We're getting close to exam time in Ontario. It's been a long time since I was involved in this annual ritual. But I was struck by George Monbiot's column in The Guardian:
Why are we doing this to our children? As exam term begins, the question hangs over millions of households. NHS figures suggest that 17% of 6- to 16-year-olds in England now suffer from a “probable mental disorder”, and the incidence has risen by 50% since 2017.
In a survey by the children’s commissioner for England, two-thirds of children ranked homework and exams as their greatest cause of stress. Responding to a poll by the National Education Union, 73% of teachers said they believed the mental health of their students had deteriorated since the government introduced its “reformed” GCSEs, which put more weight on final exams and less on coursework and other assessments.
These reforms, imposed on schools by Michael Gove against expert advice, may have contributed to the OECD’s shocking finding in 2019 that, of the 72 nations in which the life satisfaction of 15-year-olds was assessed, the UK came 69th. Our children’s joy of living suffered the greatest decline of any country since 2015, the year in which the GCSE reforms became effective. If we are going to subject young people, already so vulnerable, to the extreme stress and anxiety of exams, there must be an excellent reason. So what is it?
I'm not against exams. But Monbiot states a simple truth:
You can pass your exams, enter a top university and become a cabinet minister, yet fail to achieve basic standards of research, insight, originality, reasoned argument, empathy or humanity.
That notion came to mind yesterday when I heard that Senator Rand Paul tried to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Paul is a graduate of the Duke University School of Medicine. But he strikes me as a horrendously stupid man -- who passed his exams. Monbiot writes:
What exams measure is aptitude in exams. While they might rank certain skills, such as the retention of facts and the performance of linear tasks under pressure, these represent just a small part of the equipment a person needs to navigate the world. Many of the challenges we face are complex, long-lasting and multi-layered. They might demand social and emotional intelligence rather than the ability to marshal facts, and might best be overcome by collaboration instead of competition.
But performance in these narrow, unrepresentative tests can determine the entire future course of a student’s life. Some will be branded failures, creating a self-image that will never be erased. I’ve met children who are brilliant in peculiar ways, but who flunk exams. I’ve met adults who, often after long struggles with self-esteem and social condescension, succeed magnificently despite their low grades. I’ve met others whose evident talents remain unrecognised, as they never overcome the stigma.
It’s not the child who fails the system. It’s the system, seeking to force everyone into the same box, that fails the child. It pathologises diversity. For example, as The ADHD Explosion, by the clinical psychologist Stephen Hinshaw and the health economist Richard Scheffler, suggests, a massive increase in ADHD diagnoses appears to be linked to the rise in high-stakes testing. As exams become more important, parents have a greater incentive to seek the diagnosis and acquire the drugs that might improve their child’s performance. At the same time, as a report by the education professor Merryn Hutchings argues, more children are likely to show ADHD symptoms in a stressful, channelled schooling system that forces them to sit still for long periods and reduces opportunities for creative, physical and practical work.
It's time to rethink how we do exams -- and what we want to test.
Image: bbc.com
8 comments:
Perhaps in the case of Politicians and their level of University achievement; we the public need to ask and receive that information before we vote. Anyone can learn what a University Graduate's scholastic level is. An Undergraduate degree in History does not prepare a person as a Family Court Judge in Provincial Court. Many people who are called "Politicians" in this particular time, seem to be incapable of holding a position in anything other than vying for a job in a political Party. If students are given the right encouragement, they will do well. Anyong
Precisely, Anyong.
I think there should be exams and they should be externally marked. If individual schools control marking, they tend to massage marks to make the school look better than it is. Also markers especially in small towns are influenced by external social contacts with the parents. External exams are salvation for kids who are not popular with teachers and I speak from personal experience. I was a kid who was passionate about books and I think now, unpopular with teachers who, though teaching English, disliked literature.
These days intellectual standards have collapsed. Only a quarter of the population reads at an adult level. The "Right to Read" report released in March by the Ontario Human Rights Commission yet again reviews the sad situation and advises abandonment of the three-cuing system of reading. This so-called system teaches students to guess by using context.
I once had to have adults read a short oath out loud at an election; it was a line and a half. Out of 70 adults, 68 read "conscientiously" as "consciously" so the oath made no sense. No problem; they all signed this oath that made no sense the way they read it. I was baffled by this for years until I recently found out the schools teach the kids to guess at words using the context without reading them. And 68 out of 70 adults, all having English as a mother tongue, were still guessing and guessed wrong. Sheesh, I don't whether to laugh or cry.
I don't think more tea and sympathy is going to solve this situation which is dangerous to democracy because democracy is difficult and demanding and requires intellectually mature adults. Nor do I think students who have conscientiously studied are incapable of handling external exams. A fair and well run examination system is an important part of education and democracy.
I was a mediocre high school student until I got to Grade 13. I loved the departmental exams and did well on them They took all power away from my teachers and gave me absolute control.
I agree that a democracy can't survive if the electors are ignorant, ffd. What troubles me is that they're ignorant and still managed to pass through our educational system.
That is true, rumley. And there was a time passing examinations were an indication of knowledge attained. But what I see now makes me wonder.
I have often thought that exams are usually so artificial that while they measure some knowledge and thinking ability they are not how people do things. Among other horror stories, I remember stats exams at university where I was expected to memorize the manual calculation method for a 2-way ANOVA (don't ask). This was when computer stats packages were rare so diong the calculation by hand still made sense but in real life what I would have done is haul down a reference text and use it. To heck with memory. The same thing applies in a lot of other areas. I don't particularly need to know how to operationalize something as much as I need to know conceptually what is important. With the internet this is even more relevant.
I suspect in some subjects a formal exam is worthwhile or essential but the overall current style (I am talking university exams since is is a long time since high school) are pretty artificial.
As an aside, the move to remote learning is suggesting to me the lecture (in university anyway) is probably outmoded. It worked very well in medieval Paris when books were very rare but we may need a paradigm shift.
The lecture has been dead for some time, jrk. Unfortunately, some of its practitioners aren't.
Post a Comment