Post by black-dogBut it's not possible to provide a solution that would please the OP in
the present framework. That was my point.
Why? I could do a physics qualification now and submit it to QCA that
would satisfy the things he brought up and I think I could find a market
for it but it would be a small one. If he feels passionate enough about
it, it would be a start. Get the backing of the IOP and some physics based
employers and do a vocational physics course. Then he is free from GCSE
constraints and QCA would very likely approve an exam based course with
quantified questions.
Post by black-dogYou haven't addressed the
point I made that the schools and colleges will NOT pick courses that
teach 'pure' physics or anything else.
Not all will but some will think as did the OP. A minority for sure
because the consensus seems against him - changing the government would be
necessary to make physics compulsory and make it quantitative in KS4. I
reckon it would be easier to provide a L2 qualification that could be done
by the brighter kids at the end of KS3 and then provide a L3 qualification
for progression into KS4. All it means is you are making L3 where L2 used
to be. There would probably be quite a good niche market in the
independent sector for that right away and perhaps in specialist science
schools for gifted and talented. Then you make it coveted because the
really clever kids do this - that means its always going to be a bit of an
elite market but then A level physics always has been.
Post by black-dogThey will pick courses that give
them the biggest bang for their buck. That's not something that any
amount of new courses can change!!
If you provide courses that are compatible with KS2 and 3 and persuade
people that they might as well get the learners qualified earlier for no
great additional hassle they will. There are quite a few schools that plan
to compress KS3 into Y7 and Y8 so they can offer GCSEs in Y9 in at least
some subjects. That is how I have designed the INGOT certificates. Level 1
qualifications are equivalent to D-G at GCSE or roughly NC Level 4-7. So
the Silver INGOT translates in KS3 to NC Level 5 for a pass, Merit Level 6
Distinction Level 7. A school doing it is effectively getting a recognised
VRQ for doing the NC programme of study in a particular way so no
additional work and more value. In fact probably less admin because of the
way I have designed the assessment (and QCA accredited it so it must be OK
:-) ). They can start the entry level certificates (Bronze) in primary
school and get the Silver by say end of Y8 and then Gold which is A*-C
equivalent in Y9. We'll do a Level 3 Platinum to provide continuity and
progression into KS4 with programming and systems admin in it. Of course
all this is age independent so maybe 50% of the cohort would take until
KS4 to get a Gold and not all will manage it. Its just that traditionally
everyone has tried to cram all the exams into KS4 and above and there is
not really anything special about KS4 especially now the government is
going to effectively raise the leaving age to 18. This strategy also gets
round the issue of inflation to some extent because we are not limiting
bright students to Level 2 at KS4. They can do qualifications when ready
and go on to units or whole quals at Level 3 in KS4 if they are capable
carrying them over to KS5. If weak kids all get entry level quals that's
fine, they are low level initial steps and its obvious to anyone reading
the assessment criteria what is involved.
Post by black-dogPost by Ian LynchSecondly, controlled written tests are very good for certain types of
assessment but just as invalid as say the scrapped on-line computer test
for many things. So if all you do is go back to only "proper exams" you
aren't going to value a lot which is important or motivate the best
learning.
And coursework does?
Course work does motivate some students and is the only valid assessment
for some types of activity. How do you propose to assess a student's
capacity to sustain a project without coursework? Nearly every
professional qualification involves some form of coursework. Ok, you have
to trust a teacher to be professional and some aren't and there is a
degree of pressure from targets against it but if a student really wants
to cheat why bother with all the hassle, just forge a certificate, few are
ever checked.
Post by black-dogWake up Ian, we have hoardes of students working
in 'tell me what to do next' mode with teachers and lecturers who are
nursing them along every step of the way because they are scared that
their results will be not meet some 'target'.
I'm wide awake and I know that happens. But re-iterating the problem is
not really very interesting. Achieving solutions or at least progress
towards solutions seems more worthwhile.
Post by black-dogThe temptation to
intervene is far too great. Would you like to be treated by a doctor
whose qualification was based on coursework?
Actually most doctors do have coursework as part of their qualifications.
I certainly didn't say a qualification should be all coursework and in
fact you won't get a qualification through QCA for pre-16 use if it is. My
son is a fireman and he is doing a compulsory NVQ which I believe is
largely what you refer to as coursework. Seems people trust him to put
their fires out though ;-).
Post by black-dogPost by Ian LynchBeyond a threshold value it doesn't seem to make that much difference
how well you do in exams compared to things like enterprise etc. If you
want to make a million within the law, having the capacity to achieve a
first at Cambridge might will help, but other factors such as how well
do you get on with other people? What leadership characteristics do you
show? How competitive are you? What drives and motivates you? Are likely
to be more important.
Dead right. And schools and colleges are not the best places to learn
this stuff.
There I'd not disagree entirely on the learning issue but they are natural
places to assess it and those assessments are not going to be by written
exam. In fact to an extent any reference a school provides for a student
is an assessment of these other attributes and often a very subjective
judgement that has far less evidence behind it than say coursework. If you
say you don't need to assess those things because employers can do it then
actually its easier these days for employers to set tests on-line for
subject knowledge. In fact its more like that in countries like the USA
that don't have national exam systems.
Post by black-dogMost of the 14-19 yr old kids I was teaching would have
been better off out there in the real world where if they fuck up they
get sacked. They don't get umpteen more chances to do the work.
So they should be doing work related NVQs etc. That is possible, its just
that most schools don't have the staff or the links with businesses to do
it on that scale - yet. And there are not enough apprenticeships. Things
might well evolve that way given Gordon Brown's recent speeches. Whatever,
I believe there is going to be a significant shake out enabled by internet
communications and a need to shift from what is an early 20th C model of
education that is not coping with 21st C social or technological demands.
Politics and the fact most teachers/policy makers are trained in 20th C
education makes the change difficult and to an extent slows it down but it
is fairly inevitable that it will happen. Let's face it, before long
anyone with the motivation, numeracy and literacy will be able to learn
most academic things straight from the net and probably get a lot of
learning in social networking etc too. If they prove themselves in that
environment maybe they won't need qualifications or schools at all -
except most people like getting recognition for their learning and schools
are places where kids meet their friends. Maybe schools will become places
where kids socialise and learn things like drama and sport and they do the
academic stuff some place else. Who knows.
Post by black-dogPost by Ian LynchMostly people are better at making such judgements about others than
computers or written tests and so on-going teacher assessment is
important.
Again I agree but not in the system we have. Assessment means ticking
boxes these days.
Assessment always has had a recording element, whether you do it over time
or all at the end. Terminal exams are a very efficient way of assessing
some things. We use multiple choice tests for our knowledge components so
I'm not saying they haven't a place, its just that they have limitations
too. Since students have to at least pass that tested unit they can't get
away with only "course work" in any case.
Post by black-dogPost by Ian LynchWhat is less important is keeping large swathes of paper based evidence
of routine knowledge based information. We trust doctors to make life
and death judgements and report them so why not teachers?
I'm getting tired of saying this - the system won't allow it.
And I'm saying we have a qualification that is QCA accredited that is
getting lots of schools doing it that doesn't require it so plainly the
system will allow it. If I was talking theoretically you would have a case
but we have coursework and we don't require any portfolios of evidence to
be stored, filed by assessors, submitted to us. The only marking assessors
do is a small subset of the stuff any reasonable teacher would be doing in
the course of lessons anyway.
Post by black-dogI had a student who repeatedly failed to turn up to out of hours
sessions where I was giving up my own time. He was one mark short of a
pass but I felt he had had enough chances and deserved to fail. When I
refused to give him any more chances, my boss got other lecturers to
take him on and get him to complete the work. Quality of that kid's
qualification - nil.
So what about the doctor that looked after my mum who was unqualified and
had lied in the interview about his background and wasn't checked? The
teachers I have come across with bogus qualifications? Shit happens. Life
ain't perfect. I'm just saying I'd rather try and make it better than just
say nothing can change.
Post by black-dogPost by Ian LynchThere is a mismatch at present between a knowledge based subject based
curriculum and the reality of how knowledge (information) is
synthesised, analysed and represented. The league table pressures will
tend to reduce things to lowest common denominators but really that is a
different issue.
The system dictates what courses and qualifications we get. Remember
GNVQ ICT and Thomas Telford?
And GNVQ is now no more. That was a specific cock up.
Post by black-dogI'm all for your Utopian ideal Ian,
There is nothing Utopian about it. Its about having some vision and
deciding a strategy to improve things, its not about Utopia or perfection,
its about paths to improvement and practical support that exists now.
Post by black-dogbut to
suggest that creating your own courses will solve the problem is like
suggesting that the tail can wag the dog.
The assessment tail has always wagged the curriculum dog. That is
precisely a good reason to go for assessment as a strategy for curriculum
change when you have limited resources. I can't claim full success yet but
the original plan is on track so I have no great reason to be pessimistic.
We have a major project in South Africa funded by the Shuttleworth
Foundation, partners across Europe submitting for EU funding for
translations etc and two partners on the East Coast of the USA so its not
just about the parochial little UK either ;-)
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950), from Man and Superman (1903)
"Maxims for Revolutionists"
Regards,
--
Ian
New QCA accredited ICT qualifications
Suitable for primary and secondary schools
www.theINGOTs.org