Secondary education in the UK - the exams (Part III - the alternatives)

While the problem of exams becoming ever easier and easy routes being sought have drawn continuous criticism, that of the exam hierarchy itself was boiling over only during my days as a sixth former.

At that time, people were casting doubts over the GCSE and GCE systems. The GCE had just been split into AS and A level exams, causing confusion and mark controversies. The questions of whether 'ABB' grades was a better combination than 'AAC' and that candidates were seeking soft subjects in place of languages and sciences were making people think twice about the current system.

Quite rightly so, given that all the changes in the system were moving away from the competitive and meanginful arena. All the concerns were making even the highest attainments of 'AAAA' or above look unsound in terms of recognition of abilities and excellence among peers.

The most popular alternative discussed was that of the European Bacalaureate, in which candidates must study maths, science and languages, as well as writing a thesis-style essay. The candidate would be given a combined mark topping 45. This would be very different different from the current system, given the smaller degree of freedom in choice of subjects, and that potentially students knows less of the relevant knowledge as they enter university (e.g. for science degrees). Also as the subjects cannot be graded individually, much explaining may be needed for a gifted scientist with deficiencies in languages.

The idea was eventually dropped for various reasons, and the current system prevailed. Personally, I am in favour of the current system of individual grading and freedom in choice of subjects, but maybe there should be proficiency test in languages, sciences and maths for not choosing a subject portfolio comprising all 3 elements. A bit like the IELTS exams, as long as they achieve the proficiency during their sixth form career. Only a 'pass' would be required, nothing more.

Education reforms are always tricky, but they are a necessary evil. An idle education system is only doing harm to a society. At present, the UK education system is starting to look old and fragile in the wind of change. It cannot hold on for much longer.

Secondary education in the UK - the exams (Part II - the diagnosis)

The current ever-recurring symptoms of the UK secondary education exam system are set out in the previous article. Now it's turn for some commentary on the reasons.

It's easy to blame the government, and rightly so. Less to blame on their wish to make their education goals look 'accomplished', more on how the ministers view the purpose of exams.

Back in Hong Kong, it would be lucky for someone to get an 'A' grade in public exams (HKCE, HKAL) - they are as low as 1.6% and only as high as 4% among all candidates by subject. The purpose of exam is clear - putting each candidate into relative strength against fellow candidates, so that the cream of the cream could be spotted and bestow upon them best education and training opportunities. It's a competitive exam structure, and in the process candidates learn the essential knowledge and skills.

In the UK, my suspicion is that given the increasing abundance of further education opportunities (sixth form and university/college education), they are less anxious to grade students competitively to put only the best into the next step of the ladder. Instead the focus of the exam is a 'certificate of attainment', kind of non-competitive, 'see how much you have picked up in the curriculum' attitude. A bit like 'certificate of attendance', but with a simple exam at the end to see how much you have learned.

Without the urge to distinguish among candidates, there was no desire to set ultra-hard questions for the sake of discovering the best from the better.First step in decline of exam standards. Then as exams were viewed as 'attainment test', then testing the concepts individually/superficially would suffice. Hence easier questions to crack as variations and combination of concepts in a question became rare.

The third step is the establishment of the 'soft subjects' - so that candidates need not be trapped in the hard 'traditional subjects', but instead choose to seek attainment in subjects they may wish to pursue. Good in principle, but doing no good to candidates in terms of a rigorous education.

With these three steps in the set-up of exams, it would be hard to really tell who is good and who is really good. This serves the purpose of 'certificate of attainment', but does colleges and universities no favour in deciding who is suitable for what course. And with the easier exams and soft subjects, there is less motivation for students to study seriously, so the attainment becomes ever more superficial and irrelevant (think about an A level in law - how useful can it be in terms of knowledge attained or promoting rigorous study?)

Even worse, the brighter students suffer. An easy exam paper is like testing top chefs through the task of cooking up plain pasta as opposed to a complete circuit of cooking up plain pasta, preparing the meat, cooking up the sauce, and finally putting them nicely on a plate and selecting the right wine to go with. The slightest statistical error (e.g. having read a number wrongly) which has nothing to do with knowledge or skills would have deducted marks from a bright student, with no way of making up (as one of the few who could answer the last question). The ideas of using marks from these simple exams to put students into 'A*', 'A' etc. is absurd.

Furthermore, the emergence of those soft subjects is doing serious students no good. if someone is serious about a career in law, should he/she take A level in law? it would certainly help him to learn about law earlier, but given a lot of easy-learners choosing that subject for the sake of having an easy time, the good exam results would mean nothing, and probably put him in a not so good university. The purpose of those alterntive subjects is not fulfilled.

If the UK education needs fixing, they should fix their view on the exams' purpose - make it a competitive exam across the board, no more soft options, no more easy grading. Then confidence will flow back. Perhaps a 10% of candidates attaining 'A' wouldn't be too outrageous then.

Secondary education in the UK - the exams (Part I - the symptoms)

There were (and are) a lot of students seeking secondary education in the UK fom Hong Kong. I was one of them, at the sixth-form level.

Throughout my years in the UK, the exam reform had been in the news and on political agendas, especiallt during my years as sixth-formers.

Lurking at the background, the humming noise has always been the issues of 'grade inflation', 'ever easier exams' and 'easy way out'.

Every year after the GCSE and GCE results are released, newspapers would show charts deomonstrating the effect of grade inflation - in the 1990s only around 5% of candidates were awarded 'A', now around 20% awarded 'A*' or 'A'. 'A*' was the creation out of anger of 'grade inflation', but is by now as useless an indicator as a pound coin is to wealth.

Ever easier exams comes in two forms. Firstly the A Level exams were modulised - different parts of syllabus goes to different exam papers, and each split into two levels (AS and A level papers). Candidates take the easier AS papers after their first year, and the A papers after their second year. This means candidates who didn't do well in their first year could re-sit the concerned papers in the second - unfair to first-timers. Secondly the questions have become ever easier and common-sense/current affairs based, meaning that they are not much more difficult than a newspaper article. Not exactly demanding to learn. These easier questions are in turn making high grades easier to attain and top talents more difficult to spot.

Easy way out is simply adding salt to wounds. Not just that the subjects are getting easier to study and to get top grades, students are choosing the less intellectually challenging subjects - textile, drama, law, psychology. For candidates serious about their career paths in the respective fields, taking up a subject in those directions is perfectly fine. But as those subjects would have been taught for the first time in their education life, they are usually more introductory and easier with fewer complex concepts to grapple. Which means easier to get good grades with less efforts.

BBC - not free after all

Well, it was slightly mis-leeading in the previous article that I called the BBC 'provider of free channels'.

While they do not do adverts, they do get money through a more direct channel - by charging the viewers directly.

It works like the mobile phones. You don't get junk texts or calls solicited by the provider, but in return you have to pay a fee to use the service. In the case of BBC, they charge households a fixed fee per household per annum (around £160). Discounts for the elderly and black-and-white TVs.

Does it work? Well, most British have self-discipline, so it seems that most of my friends do cough up the required amount. And they always boast about their ability to check out on TV airwave receptions through their mobile devices hidden in small vans. But I am not so sure - say if I live in an apartment amongst others, it would be rather difficult to pinpoint. And if I use cabled receptors, they wouldn't be able to check out at all.

£160 is not exactly cheap, and for most working people we don't watch TV that often to make the price worth it. And given alternative ways of watching TV (online, TV cards on computers) it would be easier to evade detection. More incentives and means to watch without paying.

Most worryingly, I have a feeling that the self-discipline prided by most British is gradually crumbling (sneeky queue jumping at fastfood outlets; no more 'letting passengers alight first' in London underground. And don't just blame the foreigners, most culprits are British). The reliance on people doing as required without suitable safeguards/ check-ups will be less and less effective.

The fee-paying structure needs change. Make it fairer, and make it less reliant on self-discipline.

Religions...no longer free?

Please do not be mistaken. I am not suggesting that Britain has lost its tolerence towards religious freedom. Just that it has decided not to make places of worship free to enter.

Remembering 10 years ago when I first arrived in the UK, I admired very much its wealth of historical architecture, especially the cathedrals. They are rather like living fossils, full of history yet still functioning to this day, carrying out the traditional rituals which would not have been too different a few centuries ago.

At that time the cathedrals were free for all. Wander in when you fancy or pass by, stroll down the nave, take a close-up look at the paintings and stained glass. There would be donation boxes scattered around, and polite signs inviting donations and explaining the maintenance they would be funding. The cathedrals were inviting, as live museums as much as a place where people can seek a moment of quietness and reflection. Specific purposes were not pre-requisite to paying a visit.

Then, one by one, the cathedrals fell to the hands of fee-paying mechanisms. Booths and barriers were erected at the entrances, ushers guarded and demanded payment of entry. And the entrance fees were not cheap (although not expensive comparatively, either). But somehow the atmosphere was changed as soon as these measures were implemented.

They seemed less friendly, no longer a place to drop by. If I ever paid to enter a cathedral, I would walk up and down in the hope of viewing enought treasures to make the fee worth its value. Moments of quietness was disturbed by the thought that one had to pay for tranquility. The grandfather feeling has been lost. It's just another tourist attraction.

Cathedrals were not built to become attractions. By turning them into attractions, the cathedrals are cathedrals no more.

Names and geopolitics - England, Wales and Scotland

Having set out the relationship between UK, Britain and British Isles, the finer point now rests within Great Britain and its three constituent sections. And a demonstration of British arrogance and self-importance.

Again, history plays a great part. Great Britain being just a big island, it was separated into 3 kingdoms and cultures in ancient times - England to the south, Scotland to the North and Wales to the West. They were gradually put together into a soverign and formed Great Britain.

The idea of three cultures/distinct geographies lived on. So people will identify themselves as English/Scots/Welsh, and put a heavy emphasis on this identity when communicating with inhabitants from other part of Britain.

Given that Great Britain is small, that seems peculiar. By now, the three geographies are no longer distinctive, arguably less so than Hong Kong vs. Beijing or Texas vs. New York, yet inhabitants of these mentioned nations are more likely to describe themselves as 'Chinese' and 'Americans' than the British are ready to identify themselves as 'British'.

And then comes the idea of how the describe these three geographies. They call them 'nations'. Yes, as though they were three separate soverigns somehow governed by one common overarching government. That is shear arrogance and self-importance. If they are nations, then what should Great Britain be? In the US, it's states and the nation, very clearly set-out with no ambiguity in which one is the overarching force and which is a more local entity. If the British are using the word 'nation' liberally to assert a similar status as 'state' in the US, then they shouldn't - it is confusing and doing the English language no good. If they are not using the word 'nation' in this sense, then they are muddling up the concepts of local and national governance.

So when there is the 'Six Nation Rugby', it means England, Scotland, Wales, France, Italy and Ireland. Can't see why France is in the same league as Scotland in political and soverign sense.

It is very saddening to see a nation making self-important statements of oneself. A manifestation that it hasn't learned its real position in world geopolitics.

Geopolitics - UK vs. Great Britain vs. British Isles

Never a country has acquired so many names. In day-to-day life we use them casually and interchangably, but when we go deep down then the differences could be dug out.

How to call the country I now live in? I used the 'UK' in the blog title, but when describing I sometimes use 'British'. Then the idea of the 'British Isles' appears in national media at times.

An awful lot to do with history, which I am not an expert in. But let's share what I have gathered up till now.

As everyone knows this country is made up of big islands. The main Island, which comprises 3 regions - England, Scotland, Wales, together with some small outposts (Isle of Wight, Shetland etc) which are very close to the main Island and which have long been occupied, is known collectively as 'Great Britain'. Why 'great', I have never worked out. But don't assume all British muttering 'Great Britain' to be arrogant and self-important.

To the West of Great Britain is Ireland, which used to be wholly ruled by the British but now only rules the Northern part. The 'United Kingdom' was used to describe the combination and Great Britain and Ireland, and now Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So under the 'UK' there are the Irish and the British.

Then there are a few 'client states' half-ruled by the British. They are not colonies in the sense that the UK government does not rule over, but these states are of the size of a county in the UK and therefore too small to be a country on their own. They adhere to the standards of the UK (so they look like part of UK in daily life) and has protection of the UK government (passports, military etc). They are the likes of Isle of Man and the Jersey Islands. Together they form the 'British Isles'.

Quite complicated, isn't it? But nowadays, given that the UK is no longer the world's leading power, who cares about its nomanclature? Just use them freely, albeit with slight caution at times.