The second A Level General paper was from June 1968. This continued the expectation that the students had a far wider knowledge of 'current affairs' than could surely have been possible for a seventeen/eighteen-year old. These papers must have been primarily designed to see if one could simply write an essay. Alternatively, they could have been designed to weed out the independent school student - the children of politicians, farmers, diplomats, teachers or the professions - from the state school ones.
Here are some more examples:
- What big advances in medicine (including surgery) have been made in the last thirty years? What further advances seem at present likely before the century ends? It would have been a bold student who mentioned MRI scanning, the eradication of polio, cancer treatments, stem cell advances ... How on earth could they begin to know?
- 'Lives of great men all remind us / As we from their pages turn, / That we too may leave behind us / Papers that we ought to burn.' Comment on this in the light of biographies you have read. And how many biographies has the average 17-year old read today?
- 'Comedy should be placeless and timeless; it does not need gimmicks.' Justify this statement with examples from the comedy (not restricted to the theatre) of different ages. This was from a period before television comedy got under way and assumes that one has studied the history of theatre or at least seen comedies from different ages.
- Has the rush to grant independence to new states in Asia and Africa been justified by results? Ouch! The Sixties had indeed seen a tidal wave of countries becoming independent but how impatient of us to ask whether the results were justified after only a handful of years. Can we not allow them a generation or even two? And how can a student have any real idea in an era when few will have travelled to any of the countries concerned? Of course, it was to winnow out the sons of diplomats, colonial officers and British Council staff.
- Discuss the present state and the possible future of agriculture in an increasingly urbanised and industrialised Britain. Not a question designed to appeal to many inner city lads. The 1967 paper also had a question which mentioned the concreting over of Britain suggesting it was a current theme.
- Can bad men write good books? Give a reasoned verdict. How lucky they were to live in a world so easily divided into good and bad.
- 'Profit' has recently come to be regarded as a dirty word. How dirty do you consider it to be, and why? This was in the days before the famous line 'the unacceptable face(t) of capitalism'.
Perhaps the modern critics of the A Level system have a point: the questions have become easier over the years, but these questions were written for young people growing up in a pre-mass media, pre-television, pre-internet age and assume some sort of ideal student who had read biographies and plays, and who had an informed view of agriculture, medicine, science, architecture and planning. In other words a miniature adult. No doubt that is what Mr Gove aspires to once again.
It is hard even to imagine what naive drivel was produced in answer to some of these questions.
Don't miss the next episode: a few questions from the actual subject papers.
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Saturday, 24 May 2014
Monday, 19 May 2014
General questions
Rootling in the loft recently, we came across some A Level exam papers from 1967 and 1968. The questions relating to the main subjects were completely incomprehensible. Once upon a time we might have been able to understand the questions and we have the evidence in the form of a certificate that we actually knew enough to get more than an 'Unclassified' or whatever was awarded in those days.
It was the General papers that provided the most interest not only because we could actually understand the questions but because they provided a glimpse of the exam system of the time. They also suggest that pupils of the time were either much more sophisticated than their equivalent today, that the examiners were expecting them to be so or that they were trying to impose a 'grown-upness' on the young of the late sixties.
Here is a sample of the 1967 questions.
- Discuss, with examples of one or more well-known artists, the aims of the portrait painter. What effects has the development of photography had on the painting of portraits? This is in a general paper, not an Art A Level
- Write a critical appreciation of any opera or ballet you have seen. (Every aspect of the work and its performance should be considered.) It is good to see only highbrow entertainment being allowed but what does that threatening remark in the bracket really mean?
- Give an account of the origins and development of Jazz music. To what extent do you regard modern 'pop' music as a form of Jazz or as a revolt from it?
- Describe the satisfaction you have received from the formal, as distinct from the representational, elements and qualities of one work of art in any medium. Um ...
It goes on to ask one to comment on the proposition that 'When science comes in at the door, common-sense flies out the window'; whether we prefer the work of contemporary novelists to the novels of an earlier generation, with examples; whether the public image of the poet has changed from that of fifty to sixty years ago, and how; and whether we agree that 'morality is only a majority opinion on social conduct - and at that the opinion of a bygone generation'.
In a later section - only one question may be answered from each section - we are asked how much influence and what kind is exercised in the world by the British Commonwealth and what is needed to enable the Commonwealth to survive; we are invited to suggested the changes that are imminent in Western Europe and the NATO Alliance and what effect these will have (it was the height of the Cold War); we are asked to 'account for the rapid increase in organised crime'; and, most surprisingly, we are invited to consider whether it is a fair appraisal of the British political scene that 'While the Tories become more and more radical and Labour more and more conservative, the Liberals vociferously support both sides of every question'. Ouch! It is hard to imagine this last question being acceptable in today's politically-sensitive environment.
To answer these questions intelligently in a 45 minutes essay would require considerable knowledge of what used to be called current affairs and is now known as 'politics'. It would also require a degree of prescience not normally found in 18 year olds. Mr Gove would be proud as would any Etonian who had been faced with the question starting 'You are the Prime Minister of Britain and ....' in his entrance exam, taken when he was 13 years old.
These are not questions likely to be answerable by the vast majority of today's young.
It was the General papers that provided the most interest not only because we could actually understand the questions but because they provided a glimpse of the exam system of the time. They also suggest that pupils of the time were either much more sophisticated than their equivalent today, that the examiners were expecting them to be so or that they were trying to impose a 'grown-upness' on the young of the late sixties.
Here is a sample of the 1967 questions.
- Discuss, with examples of one or more well-known artists, the aims of the portrait painter. What effects has the development of photography had on the painting of portraits? This is in a general paper, not an Art A Level
- Write a critical appreciation of any opera or ballet you have seen. (Every aspect of the work and its performance should be considered.) It is good to see only highbrow entertainment being allowed but what does that threatening remark in the bracket really mean?
- Give an account of the origins and development of Jazz music. To what extent do you regard modern 'pop' music as a form of Jazz or as a revolt from it?
- Describe the satisfaction you have received from the formal, as distinct from the representational, elements and qualities of one work of art in any medium. Um ...
It goes on to ask one to comment on the proposition that 'When science comes in at the door, common-sense flies out the window'; whether we prefer the work of contemporary novelists to the novels of an earlier generation, with examples; whether the public image of the poet has changed from that of fifty to sixty years ago, and how; and whether we agree that 'morality is only a majority opinion on social conduct - and at that the opinion of a bygone generation'.
In a later section - only one question may be answered from each section - we are asked how much influence and what kind is exercised in the world by the British Commonwealth and what is needed to enable the Commonwealth to survive; we are invited to suggested the changes that are imminent in Western Europe and the NATO Alliance and what effect these will have (it was the height of the Cold War); we are asked to 'account for the rapid increase in organised crime'; and, most surprisingly, we are invited to consider whether it is a fair appraisal of the British political scene that 'While the Tories become more and more radical and Labour more and more conservative, the Liberals vociferously support both sides of every question'. Ouch! It is hard to imagine this last question being acceptable in today's politically-sensitive environment.
To answer these questions intelligently in a 45 minutes essay would require considerable knowledge of what used to be called current affairs and is now known as 'politics'. It would also require a degree of prescience not normally found in 18 year olds. Mr Gove would be proud as would any Etonian who had been faced with the question starting 'You are the Prime Minister of Britain and ....' in his entrance exam, taken when he was 13 years old.
These are not questions likely to be answerable by the vast majority of today's young.
Saturday, 4 May 2013
Cause and effect
On the day after the government got a shock at the local elections, it is a pleasure to hear Ministers talking about 'listening more'. One of them went straight on to say '... and telling people what good things the government is doing ...' That is just what you want from someone who is really listening.
But the real joy is of course Mr Gove's antics. His Department is apparently in the doghouse for not responding swiftly enough to MP's questions. One wonders if it bothers to answer any at all since they seem to take no notice of anything anyone else says.
He has also had the results of a survey of Head Teachers and Teachers looking at GCSEs. 80 percent of heads said that they had less confidence in GCSE than a year ago, largely because of the marking fiasco when grade boundaries were moved (see previous posts).
The Department for Education draws the conclusion that this bolsters the need for reform of the exam along the lines of Mr Gove's non-modular proposals.
Er ... no. It is not the modular form of exam that caused the problem, it was the movement of grade boundaries and a useless marking system. You can change the structure however you like but if the marking system is rubbish then you you will get rubbish results.
Who worries what research actually says? It naturally concludes that I am on the right track. So much for a listening government.
But the real joy is of course Mr Gove's antics. His Department is apparently in the doghouse for not responding swiftly enough to MP's questions. One wonders if it bothers to answer any at all since they seem to take no notice of anything anyone else says.
He has also had the results of a survey of Head Teachers and Teachers looking at GCSEs. 80 percent of heads said that they had less confidence in GCSE than a year ago, largely because of the marking fiasco when grade boundaries were moved (see previous posts).
The Department for Education draws the conclusion that this bolsters the need for reform of the exam along the lines of Mr Gove's non-modular proposals.
Er ... no. It is not the modular form of exam that caused the problem, it was the movement of grade boundaries and a useless marking system. You can change the structure however you like but if the marking system is rubbish then you you will get rubbish results.
Who worries what research actually says? It naturally concludes that I am on the right track. So much for a listening government.
Friday, 8 March 2013
Getting the point
Jeremy Hunt (Health Secretary) has helpfully summed up the problem of remote management by KPIs: You are hitting the targets but missing the point. There was a good discussion to be had there about the way in which one can measure performance and encourage improvement but sadly, he went on to use a current buzz phrase, talking about those that are coasting along and not achieving excellence.
The BBC version of the pre-speech release - why bother to have a speech at all when the main aim is to get media coverage twice: once when you issue the I am going to say and then the speech; perish the thought that something more interesting might happen and push you off the news - goes on to say:
It is commonly said about a 10th of hospital trusts are failing, although double that are actually not meeting all the essential standards set out by the Care Quality Commission. That leaves about 80% of trusts that are doing what they should. Some of these will be excellent - perhaps about 10-15% - and some will be striving to become excellent - perhaps a similar number. That leaves close to half that could be said to be stuck in the middle, coasting along.
Hitting the targets but missing the point is a well-turned phrase which must have cheered the speechwriter. It is only when you ask Who set the targets? that the reality dawns: it was, of course, Ministers. As so often - take Education as a very obvious example - if you give people boiled-down or simplified targets then they start delivering on those targets whether they make sense or not. If you set targets involving going up and down at the same time, we will find a way of doing so if that is what you say you want.
Policymakers want to set standards for Education and seem surprised when teachers teach to the test. This leads to complaints that teachers are in the wrong. Look in the mirror. Teachers may be missing the point but if you tell them that you will judge them by their ability to hit targets do not be surprised if they aim for those targets. The hint is in the word.
The interpretation of Excellence in Health is clearly following that of Mr Gove's Education department: achieving targets or being satisfactory means you are below par, coasting, not striving hard enough. Is there a statistician in the house? When will someone explain the meaning of average: the concept that there are as many in the top half as there are in the bottom; that a normal distribution includes a large bulge in the middle.
Or is it like some of our politicians and Orwell's animals where we are average, the other 95% are below average?
And just how intellectually insulting is the sentence: that leaves close to half that could be said to be stuck in the middle, coasting along. It is not even justified by the copy which appears to estimate the number that are excellent and the number striving, and then guesses at the proportion in the middle. Might this middle bunch not be actually trying their damnedest against almost impossible odds such as funding cuts and nonsensical government targets? Statistics tell us to expect them to be there. Oh no, they are coasting and missing the point.
As someone called Jo Webber says people in the Health Service come to do the best they possibly can for patients. I am sure many do. How about celebrating their efforts instead of kicking them for once?
Wielding a vague stick vaguely in the direction of the enemy never improved anything. But it makes a good line for a cocktail party and good copy for the Daily Mail.
Thursday, 7 February 2013
E-bacc to be dropped
So nice Mr Gove has now decided to drop his idea for an E-bacc to replace GCSEs following opposition from advisers, teachers and 'business leaders'.
I doubt that he will learn the obvious lesson. Like most thwarted ministers, he will now go around saying it is impossible to get things done: civil servants/the system/time-servers/the unimaginative/people ... lack courage/the desire to change/the will to change/vision ...
Sunday, 25 November 2012
He's at it again
Michael Gove is working overtime. His latest idea is that vulnerable children could be removed from their parents and placed in care or adopted to prevent them suffering 'a life of soiled nappies, scummy baths, chaos and hunger'.
As the newspaper reported 'Tearing up two decades of child protection orthodoxy, Mr Gove said the state had far too long exposed children to appalling neglect and criminal mistreatment because of its preoccupation with the rights of biological parents'.
He apparently went on to suggest that most of us see the care system as being responsible '... for the numbers in prison, or suffering mental health problems, or without qualifications, or who are unemployed ...'
No Michael, we don't suggest that the care system is responsible for all the ills of society but the evidence is clear: children brought up by their biological parents are likely to do best in the long term. Not all biological parents expose their children to neglect and criminal mistreatment, even if they have not got a nanny to change the nappies, a cleaner to sort out the bath, a life coach to ensure harmony or a cook to provide meals: as you must have had.
Welcome to planet earth.
Late entry: we note that the Academies programme is a tiny bit overspent: only about £1bn. So, having stuffed money into them at a cost/pupil that is higher than other state schools, presumably Gove will now bleed even more money out of the other state schools and then justify the creation of the academies on the basis that the others are 'failing'.
As the newspaper reported 'Tearing up two decades of child protection orthodoxy, Mr Gove said the state had far too long exposed children to appalling neglect and criminal mistreatment because of its preoccupation with the rights of biological parents'.
He apparently went on to suggest that most of us see the care system as being responsible '... for the numbers in prison, or suffering mental health problems, or without qualifications, or who are unemployed ...'
No Michael, we don't suggest that the care system is responsible for all the ills of society but the evidence is clear: children brought up by their biological parents are likely to do best in the long term. Not all biological parents expose their children to neglect and criminal mistreatment, even if they have not got a nanny to change the nappies, a cleaner to sort out the bath, a life coach to ensure harmony or a cook to provide meals: as you must have had.
Welcome to planet earth.
Late entry: we note that the Academies programme is a tiny bit overspent: only about £1bn. So, having stuffed money into them at a cost/pupil that is higher than other state schools, presumably Gove will now bleed even more money out of the other state schools and then justify the creation of the academies on the basis that the others are 'failing'.
Friday, 23 November 2012
Govian logic
The problem with being a minister is that you need to make announcements so that people think you are doing something. The 'I am today announcing that ...' strategy which will be rubbished the following day by those in the know by which time the original idea will be buried in chip paper.
A recent letter to the papers highlighted this.
In July, on the eve of the Olympics ('OMG we have four weeks coming up when we cannot announce anything controversial, people will think I am not doing anything'; or was it 'a good time to bury a difficult announcement'?) Michael Gove announced that academies and free schools could employ unqualified teachers if they were felt to be competent enough (discuss).
In October, he announced a more rigorous pre-entry assessment of potential teachers to make sure that the entry process was sufficiently challenging that anyone who gains a place would be likely to go on to become an excellent teacher. Evidence from around the world, he said, made it clear that this was the key to raising the standard and status of teaching.
But the government already had a carefully-considered policy on recruitment, drawn up after consultation with teachers and other professionals, and Gove's suggestions ran counter to that.
And then we had David Laws blaming staff and carers for the 'depressingly low expectations' of many young people. Apparently things were so bad that they did not think they were up to being an investment banker. No evidence was offered of course. Another London dinner party?
Perhaps it was not that they did not think they were up to it. Perhaps it was that they simply did not want to be an investment banker. After all, banking and being a politician, unlike teaching, are probably the most reviled professions in the country.
A recent letter to the papers highlighted this.
In July, on the eve of the Olympics ('OMG we have four weeks coming up when we cannot announce anything controversial, people will think I am not doing anything'; or was it 'a good time to bury a difficult announcement'?) Michael Gove announced that academies and free schools could employ unqualified teachers if they were felt to be competent enough (discuss).
In October, he announced a more rigorous pre-entry assessment of potential teachers to make sure that the entry process was sufficiently challenging that anyone who gains a place would be likely to go on to become an excellent teacher. Evidence from around the world, he said, made it clear that this was the key to raising the standard and status of teaching.
But the government already had a carefully-considered policy on recruitment, drawn up after consultation with teachers and other professionals, and Gove's suggestions ran counter to that.
And then we had David Laws blaming staff and carers for the 'depressingly low expectations' of many young people. Apparently things were so bad that they did not think they were up to being an investment banker. No evidence was offered of course. Another London dinner party?
Perhaps it was not that they did not think they were up to it. Perhaps it was that they simply did not want to be an investment banker. After all, banking and being a politician, unlike teaching, are probably the most reviled professions in the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)