetically confident and assured, but I am less convinced that we need to aspire to all students achieving success at Maths. I find it incomprehensible that you need Standard Grade Mathematics to study Acting at the University of Central Lancashire, or to study Fashion Design at the University of Glamorgan, Cardiff and Pontypridd.

These examples are not unusual; indeed, you can hardly find a degree course at a British University that does not make Mathematics at Standard Grade an entry requirement. Now, on a personal level, I love Maths and I love teaching Maths but I cannot understand why a student wishing to study drama has to prove competence in ‘the interpretation and use of proportionality between the size of the sector and the angle at the centre of pie-charts’ to be allowed to follow their chosen acting career path.

And perhaps, Maths is not the only subject that needs to be looked at. What about the pupil with a specific language difficulty who fails to achieve Standard Grade English and as a result can then not be considered for a Foundation Degree at the University of Derby in Motorsport Technology. Again, I completely see the need for a level of competence in literacy but I am also heartbroken for those kids who struggle with those required competences but who display a real talent or a real gift for creative or practical subjects.

Our system disenfranchises these young people and discards them from Higher education and it seems to me an entirely illogical way of assessing someone’s ability in their chosen field, particularly when the chosen field is far removed from the enforced entry requirements in English and Maths. Perhaps then there is value in the new Numeracy and Literacy qualifications we are anticipating in the Curriculum for Excellence, but their true value will only be demonstrated if Universities accept these qualifications, thereby opening up Higher education to a wider yet equally deserving audience.

Comment

Curriculum for Excellence 2

Filed Under: Assessment, Curriculum for Excellence, Education by Rod Grant — Leave a comment
9 June, 2010

Parents often ask me what the priorities should be within education. I usually remind them of Skinner’s quote, that is to say, ‘Education is what remains after what has been learned has been forgotten’. This quote makes parents, and teachers too, of course, reflect on what the function of a good school truly is.

When we think back to our own school days our memories are of those instances when we found something to be funny, challenging or, at worst, humiliating. Today, I believe, the truly successful school is the one that relishes the first two and creates an ethos where the third is unacceptable.

The basis for a sound education has to be fundamentally founded in the notion that learning should be enjoyable and about more than just the simple accumulation of facts. Education intrinsically develops our spirit, our emotional core. As soon as learning becomes tedious or pressured, children switch off completely or become incredibly anxious about their ability to learn. A good education, then, becomes more than just learning for the sake of knowledge. It becomes empowering and creates choice and independence. Learning should be a journey of joy, wonder and excitement.

The education system is now so reliant on summative assessment (i.e. examinations) that the education we truly want for our children is in danger of being lost altogether. We have come to the stage where if we cannot measure something then it is not worth doing and we are the poorer for it. That is why assessment for learning is a positive move from the Scottish Executive as is the much-maligned Curriculum for Excellence.

As well as my very serious concerns over summative assessment, my other major worry is the blinkered belief that the function of the good school is to teach children everything. Our knowledge-based curriculum is becoming so over-crowded that we are in danger of covering everything but doing nothing particularly well. Again, Head Teachers must stand firm and allow their schools to prioritise. Clearly we need to listen to what parents tell us, as well as being true to our own educational philosophies, to ensure our core aims of ensuring children are literate and numerate are kept at the very top of our agendas.

By de-cluttering the curriculum and by discriminating against continual summative assessment, we free teachers to focus on their own strengths, to take children on voyages of discovery, to allow personal learning and teaching styles to flourish, to remove the pressure that comes from testing and when all of this is allowed to happen, what do you think happens? In the real world, children and teachers begin to truly enjoy the teaching and learning process. We begin again to realize the fundamental need to have fun, to develop a love of learning, to create a nurturing, caring ethos, to support children through their learning without the need for fear or restrictive demands.

We can offer an education system to be proud of and I, for one, am absolutely committed to the new Curriculum for Excellence, as it will allow teachers to develop teaching programmes worthy of the students who sit before them.

We have to provide an education that is valuable to our pupils, not just for today, but also for thirty or forty years hence. We must ensure that our focus is primarily in helping youngsters to become articulate, literate and numerate but as much as these qualities are essential we must go further and ensure that children are being equipped with skills which will allow them to enquire, reflect, problem solve, develop strategies, be analytical and be creative. To do less would be to disadvantage an entire generation. In addition, we need to think of children as future adults. They are people who will one day lead their nations and it is therefore essential that they learn in a secure environment, where discipline, self-belief and the value of our fellow human beings is central to the learning process. Without developing an ethos where caring for others or valuing differences in culture or religion is seen as worthy, we create citizens who are intolerant and incapable of perspective. This would be the greatest failure of all.

Schools must now ensure a strong, values-based ethos where children learn in an environment that is thoughtful and mutually supportive. They must focus on the unquestionable need for literacy and numeracy whilst, at the same time, giving children the breadth and variety of experience that will round them as human beings. We must draw back from the stifling requirements of summative assessment and we must prioritise within our vast knowledge-based curriculum.

Schools develop well when differences are not only tolerated but also welcomed. We live in an age where society, or perhaps government, seeks to ensure ‘consistency’, but in so doing, parameters are inadvertently set that create a ‘one size fits all’ mentality. This is dangerous. We need schools to be different from each other; each offering their own priorities and areas of expertise. Why? Because no one system of schooling works for every individual child – we need to address that fact rather than ceding to the belief that education can only be delivered in one way.

A 21st century education should take children by the hand and show them the wonder of learning, and in so doing, create a generation of people thirsty for knowledge but, more importantly, it should teach us compassion and thereby enable wisdom. To educate properly we need to care less about the storing of facts and more about the lighting of fires, less about league tables and more about wider achievement, less about examination results and more about the citizens we aspire to be, less about conforming to the norm and more about celebrating differences. Scotland could be leading the way and should be leading the way – we just need to have faith in what each and every one of us knows in our heart, that education is far more important than the simple learning and retention of facts.

My fervent belief is that Curriculum for Excellence provides us with the platform for a worthy 21st Century Education and each of us should be applauding it and welcoming it with open arms.

Comment

Education must be about more than achieving the right grades

Filed Under: Assessment, Curriculum for Excellence, Education, Relating to University, Scotsman Articles by Rod Grant — 1 Comment
9 June, 2010

Interview Published, The Scotsman, 13 January, 2010, and in ‘Independent Schools Magazine’ , July 2010

I get the feeling that we do not ask ourselves this question often enough. What is the purpose of a school? What is it actually for? If you follow our current thinking it would appear that it is fundamentally founded on the belief that schools are doing well if their pupils achieve a set of excellent examination results. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that, above all, we should ensure our pupils’ heads are filled with the required knowledge to allow them to pass a series of examinations. Oh dear, oh dear…

At the moment, our secondary education system is a protracted application process for tertiary education and we are the poorer for it. I have met many people with first class honours degrees who are, in my opinion, eminently unemployable and many people who leave school at sixteen with few qualifications who are hugely successful and eminently employable. Now we must not see these cases as the rule, but they are not merely a small number of ‘exceptions’ to that rule.

Education is being damaged by the need to jump through academic hoops that actually curtail an individual’s imagination and, in many ways, damage their originality of thought. Universities now complain that students arrive lacking fundamental skills. In my opinion, they arrive lacking these skills because of our need to assess learning in a very uncreative manner. This is the current process: teach the content of the curriculum, learn the content of the curriculum, regurgitate the content of the curriculum under examination conditions and do this well to receive an A grade. My contention is that this approach is fundamentally flawed and actually quite dangerous.

The independent sector does not get away scot-free from these criticisms. Too often we spoon-feed our students to the extent that we take away their capacity to ‘think’ and, indeed, to think outside the box. Too many of our pupils enter University without the tools to achieve success in a less structured and less formal environment. We need to do more to prepare our pupils for the realities of life in the real world. More work experience placements, more work with disadvantaged sections of society, more hands-on, practical application of knowledge, more freedom to make mistakes and a greater sense of responsibility and independence.

Our students need to start being allowed to develop their creativity and their critical thinking. We need to look at the education systems of other countries and learn from their successes. Scandinavian countries, in particular Finland, have been out-performing us for more than a decade. If you look at their systems of public education, you see one vital component which is different to our own. Examinations or tests, of any kind, do not kick in before the age of 16. This means that education from 6-15 is allowed to develop without the worry of “passing the tests”.

Universities should not be allowed to wag the dog (i.e. our schools). We should leave it up to individual Universities to work out how they attract potential students and how they assess them. Schools should concentrate on educating their pupils rather than schooling them. We need a period of ‘educational enlightenment’ in the United Kingdom, driven by ensuring our young people have skills and knowledge, not knowledge alone. It is my contention that if we worry less about league tables and more about individual development, then we can become a nation of invention and industry once again. Currently, we are not achieving those dreams and those aspirations and I, for one, am fed up with the notion that a good education equals a series of As in examinations. Why? Because it just isn’t so.

So, what is a good education? Well, it should be about developing individuals into people who are tolerant, cultured, have high self-esteem but with humility at their core, who have a set of skills that allow them to create, problem-solve, analyse, reflect and consider. This is not ‘pie in the sky’. This is absolutely achievable for all of Britain’s children, but we need to radically alter our view of what education is actually for and we need to do it now.

Comment

Learning Lessons from Abroad

Filed Under: Assessment, Education, Inspection Processes, Scotsman Articles by Rod Grant — Leave a comment
9 June, 2010

Interview Published, The Scotsman, 7th May 2010

Mike Russell, Cabinet Secretary for Education, has been on a fact-finding mission to view the Swedish model of education, following Don Ledingham’s superb attempts at bringing more localised powers to the schools of East Lothian.

However, Mr. Russell was even better employed by looking at Finland’s education system which, unlike Sweden’s, has been ranked top of the OECD’s PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) rankings for the last decade.

So what might Scotland learn from Finland? Well, children do not begin formal education until the age of 7 and they stay in one school for a period of nine years which culminates in all students at aged 15 being awarded a completion certificate. At this point those students who are more academic can continue in their studies and others can take vocational qualifications. Once a student has embarked on either of these two routes they can still opt for the alternative route at a later point.

Remarkably, there is no Inspection system and, indeed, very little accountability anywhere in the system. Schools operate on the basis of trust. There is no national curriculum, each school creates its own and in addition there is no external awards system until you follow the senior academic phase at age 17.

Finland also teaches children for fewer hours than any other OECD country. In fact their pupils end up with the equivalent of three and a half years less tuition than their Italian counterparts.

One significant factor in Finland is that teacher education programmes are one of the most difficult degree courses to be accepted into. Only 900 students per year join the programme out of 6000 applicants and 24% of Finland’s students place teaching at the top of their ‘most wanted’ professions.

So here we have a country whose assessment results place it at the top of the world’s education league, where teachers are trusted and highly qualified, and where a massive 57% of the adult population are participating in some form of educational course.

Why would any country not want to look very closely at Finland and try to see which factors are making the difference? Scotland’s education system, once the envy of the world, continues to complacently rest on its laurels. It is now time to stop scoffing at other nations and to be willing to learn from and to listen to others who are doing better.

Comment
Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.