|
Maths standards are no better than the mid-70s (September, 2009)
The findings – in a study by King’s College London and Durham University – will reignite the row over “dumbing down” in the education system. It comes amid claims that rising exam results are down to easier tests and not better teaching or brighter students.
The disclosure follows after another round of record GCSE and A-level scores this summer. Figures show the number of teenagers gaining at least a C in GCSE maths increased by almost one percentage point this year to 57 per cent – more than double the number in the early 80s.
But a study published on Saturday at the British Educational Research Association’s annual conference suggests rising scores over the last three decades “do not appear to stem from real increases in mathematical understanding”. “The overwhelming conclusion is that there are far fewer changes in mathematical attainment over a 32-year period than might be expected, or which have been claimed," researchers said.
Academics from King’s and Durham gave 3,000 secondary school pupils a test in algebra, ratios and decimals last year. Pupils aged 11 to 14 were given the same independent exam as young people sat in 1976. It found secondary pupils were much more familiar with decimals than they were 30 years ago. Researchers put this down to “cultural changes” including metrication and the increased use of calculators and computers. "These changes were increasingly reflected in the National Curriculum in its many versions since 1988," the study said.
However, improvements were countered by weaknesses elsewhere. Modern pupils found fractions harder and the study said there were higher proportions of “very low performances” in all three topics compared with 1976.
Even though standards have failed to improve, more pupils are now passing end-of-school exams. In the early 80s, only 22 per cent gained at least a C grade in O-level maths, but the number of good passes has now more than doubled.
“There is no evidence for significant improvement, or significant deterioration, of standards between 1976/7 and 2008,” researchers said. “Although performance in some areas has improved it looks as if, when all the results are analysed, there will be little evidence for the sort of step-change in mathematical attainment which might be suggested by the claimed improvements in examination results."
The study, by Jeremy Hodgen, Dietmar Küchemann, Margaret Brown from King’s, and Robert Coe, from Durham, comes amid controversy over the rigour of exams. Increasing numbers of private schools are dumping GCSEs in favour of the International GCSE which is modelled on traditional O-levels.
Last month, another research study revealed that a third of students who gained As in A-level maths subsequently failed a tougher Cambridge University exam in the subject.
England slides down world literacy league (November 2007)
English schoolchildren have plummeted in an international league table for reading skills, amid claims that pupils are ditching books for computer games. Primary school pupils slipped from third in 2001 to 19th last year in the authoritative study of 45 countries and provinces. Only the results of Morocco and Romania fell more sharply.
Researchers gave 4,000 children in 40 countries a literacy test. According to a report, Russian children came top with an average score of 565, compared with England's 539. The results showed England's score had dropped 13 points since 2001. It placed England 19th, although an alternative league table - eliminating Canada, where provinces with different languages are listed separately - put the country 15th.
An analysis of the English scores produced by the independent National Foundation for Educational Research found a big drop in standards from the brighter children had "contributed most to the overall fall", although there had been a "small increase in the proportion of weaker readers". It suggests that an emphasis on slower pupils in recent years had been at the expense of the brightest.
"Children in England reported less frequent reading for pleasure outside school than children in many other countries: just a third of children reported reading for fun on a daily basis," it said. It emerged that an astonishing 37 per cent of English 10-year-olds play computer games for more than three hours a day - an increase since 2001 and one of the largest rates in the world. At the same time, the number of children who "very seldom" read outside school "increased significantly". A quarter of boys and one in 10 girls said they never read at home. Children are spending fewer hours reading, enjoying it less, and unsurprisingly have less confidence now in their reading and writing skills.
And as if the Pirls study was not bad enough, 24 hours later came a report from the OECD suggesting that the UK has slipped 10 places in an international league table for science teaching.
Education and “Life Skills” (July 2007)
England is introducing a new curriculum radically stripped of content in favour of "life skills." Secondary schools will strip back the traditional curriculum in favour of lessons on debt management, the environment and healthy eating, ministers revealed. Even Winston Churchill no longer merits a mention after a drastic slimming-down of the syllabus to create more space for "modern" issues. Along with Hitler, Gandhi, Stalin and Martin Luther King, the former prime minister has been dropped from a list of key figures to be mentioned in history teaching.
The only individuals now named in guidance accompanying the curriculum are anti-slavery campaigners Olaudah Equiano and William Wilberforce.
Critics warned traditional subject disciplines were being stripped of key content and used to promote fashionable causes and poorly-defined "life skills".
New 'dumbed-down' GCSE will be as easy as A, B, or C (July 2007)
Pupils taking GCSE exams will be asked multiple choice questions for the first time and be allowed to take unlimited resits. It has also emerged that, under a planned overhaul of the system, up to half of GCSE English marks would be awarded for basic skills such as punctuation.
The planned reform of the exam system has fuelled accusations that testing standards are being lowered. Bethan Marshall, a senior lecturer in English education at King’s College London, told the Times Educational Supplement: “If you make 50 per cent of the GCSE about doing the basics, you are dumbing down. “The subject is about so much more than being able to communicate accurately. And if you’re still doing basic skills at GCSE level, Heaven help you. It’s pretty boring.”
Under the revamped exam system, maths and information and communication technology students would potentially be awarded up to 50 per cent of the total marks for under standing the basics, known as “functional skills”. One suggested question for an English test reportedly asks pupils which word is spelt incorrectly in the sentence: “Be careful, the kettel is hot.”
Michael Gove, the Shadow Children’s Minister, said: “The idea that 16-year-olds should be tested on how to spell “kettle” and the principle that this exam should be based on tick-box multiple choice tests undermine any claim to higher standards. “Ministers need to get a grip if these exams are to be genuinely testing.”
Are Higher Examination Passes Real?
August 2001
Government assurances that school exams were not being dumbed down were seriously undermined yesterday when a senior examiner disclosed how lowered pass marks were being used to inflate results. As pupils celebrated another year of record GCSE results, it became clear that achieving an A to C grade had never been easier. The comments by Jeffrey Robinson, a principal maths examiner for the Cambridge board for 16 years, provided statistical support for the view widely held among employers and university admissions tutors that standards are falling.
Mr Robinson, who decided to speak out after his retirement, said that pupils awarded As and Bs this year would have scored C and D grades 10 years ago. His claims were supported by Government figures showing that in 1987 fractionally less than 40 per cent of GCSE pupils scored A* to C, compared with a record 57.1 per cent this year. Similarly, the number of pupils scoring A or A* had more than doubled from 6.8 per cent in 1987 to a record 16.1 per cent this year. Mr Robinson, 67, said that the pass mark to achieve a grade C in the intermediate level GCSE papers for the Oxford, Cambridge and RSA board (OCR) had fallen from 65 per cent in 1989 to 48 per cent this year. In the higher level paper, taken by the brightest pupils who had a chance of reaching A grade, the mark for a C had slid from 45 per cent in 1988 to 20 per cent this year.
Mr Robinson blamed the grade inflation on a combination of political pressure - exerted by governments of both hues - and competition for business among exam boards. "In the early 1990s we were losing customers by the hundred as schools were flocking to the other boards, so we had to give in effectively to cope. But sooner or later the slide has to stop. I am not rubbishing the achievements of today's children; they can only do the papers that are put in front of them. All I am trying to point out is that 10 years ago students who were getting Cs and Ds would now be getting As and Bs. Ordinary people, universities and employers need to know this fact, particularly when they receive CVs from people who did their exams 10 years ago."
The Department for Education and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the body set up to monitor standards in education, tried to discredit Mr Robinson's remarks. The QCA said there was "no evidence" that standards had declined, arguing that pass marks had fallen because higher level papers now contained more difficult questions which had to be completed without the aid of calculators and mathematical formula crib sheets. Mr Robinson said: "The higher papers may be fractionally more difficult, but that is certainly not the case with the intermediate questions." The Department of Education accused him of casting "a slur on the achievements of young people" and said that the ever-increasing numbers of A to C grades could be attributed to harder work by pupils.
Dr Ron McLone, the chief executive of the OCR board, said: "Nearly 50 years ago only one person ran the mile in under four minutes. Today nearly all serious milers can do so - but the mile is still a mile. In the same way, it would be strange if more students were not doing better at A-level and GCSE." But Mr Robinson said that such explanations flew in the face of the statistical evidence and common sense. He said: "I just do not believe we have become a nation of intellectuals overnight. "I am not claiming that papers have become easier, simply that pass thresholds have been lowered year after year. This is demonstrably the case."
The Tories called for an inquiry into Mr Robinson's assertions for the peace of mind of pupils and parents. The National Association of Head Teachers also demanded an inquiry. David Hart, its general secretary, said: "Year after year we are told by government and the QCA that standards are rigorously monitored and the entire process is beyond suspicion. Now it seems that someone is in danger of being caught out. When a senior source alleges that deliberate steps are being taken to lower grade boundaries to give pupils better grades, that is nothing short of a national scandal. It requires urgent investigation."
Grade Inflation: It's Time to Face the Facts
Shakespeare
February 2001
Leading figures from the worlds of theatre, literature and academia yesterday voiced their concern at any watering down of the teaching of Shakespeare to children under 16. The Daily Telegraph yesterday exclusively revealed that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Government's adviser, is understood to have tabled proposals to abandon the compulsory teaching of two Shakespeare plays. Sir William Stubbs, chairman of the QCA, yesterday denied any such plan, while David Blunkett, the Education and Employment secretary, has said he will veto it. But the fact that such reforms have even been considered is widely seen as cause for concern. As Theresa May, the shadow education secretary, pointed out, Labour may revive the scheme after the election, possibly under the auspices of a new secretary of state.
Park Honan, emeritus professor of English, Leeds University, and author of the critically acclaimed biography, Shakespeare: A Life: said: "If you give up on Shakespeare, you may as well give up on understanding human nature. He continually plunges to the depths of our nature and does so with a succinctness and exactness never since matched. He integrates the wisdom of the Renaissance better than any other writer, so when you study Shakespeare, you get the insights and benefits of 5,000 other writers. He is our antidote to the dumbing-down going on almost everywhere in society today. Of course, children benefit from studying him, because he helps intelligence to grow: you remain on a flat plane without this boost and stimulus."
Al Alvarez, author and critic, whose latest book is his autobiography, Where Did It All Go Right?: "It's unspeakable, on a par with the dumping of the King James Bible by the Church of England. Shakespeare is what our literature is about, the finest flowering of the language. This is a case of the lowbrows taking over the asylum. There is a moral terror of elitism. Children should have some working knowledge of what a play is like. Never having read a play by Shakespeare is like never having learnt to drive. It is a major disadvantage in any society. It's just wonderful stuff."
Craig Raine, poet and fellow of English literature at New College Oxford: "Shakespeare is one of the few historical authors that you do not have to make a conscious literary effort to enjoy. He is for everyone and for all time. These people want to make English literature 'user-friendly', replacing it with the study of beer mats, bus tickets and neighbours at the expense literature. "No one is denying you can be intelligent about soap operas but, it seems to me, Shakespeare in manifestly richer."
Glenda Jackson, Labour MP, and former actress: "If Shakespeare is taught well, it's a revelation; if it's taught badly it can be a turn-off. What is vital however is that children are taken to see Shakespeare performed - on stage or on film. Shakespeare asks just three questions: Who are we? Why are we? What are we? There are no answers to them but they are the only three questions that matter."
Anthony Holden, journalist and author of the most recent biography of Shakespeare, William Shakespeare: His Life and Work: "Shakespeare invented the English language as we know and love and still speak it. His humanity has much to teach us about ourselves. Even to think of banishing him from our classrooms is to confirm this government's cultural poverty, and remind us why literacy standards in Britain have sunk so low. Far from making Shakespeare studies voluntary, Blunkett should be looking at ways of ensuring the Bard is better taught - not, as so often, rammed down children's throats to the point where they're put off him for life. When young moviegoers marvel at Baz Luhrman's film of Romeo and Juliet, or Ethan Hawke's Hamlet, or even Shakespeare in Love, they all too often wonder why no really good, enthusiastic teacher showed them just how great this guy really was."
William Boyd, author: "I think it is absolutely crazy. It is like saying someone studying music cannot listen to Mozart. I studied Julius Caesar and Macbeth at Gordonstoun and I still remember being in Julius Caesar when I was 10. It is part of our heritage. Without any doubt he is the greatest writer in the English language probably in any language. We should be proud that he wrote in English."
J. G. Ballard, author: "It seems absolutely deplorable to me. It is the sort of Charles Saatchi approach to education, a sort of popularising of everything. It will create a vacant, trend-hunting society. Maybe that is what the Government wants? A nation of brain-dead, dumbed-down people who are easy to control. Studying Shakespeare teaches you to examine language word by word to find those wonderful images. If you study it when you are young it stays with you and enriches your life forever. Without any doubt he is the greatest writer in the English language."
Alain de Botton, writer and philosopher: "I am pro Shakespeare but there is something about academic teaching of literature that is problematic. So often the teaching of literature is so bad that it puts people off for life. Somehow it goes against the spirit of literature."
Clare Venables, the Director of Education at the Royal Shakespeare Company: "Questioning whether Shakespeare should be taught is like questioning whether the principles of electricity should be taught. He is so central to the English language. I do not want to see Shakespeare devalued or undervalued in our education system. I think that would be a mistake. I would like to see him valued more than he is at present. He is a great genius. He is a central pillar of English culture."
Tom Stoppard, playwright and co-author of Shakespeare in Love: "While I do not see any virtue in shoving Shakespeare down people's throats, I do think he is in a class of his own. I read with regret that they might stop teaching him and I hope they change their minds. It is almost like we are deprecating the idea that one should take special pride in the best that we have and Shakespeare is the best that we have. He is sort of a miracle. There are people who would not have looked at Shakespeare if it was not compulsory and their life would not have changed because of it."
Simon Gray, playwright and former English teacher: "It is a perfect solution if you want to cut yourself off from the past. I don't think it is a very good thing but it is part of the way that we are going. We seem determined to have an Alzheimer's civilisation - one with no past. I think it is so appalling."
Ben Okri, author: "I cannot understand this sort of thinking. It is dangerous. Shakespeare is not like any other author or any other writer. I would say he is now a micro culture. So much now springs from Shakespeare. We have started in a way the downward spiral towards a kind of cultural laziness."
More History
The Guardian, 10th November 2001
British youth was dismissed yesterday by Encyclopaedia Britannica as "a generation of historical philistines", ignorant of some of the key events in its island story. The world's most authoritative reference book found in a survey that most 15- to 24-year-olds did not know what happened on D-Day, how long Queen Victoria reigned or even who invented television - the medium most commonly blamed for dumbing them down. Well over a third of them failed the most famous trick question in popular English history: how many wives did Henry VIII have?
Britannica said these most recent school leavers "miserably failed to recognise landmark events in British history", with a quarter of them having no interest in bygone days. In its indictment the encyclopaedia added: "Hours spent in the classroom are wasted on Britain's youth." But knowledge was also sorely lacking among adults.
Britannica based its strictures on a telephone survey of 1,000 adults in October. Only a quarter of young people (compared with 36% of adults) knew that Richard III was a 15th century king. Only 19% (and 38% of adults) knew Victoria reigned for 64 years. Only 26% (63% of adults) recognised D-Day as the date of the Normandy landings in 1944. Some 57% (65%) knew that Henry VIII had six wives. Only 33% (65%) named John Logie Baird as the inventor of TV. And 31% (43%) knew that St George's Day is celebrated on April 23.
Christine Hodgson, a Britannica marketing executive, said: "As a nation whose history has shaped the face of the world, it seems incredible that the younger generation have decided to dismiss it. "Britain in particular is envied for its rich history - it's a real shame that the young take so much for granted. I think it's time for all of us - not just young people - to hit the books again."
Decline in Library Use Figures (October 2004)
The number of readers and borrowers at public libraries has fallen by a third in the last eight years and is still falling at the same rate. These figures were collected by the library charity Libri, which predicts that the entire service will disappear in 20 years unless there are sweeping reforms. The charity wants to see extended opening hours and more spending on books to restore the supremacy of the printed word in libraries increasingly dominated by computers offering internet access and help with student homework.
May, 2005 Update
Book borrowing fell by a further 5% in 2004, maintaining a disturbing 20-year trend, official figures showed yesterday. In the same period book stocks fell by 3.3%. This means that libraries had 3.7m fewer books than three years before, leaving them with a total of 110m.
Tabloid Reading (May 2005)
Much of the British public goes to the source it trusts least - tabloid newspapers - for its most crucial everyday information on politics and society, according to a study. Based partly on an ICM poll of 1,000 people, it found "a worrying trend among the public of a greater use of least trusted information sources when seeking information on social and political concerns".
People viewed newspapers, especially tabloids, as sources of entertainment and speculative gossip, not real information. Yet they preferred these tainted "infotainment" sources because in an increasingly pressurised life the sources were the most readily available, the study concludes.
Survey of 1,000 Britons aged between 18 and 45 (August 2005)
A survey of 1,000 Britons aged between 18 and 45 by the Dutch brewer Bavaria found that only one in six respondents could correctly identify Kofi Annan as the secretary general of the United Nations, whereas 77 per cent knew that Justin Timberlake was not going out with Drew Barrymore. A similar number knew that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, Jordan and Peter Andre, and Hugh Grant and Jemima Khan were celebrity couples, whereas a quarter of people were oblivious to the fact that Russia is not a member of the European Union.
Children are less able than they used to be (January 2006)
New research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and conducted by Michael Shayer, professor of applied psychology at King's College, University of London, concludes that 11- and 12-year-old children in year 7 are "now on average between two and three years behind where they were 15 years ago", in terms of cognitive and conceptual development.
"It's a staggering result," admits Shayer, whose findings will be published next year in the British Journal of Educational Psychology. "Before the project started, I rather expected to find that children had improved developmentally. This would have been in line with the Flynn effect on intelligence tests, which shows that children's IQ levels improve at such a steady rate that the norm of 100 has to be recalibrated every 15 years or so. But the figures just don't lie. We had a sample of over 10,000 children and the results have been checked, rechecked and peer reviewed."
This finding was based on the results scored in so-called Piagetian volume-and-heaviness tests. A sample question involved pouring all the water from a tall, thin beaker into a short, fat one, refilling the tall, thin beaker to the same level and asking which contained the greater volume of water. Similar tests conducted in the 70s showed a big difference between boys and girls," says Shayer, "with boys scoring noticeably better than girls. The new research reveals that the gender gap has disappeared, with both sexes deteriorating significantly. Boys have fallen by more than one Piagetian sub group - from the middle of 2B [mature concrete] to below the middle of 2A/2B [middle concrete]. By any standards, this is a huge and significant statistical change.
Website
A Level Results
Robert Coe, an academic at Durham University's education research centre, produced research suggesting that the A-level results being given to today's students were on average 1.3 grades higher than those achieved by students of similar ability in 1995.
This finding was based on a comparison between the A-level results obtained over the years by students achieving similar scores on general ability tests - IQ tests in all but name - at the beginning of their courses. Coe's conclusion was that, if grades were interpreted as indicating general academic ability, the currency had become devalued.
Pupils taking part in the Alis project take a general ability test - which has remained the same over the years - at the beginning of their A-level course. The A-level results they achieve are then compared to their general ability and the results show that pupils passing A-levels today are "not as able" according to Dr Robert Coe. "In some cases general ability is quite a lot lower," Dr Coe reported. Pupils who scored 50 per cent in the ITDA (International Test of Developed Ability, used in the Alis project) in 1988, for example, would have left school with a fail in A-level mathematics. A pupil with the same ability in 2005 passed with a C grade. A pupil scoring 50 per cent in 1988 would have achieved a D grade in English literature. In 2005 a pupil with the same ability would have achieved a C grade.
There has also been a shift towards 'easier' subjects such as media studies, sport and drama. A weighted average across 40 subjects since 1995 shows that students with similar ability in 1995 would have achieved an average A-Level grade of E compared to a C in 2005. The performance of students of comparable ability has increased by an average of 1.3 grades since 1995.
In the Fifties, only 10 per cent of youngsters continued in education beyond 17 and only 4 per cent went to university. Until fairly recent times only certain proportions of students could achieve a grade A, B, C or whatever, which meant that, say, only the top 5 per cent in any year could get an A grade and therefore go on to university. Today, more than 43 per cent go to university. The Conservatives scrapped the system of pre-set limits on achievement, called 'norm referencing', in 1988 as part of a drive to encourage more pupils to stay on longer at school. In 1975 just 12 per cent of all pupils gained two or more A-level passes, by 2005 this percentage had risen to 34 per cent. Last year 96.2 per cent of the 783,878 A-level entries produced a pass, while 22.8 per cent resulted in an A grading.
Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, said that, while A-levels were in one sense harder for pupils because more young people are taking them, the exams themselves have been made easier. Smithers highlighted the decision in 2000 to split two-year A-level courses into six parts, called 'modules', each of which is taken separately, as a key reason. 'Clearly if a course is broken into six bits, then it's a different task from having to show what you can do via highly pressured three-hour exams. That has made it easier to perform well, because it's easier to take one-sixth of the course than take the whole course at once, because there's less material to show you have a mastery of,' he said.
Students' right to retake individual modules in which they had done worse than expected, and freedom to drop subjects in which they perform poorly in the AS exams taken at the end of the lower sixth year, had both inevitably driven up the A-level pass rate. The increased stress on coursework, with pupils getting parental help or resorting to plagiarism using the internet, had also made it more straightforward to get good grades, said Smithers. 'To use an athletic analogy, when Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile in 1954 it was on a cinder track, but now running tracks are made of springy plastic and help runners turn in good performances. Similarly the conditions in which pupils do A-level have made it easier to get good results.' But an increased focus on exam results and school league tables has built-in incentives for schools and teachers to give pupils every help they can to achieve good grades, alleged the professor.
'Just as some athletes take performance-enhancing substances, so too a few schools and teachers succumb to the temptation of using performance-enhancing practices to help their pupils, for example by having a look at the exam paper in advance and then taking the students through the particular areas or even specific questions that are going to come up', said Smithers. 'While most do not use such tactics, most play to the limit of the rules, for instance by getting pupils to do coursework early, commenting on it, then getting the students to resubmit work which has been improved. That's legitimate, but doesn't distinguish between the performance of the children the way it should.'
Many university academics now believe that A-levels - through a greater reliance on coursework, the modular system of examination and a reduction in the syllabus - are now less demanding than they were.
"Every physics department has been aware that A-level students do not have the same knowledge base they did even 10 years ago," says Frank Close, professor of physics and fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. "This is no reflection on intelligence, but an indication that the syllabus has been dumbed down. But what it does mean is that universities are having to do remedial work to play catch-up."
It's not just in the sciences that things have changed. "We're all aware that the character of English A-level has changed a great deal," says David Roberts, head of department and admissions tutor at the University of Central England. "Some aspects have become more demanding. Students are now expected to have more contextual knowledge and they are certainly better at working in groups. But there are downsides, as they spend less time reading primary texts and can be reliant on cutting and pasting from the internet. "The upshot is that we can no longer make any assumptions about prior knowledge. Instead we rely on knowledge of contemporary popular culture, without specific reference to a body of knowledge.
"But even that can be tricky; last year I approached Bleak House through the medium of the BBC series, as I thought some students would not have heard of the book, and found that most hadn't even heard of the TV programme. Our best undergraduates are keeping up standards, but the ones at the other end of the spectrum are significantly worse."
|