The education system likes to think it can measure things that are notoriously hard to measure. Increasingly pragmatic instrumentalism is being held culpable (more of that in a future BLOG). However it appears that the education system is struggling to measure its own progress. You wonder therefore what, if anything, it can measure with any certainty? It’s not just me, others are wondering too.
In the beginning there was…..
VAK learning styles. It’s purpose was not pedagogical but as a means to evidence personalisation and differentiation. Most now agree that VAK learning styles cannot identify the personal cognitive preferences of an individual learner based on; visual, auditory and kinesthetic characteristics.
Teacher’s throughout the land conducted tests, identified the personalised learning style of the individual learner and wrote up the results. Some might even have got a good grade in an OFSTED observation because of it. Then there was light and we all saw through VAK learning styles.
Yesterday’s issue of personalisation, a policy tool of New Labour, has been replaced by the new policy mantras of the coalition. Ideas abound: closing the gap, mind growth, visual learning etc.
Of course there is a counter narrative; Professor Rob Coe’s assertion that education hasn’t measurably improved. David Didau also has a point about memory retention. What do learners learn? Is there much point learning stuff you won’t remember or don’t really understand simply to scrape a “C” at GCSE? Individual learners benefit but what about society?
Is the culture of compliance, rote learning and constant exams the kind of environment that will deliver the innovative thinking required in our social institutions and in 21st century business? It may deliver measurable outcomes but little else.
And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free
So what is the truth about learning? The truth is Nearly 40 per cent of schools leavers do not achieve a grade “C” at GCSE English:
Almost one in five are functionally illiterate when they leave school and this has been the case for some time. A recent article in TES wrote about the problems of functional illiteracy and measuring; reading and writing skills:
We look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen
As the TES article states; these figures in turn are contradicted by GCSE results. All roads lead to the thorny issue of grade inflation, which makes it difficult to understand what is happening in schools. A brief look at grade inflation shows it has been dramatic. In fact in one period from 1988 to 1994 the A – C success rate improved by ten per cent; in 5 years. It’s not possible, is it?
The grade A* grade (2012) introduced in 1994 now has similar success rates to the old A grade in 1988:
It is possible to ascertain some relational information based on one year but beyond that it’s impossible to make any credible judgement on the data. It’s almost completely meaningless. How do you measure progress with data that few now have faith in?
OFSTED
What does the sector watchdog make of this situation? Well OFSTED is currently more credible than it has been in the past; for most of the last 10 years it’s been frankly talking complete gibberish. It’s a highly political organisation reliant on data that is highly politicised. It’s own data as well as the data derived from GCSE’s. OFSTED’s problem being that its inspectors simply haven’t seemed to know the difference between good and bad teaching
Even if you are generous it may award grades in one year but has no real way of knowing how those grades equate over time. The base assessments change as do the frameworks as does the data. This is just one of a number of recent critical reports:
In the 20 years since Ofsted’s foundation there have been 10 new inspection frameworks. The impact of other educational reforms and wider social factors must also be considered. Kenneth Clarke had said that informing parents better about schools would be a key aim of Ofsted and an early survey found most parents thought inspection reports helpful and accessible (Tabberer).
Some 20 years after its foundation, Ofsted’s role in the English education system remains
both significant and highly controversial
Conclusion
Rob Coe’s research is food for thought . Martin Robinson’s BLOG on pragmatic instrumentalism and grit is also thought provoking. Pragmatic instrumentalism is based on a practical “what works” approach.
The problem is nothing seems to work in education data simply isn’t joined up. It’s particularly concerning when schools use cramming, testing and excessive use of feedback to check learning. Research has shown that knowledge is not retained blaming exam cramming and the lack of conceptual development, You do wonder what, if any, learning is going on.
Statistics that don’t measure anything worth measuring; gurus and personalities making claims based on dubious interpretations of research and personality head teachers that brag about making teachers quit their jobs is only justifiable if you can know for sure that progress is being made.
The data has to join up and learning has to be purposeful. Whatever pedagogical polemic individual educationalists hang onto I think we can all agree that an instrumentalist education system that cannot measure its own progress is not fit for purpose.