Skip to main content

Michael Gove's O-levels

Well, that was bombshell yesterday, wasn't it? Certainly for other members of the coalition government who hadn't been told. What are we to make of Michael Gove's intention to ditch GCSEs, the national curriculum and multiple exam boards for subjects? Teachers have not asked for it? Nor parents? Some have sought an end to a 16+ exam full stop, but that's another matter.

Gove's claim is that GCSEs are not hard enough and that having different exam boards offering the same subject leads to dumbing down of content. His desire to do away with the national curriculum seems mostly to do with his conservative desire not to tell teachers what to do.

His inspiration seems to be the Singapore education system which sorts children into sheep and goats at an early stage, channelling them into different exams.

Gove's "O-level" would not be like the one which lasted up to 1987 as it would be aimed, we are told, at the top 75% of the school population. By setting more "rigorous" exams we would raise standards and compete more successfully in the PISA league tables (note that the new exams are proposed initially for maths, English and science, the only subjects measured by PISA).


It occurs to me that the current GCSE is not sat by all pupils, so it is false to claim that it is a universal exam. It also occurs to me that, in modern languages, it is, generally speaking, reasonably challenging. My grammar school pupils are challenged and, despite the dubious nature of controlled assessments, we have complained little of the general level of difficulty. I cannot speak for my colleagues in maths, English and science, although I have never heard them complain about the levels of challenge in GCSE. In MFL there has been no noticeable grade inflation; in fact we have seen a certain degree of grade deflation at the A*/A grade area..

The existing GCSE, with its tiering system, allows for differentiation, and it is only in the highest powered independent schools that you see masses of A* grades. Teachers do not generally complain that it is too easy.

Michael Gove talks about taking the best from the highest performing educational jurisdictions. Singapore does well in PISA, but then so does Finland. These two nations have quite contrasting educational systems. the former being quite elitist and sorting pupils by ability at an early age, the latter using a fully comprehensive system. When he chooses the Singapore model he is reflecting his own prejudice. Creating a two tier examination system will not, as far as I can see, promote social mobility, and the students not doing the new "O-level" will be seen as second class pupils, just as CSE was seen as a worthless exam up against O-level pre 1987.

As for the national curriculum, why have one at primary level but not at secondary? In any case, we would end up with a de facto national curriculum set by the exam boards setting the exams. To my mind, it is entirely reasonable for a government to lay out, in simple terms, the general areas which children should study. What we have now, with some schools having to follow the NC and others not, is a dog's breakfast.

As for exam boards, I have no problem with doing away with competition between boards for subjects. Individual boards can always offer varying syllabuses in any case, to allow some flexibility and choice for teachers.

Michael Gove is in too much of a rush and in this case he is not responding to a perceived need. This seems like fag packet policy-making and I hope he gets slapped down promptly.


Popular posts from this blog

The latest research on teaching vocabulary

I've been dipping into The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (2017) edited by Loewen and Sato. This blog is a succinct summary of Chapter 16 by Beatriz González-Fernández and Norbert Schmitt on the topic of teaching vocabulary. I hope you find it useful.

1.  Background

The authors begin by outlining the clear importance of vocabulary knowledge in language acquisition, stating that it's a key predictor of overall language proficiency (e.g. Alderson, 2007). Students often say that their lack of vocabulary is the main reason for their difficulty understanding and using the language (e.g. Nation, 2012). Historically vocabulary has been neglected when compared to grammar, notably in the grammar-translation and audio-lingual traditions as well as  communicative language teaching.

(My note: this is also true, to an extent, of the oral-situational approach which I was trained in where most vocabulary is learned incidentally as part of question-answer sequence…

Delayed dictation

What is “delayed dictation”?

Instead of getting students to transcribe immediately what you say, or what a partner says, you can enforce a 10 second delay so that students have to keep running over in their heads what they have heard. Some teachers have even used the delay time to try to distract students with music.

It’s an added challenge for students but has significant value, I think. It reminds me of a phenomenon in music called audiation. I use it frequently as a singer and I bet you do too.

Audiation is thought to be the foundation of musicianship. It takes place when we hear and comprehend music for which the sound is no longer or may never have been present. You can audiate when listening to music, performing from notation, playing “by ear,” improvising, composing, or notating music. When we have a song going round in our mind we are audiating. When we are deliberately learning a song we are audiating.

In our language teaching case, though, the earworm is a word, chunk of l…

Designing a plan to improve listening skills

Read many books and articles about listening and you’ll see it described as the forgotten skill. It certainly seems to be the one which causes anxiety for both teachers and students. The reasons are clear: you only get a very few chances to hear the material, exercises feel like tests and listening is, well, hard. Just think of the complex processes involved: segmenting the sound stream, knowing lots of words and phrases, using grammatical knowledge to make meaning, coping with a new sound system and more. Add to this the fact that in England they have recently decided to make listening tests harder (too hard) and many teachers are wondering what else they can do to help their classes.

For students to become good listeners takes lots of time and practice, so there are no quick fixes. However, I’m going to suggest, very concisely, what principles could be the basis of an overall plan of action. These could be the basis of a useful departmental discussion or day-to-day chats about meth…

Five great advanced level French listening sites

If your A-level students would like opportunities to practise listening there are plenty of sources you can recommend for accessible, largely comprehensible and interesting material. Here are some I have come across while searching for resources over recent years.

Daily Geek Show

I love this site. It's fresh, youthful and full of really interesting material. They have an archive of videos, both short and long, from various sources, grouped under a range of themes: insolite (weird news items), science, discovery, technology, ecology and lifestyle. There should be something there to interest all your students while adding to their broader education. Here is one I enjoyed (I shall seriously think about buying tomatoes in winter now):

France Bienvenue

This site has been around for years and is the work of a university team in Marseilles. You get a mixture of audio and video material complete with transcripts and explanations.This is much more about the personal lives of the students …

Responsive teaching

Dylan Wiliam, the academic most associated with Assessment for Learning (AfL), aka formative assessment, has stated that these labels have not been the most helpful to teachers. He believes that they have been partly responsible for poor implementation of AfL and the fact that AfL has not led to the improved outcomes originally intended.

Wiliam wrote on Twitter in 2013:

“Example of really big mistake: calling formative assessment formative assessment rather than something like "responsive teaching".”

For the record he subsequently added:

“The point I was making—years ago now—is that it would have been much easier if we had called formative assessment "responsive teaching". However, I now realize that this wouldn't have helped since it would have given many people the idea that it was all about the teacher's role.”

I suspect he’s right about the appellation and its consequences. As a teacher I found it hard to get my head around the terms AfL and formative assess…