Epic geekery here.
I have a theory that an important factor in making a good album is to have a strong final third. So many albums start well but tail off towards the end. Sometimes this is because the artist doesn't really have enough good songs to make an album, and packs their two or three decent singles in the first 5 tracks.
I have analysed 145 of my albums to find out a few things. I mainly wanted to know the proportion of the albums that bucked the trend and finished well, and whether there were any patterns from any particular artists.
I did this by splitting albums in half and awarding a point to whichever half was strongest, and splitting albums into thirds and awarding three, two and one points for the strongest, middle and weakest thirds respectively. I only did this for albums that (a) had at least 9 tracks, and (b) I was confident I knew well enough to analyse well.
There were various problems with the method. It's hard to split an 11 track album into thirds, for example. Or, this gives no indication of how much better one section of an album is than another. But given the resources available (time, energy, inclination, knowledge, ability), it was the best I could do.
The findings? Of 145 albums, 120 had a stronger first half and only 25 had a stronger second half. The total points for thirds were: 1st third - 382; 2nd third - 259; 3rd third - 229. So the final third is not, on average, much weaker than the middle third - but the first third is definitely the strongest. And first halves are stronger about 80% of the time.
A total of 59 albums were 'perfectly front heavy' - that is, the first third was the strongest, the final third was the weakest, and the first half was stronger than the second. Only 6 albums were the opposite - first third weakest, final third strongest, second half stronger than the first. These six albums, if you are wondering, are Athlete - Beyond the Neighbourhood, Bottlerockit - Angel on a Vespa, British Sea Power - The Decline of British Sea Power, Coldplay - Viva la Vida or Death and all his Friends, Hurts - Happiness, and Lifehouse - No Name Face.
In terms of artists, I looked at any artist with three or more albums on the list, and looked for patterns.
Anberlin: consistently front heavy (i.e. strongest in the opening third), with weak middles.
Athlete: very varied, no pattern, each album is very different
Bloc Party: always front heavy, except for their best album, A Weekend in the City, which is back heavy
British Sea Power: same as Bloc Party - front heavy except for their best album which is back heavy
Casting Crowns: always perfectly front heavy and declining throughout the album
Coldplay: slightly varies but mostly front heavy
Delirious: generally front heavy, lots of weak middles
Enya: front heavy, except for her first two albums
Idlewild: very varied, like Athlete
The Killers: always front heavy
Lifehouse: front heavy except for their best album which is back heavy
Matt Redman: front heavy except for his best album
Mew: consistently front heavy
Muse: front heavy
Oasis: generally front heavy
Stellastarr*: front heavy with weak middles
Tim Hughes: front heavy
U2: front heavy
The pattern is pretty clear throughout: most albums are front heavy. Interestingly, there are several artists whose strongest album is the only one that is back heavy. Of the nine of my top ten albums of the decade for 2000-2009 that were in this analysis, only 1 had the final third as its weakest section, and 5 had it as the strongest section. It seems that, for me at least, a strong final third is an important factor in a good album.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Football and the pinch of salt
I like watching football. I support Liverpool. But I view my support of them as a bit of a hobby. I think I am less fussed about how they do than many of my friends are about their own teams. I would like to support them more ardently, but I don't think I can justify it.
The reason for this is that I don't think I can trust the results of many (maybe even most) football games. It seems to me that most games have at least one significant moment where a game-changing decision is made incorrectly. I've posted on this topic before, but until recently I hadn't noticed just how often this happens. It might be a goal wrongly disallowed, or a dodgy penalty decision, or a mistaken red card offence. Big decisions that change the game. It seems that a large proportion of games have these incorrect decisions, so I can't trust the results of quite a lot of games, and hence leagues and cups. Therefore is it pointless getting too worked up about supporting a team.
I still want to enjoy watching football, but I intend, more than before, to take it all with a large pinch of salt. I'm happy to associate myself with a team and hope they win games, but I want to not get too worked up about whether or not they do.
It's a shame, because I would like to support more fanatically. I just can't justify that much emotional energy in something that produces such untrustworthy results.
The reason for this is that I don't think I can trust the results of many (maybe even most) football games. It seems to me that most games have at least one significant moment where a game-changing decision is made incorrectly. I've posted on this topic before, but until recently I hadn't noticed just how often this happens. It might be a goal wrongly disallowed, or a dodgy penalty decision, or a mistaken red card offence. Big decisions that change the game. It seems that a large proportion of games have these incorrect decisions, so I can't trust the results of quite a lot of games, and hence leagues and cups. Therefore is it pointless getting too worked up about supporting a team.
I still want to enjoy watching football, but I intend, more than before, to take it all with a large pinch of salt. I'm happy to associate myself with a team and hope they win games, but I want to not get too worked up about whether or not they do.
It's a shame, because I would like to support more fanatically. I just can't justify that much emotional energy in something that produces such untrustworthy results.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
In defence of Harry Potter
This link was recently posted on my Facebook wall. I promised a blogged response, so here it is. I suggest you read the linked article before this post, as I will be responding to the points made in the article.
First, the character of Harry is criticised for not being that good at anything except for flying and the patronus charm. This is inaccurate. While being academically average, Harry is good at Defence Against the Dark Arts in general, not just one charm. The suggestion that he is only good at the patronus charm because he learnt it earlier than usual is weak, as evidence from Dumbledore's Army scenes, and the rest of books 6 and 7, suggest that he was more successful with this charm than his peers. The author also overlooks the fact that Harry is exceptionally brave. His bravery is probably his strongest character trait.
The article says that most things that happen to Harry are due to others, and not his own skill. This is simply incorrect. Some things are due to the skill of others (usually Hermione or Dumbledore), but plenty of things are not. Such as: fighting off Quirrell, killing the basilisk, driving off dementors several times, evading the Hungarian Horntail, escaping Voldemort in the graveyard, getting out of the Department of Mysteries with Hermione unconscious, Ron temporarily insane, and Neville and Ginny injured..the list goes on. Again, many of these things come down to Harry's bravery.
Nearly at the end now...the author disagrees with JKRs handling of deaths. Firstly that of Sirius because it wasn't dramatic and poignant. I fail to see how it isn't both of these. It's in the middle of a big wizard battle, he's killed by his own cousin, having come to rescue his godson - that's pretty dramatic. As for poignancy, I think, and I think many fans would agree, that it's one of the hardest-hitting parts of the series. Secondly, Lupin and Tonks. Here I have to concede the point. I actually think the story would have been better if Tonks had lived, and I do think that Lupin should have had an 'on-screen' death (though I can see the attraction of the brutality of having it off-screen).
Next, we have the accusation of JKR being inconsistent. The examples used are 'Why don't wizards always apparate instead of using other methods of transport?' and 'Why don't they use time-turners and veritaserum more?'. The apparition question is answered several times in the books - not all wizards can apparate, not all wizards like apparition, apparition is risky (splinching). Time-turners are so dangerous as to be practically illegal. The question shouldn't be 'why they don't use them more?', but 'how was Hermione allowed to use one?' - this was clearly an exceptional situation for an exceptional witch. Veritaserum? To be honest, I don't know. This may well be a plot hole. But in a story this complex, plot holes are guaranteed to appear occasionally. Having said that, I am sure JKR would be able to answer this question, given the amount of background information she knows. In fact, a quick internet search reveals this quote from JKR on the very first hit:
Veritaserum works best upon the unsuspecting, the vulnerable and those insufficiently skilled (in one way or another) to protect themselves against it. Barty Crouch had been attacked before the potion was given to him and was still very groggy, otherwise he could have employed a range of measures against the Potion – he might have sealed his own throat and faked a declaration of innocence, transformed the Potion into something else before it touched his lips, or employed Occlumency against its effects. In other words, just like every other kind of magic within the books, Veritaserum is not infallible. As some wizards can prevent themselves being affected, and others cannot, it is an unfair and unreliable tool to use at a trial.
Sirius might have volunteered to take the potion had he been given the chance, but he was never offered it. Mr. Crouch senior, power mad and increasingly unjust in the way he was treating suspects, threw him into Azkaban on the (admittedly rather convincing) testimony of many eyewitnesses. The sad fact is that even if Sirius had told the truth under the influence of the Potion, Mr. Crouch could still have insisted that he was using trickery to render himself immune to it.
So that's that settled.
The final criticism in the article is of the length of the last four books. The author cynically suggests that this was because editors didn't want to drive away the by-then very successful writer that Rowling was. No evidence for this. And, to be fair, the books are awesome. I'd rather the first three be longer than the last four shorter.
So there we go. My defence of the Harry Potter series against whoever it was who wrote that article.
First, the character of Harry is criticised for not being that good at anything except for flying and the patronus charm. This is inaccurate. While being academically average, Harry is good at Defence Against the Dark Arts in general, not just one charm. The suggestion that he is only good at the patronus charm because he learnt it earlier than usual is weak, as evidence from Dumbledore's Army scenes, and the rest of books 6 and 7, suggest that he was more successful with this charm than his peers. The author also overlooks the fact that Harry is exceptionally brave. His bravery is probably his strongest character trait.
The author is unhappy that Harry, while not being good at much, is "touted by others as being a wonderful and excellent wizard for no discernible reason". Two points in response to this. Firstly, the times he is praised by many people are the times when he has done something particularly good, such as killing a basilisk, evading a dragon or escaping from Voldemort. Secondly, a lot of the hype placed on Harry throughout the series is because he (admittedly unknowingly) caused first downfall. It's the standard response to a saviour-hero. Nothing that unusual, and certainly not Harry's fault.
The article says that most things that happen to Harry are due to others, and not his own skill. This is simply incorrect. Some things are due to the skill of others (usually Hermione or Dumbledore), but plenty of things are not. Such as: fighting off Quirrell, killing the basilisk, driving off dementors several times, evading the Hungarian Horntail, escaping Voldemort in the graveyard, getting out of the Department of Mysteries with Hermione unconscious, Ron temporarily insane, and Neville and Ginny injured..the list goes on. Again, many of these things come down to Harry's bravery.
Harry is then criticised for not trying hard enough in the Triwizard Tournament, and for needing help to get through it. It should be noted that both Viktor Krum and Fleur Delacour, the strongest wizard and witch from their respective schools, needed help from their mentors. Harry is about three years younger than them and probably gets no more help than them.
Then comes a classic issue: angry-Harry in book 5. I've said before that, given Harry's circumstances, a little anger is not unexpected and maybe even reasonable. He acts like a normal teenager would. The author of the article acknowledges this, but argues that Harry is not a normal teenager. However, the author gives no reason for this argument, but simply goes on to criticise Rowling's writing - a separate issue that gives no evidence to the debate over Harry's anger. Hence, there is no argument that Harry is not a normal teenager. I would like to point out that (a) I don't happen to think he is a normal teenager, but the article gives no evidence for claiming that he isn't, and (b) I don't think he is sufficiently abnormal to be immune to anger!
So, that's Harry defended. He's by no means perfect, nor is he good at many things other than flying, DADA and being brave - but since when did he have to be? He's not my favourite character, but the accusations levelled at him in the article are unfounded.
Next, the article moves on to criticise JKR's writing. The series is critisied for the first few books being more black-and-white with respect to 'goodies and baddies', and then introducing more grey areas in later books. The author of the article seems to find this unconvincing. Personally, I have always found this to make a lot of sense, because, we must remember, the story is told almost entirely from Harry's point of view (in fact, in books 1-3, other than the opening chapter in which he is 1 year old, only about 10 lines are not from his point of view). Harry is initially just a kid. He's young. Like most children of his age, he sees things in quite a black and white way. Therefore it makes sense for him to see 'goodies and baddies' as fairly black and white characters in the first few books. It should also be noted that, even when he's older, Harry is not the most logical of people and tends to jump to conclusions and hold strong grudges. He is not a particularly good judge of character.
The comment about Hogwarts alumni objecting to the banning of quidditch by Umbridge is just baffling. There is no indication of alumni getting involved at Hogwarts for any reason, and even if they did, by this time Hogwarts was ministry-run, under the guidance of Umbridge - I very much doubt that any alumni could have done anything about the ban.
The comments about Harry's father aren't much better - they're understandable but, like much of the article, not based on canonical fact. Yes, Harry finds out bad stuff about his dad as he grows up - but there are still people who defend his dad as generally a good guy (e.g. Remus Lupin and Sirius Black). The revelations about Harry's dad are part of the theme of Fatherhood that runs throughout the series, and help to flesh out James' character. That's the purpose that the author doesn't seem to notice.
Next we have the plot points that allegedly don't make sense. Firstly, the author questions that lots of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students come to Hogwarts for a whole year for only one to compete in the Triwizard Tournament. Two points in defence of this. One - this is not a normal school system; no doubt they do things differently to muggle schools. Two - this was the first Triwizard Tournament for over 200 years. It was a massive deal. I'm not surprised people risked a year of education for the chance to compete.
Next, the author has some questions about the prophecy which "doesn't really mean anything" - this is a crude and exaggerated way of putting it, though not entirely inaccurate, but shows a misunderstanding. The prophecy means several things when heard in its entirety. The interesting thing about it is that it is not a perfect prediction of the future - it doesn't bind Harry to killing Voldemort. However, because Voldemort chooses to follow the prophecy, the two of them will eventually meet and one will die - but because of Voldemort's choices, not because of some fatalistic prophecy. This is all explained at the end of book five. Anyway, the authors' questions about the prophecy, and my answers, are:
So why exactly did Dumbledore and everyone keep that from Harry? Firstly, it's Dumbledore, not everyone else - the rest of the Order don't seem to know what the prophecy is, they're just following Dumbledore's instructions. Secondly, they don't really seem to be keeping it from Harry - Harry never really asks about it until after he's heard it. Thirdly, if Dumbledore does keep things from Harry, it is because, as Dumbledore explains, he doesn't think Harry is ready to hear everything yet.
Why did it matter so much to make sure Voldemort didn't hear the end of it? Because the end of the prophecy explains why Voldemort couldn't kill Harry, which is exactly what Voldemort was trying to find out. It's delaying tactics.
If it was really that big of a deal, why couldn’t the good guys destroy the recording held at the Ministry of Magic? The authority to do this would lie with the Ministry, who didn't believe Voldemort had returned and, even if they did, did not know the contents of the prophecy. From their point of view, they had no reason to destroy it.
Another set of questions related to the plot: At the end of Book 5, didn't Dumbledore promise not to keep things from Harry anymore? So why did he immediately start keeping things from Harry in Book 6 about the Horcruxes? Why drag out that whole plot/discussion throughout the course of the book when he could have sat Harry down and explained things in one go?
Dumbledore kept information from Harry for two reasons. One is explained in book six (Harry even asks this question!) - Dumbledore told Harry everything he knew for certain; from then on, it was guesswork. The second is that Dumbledore was a master schemer. He kept information from people all the time, you could argue he even sacrificed people for the long-term goal of killing Voldemort. Dumbledore's character is possibly the most interesting of the lot. Remember the whole 'greater good' thing from his youth? I reckon he carried elements of that on through his life.So, that's Harry defended. He's by no means perfect, nor is he good at many things other than flying, DADA and being brave - but since when did he have to be? He's not my favourite character, but the accusations levelled at him in the article are unfounded.
Next, the article moves on to criticise JKR's writing. The series is critisied for the first few books being more black-and-white with respect to 'goodies and baddies', and then introducing more grey areas in later books. The author of the article seems to find this unconvincing. Personally, I have always found this to make a lot of sense, because, we must remember, the story is told almost entirely from Harry's point of view (in fact, in books 1-3, other than the opening chapter in which he is 1 year old, only about 10 lines are not from his point of view). Harry is initially just a kid. He's young. Like most children of his age, he sees things in quite a black and white way. Therefore it makes sense for him to see 'goodies and baddies' as fairly black and white characters in the first few books. It should also be noted that, even when he's older, Harry is not the most logical of people and tends to jump to conclusions and hold strong grudges. He is not a particularly good judge of character.
The comment about Hogwarts alumni objecting to the banning of quidditch by Umbridge is just baffling. There is no indication of alumni getting involved at Hogwarts for any reason, and even if they did, by this time Hogwarts was ministry-run, under the guidance of Umbridge - I very much doubt that any alumni could have done anything about the ban.
The comments about Harry's father aren't much better - they're understandable but, like much of the article, not based on canonical fact. Yes, Harry finds out bad stuff about his dad as he grows up - but there are still people who defend his dad as generally a good guy (e.g. Remus Lupin and Sirius Black). The revelations about Harry's dad are part of the theme of Fatherhood that runs throughout the series, and help to flesh out James' character. That's the purpose that the author doesn't seem to notice.
Next we have the plot points that allegedly don't make sense. Firstly, the author questions that lots of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students come to Hogwarts for a whole year for only one to compete in the Triwizard Tournament. Two points in defence of this. One - this is not a normal school system; no doubt they do things differently to muggle schools. Two - this was the first Triwizard Tournament for over 200 years. It was a massive deal. I'm not surprised people risked a year of education for the chance to compete.
Next, the author has some questions about the prophecy which "doesn't really mean anything" - this is a crude and exaggerated way of putting it, though not entirely inaccurate, but shows a misunderstanding. The prophecy means several things when heard in its entirety. The interesting thing about it is that it is not a perfect prediction of the future - it doesn't bind Harry to killing Voldemort. However, because Voldemort chooses to follow the prophecy, the two of them will eventually meet and one will die - but because of Voldemort's choices, not because of some fatalistic prophecy. This is all explained at the end of book five. Anyway, the authors' questions about the prophecy, and my answers, are:
So why exactly did Dumbledore and everyone keep that from Harry? Firstly, it's Dumbledore, not everyone else - the rest of the Order don't seem to know what the prophecy is, they're just following Dumbledore's instructions. Secondly, they don't really seem to be keeping it from Harry - Harry never really asks about it until after he's heard it. Thirdly, if Dumbledore does keep things from Harry, it is because, as Dumbledore explains, he doesn't think Harry is ready to hear everything yet.Why did it matter so much to make sure Voldemort didn't hear the end of it? Because the end of the prophecy explains why Voldemort couldn't kill Harry, which is exactly what Voldemort was trying to find out. It's delaying tactics.
If it was really that big of a deal, why couldn’t the good guys destroy the recording held at the Ministry of Magic? The authority to do this would lie with the Ministry, who didn't believe Voldemort had returned and, even if they did, did not know the contents of the prophecy. From their point of view, they had no reason to destroy it.
Another set of questions related to the plot: At the end of Book 5, didn't Dumbledore promise not to keep things from Harry anymore? So why did he immediately start keeping things from Harry in Book 6 about the Horcruxes? Why drag out that whole plot/discussion throughout the course of the book when he could have sat Harry down and explained things in one go?
Nearly at the end now...the author disagrees with JKRs handling of deaths. Firstly that of Sirius because it wasn't dramatic and poignant. I fail to see how it isn't both of these. It's in the middle of a big wizard battle, he's killed by his own cousin, having come to rescue his godson - that's pretty dramatic. As for poignancy, I think, and I think many fans would agree, that it's one of the hardest-hitting parts of the series. Secondly, Lupin and Tonks. Here I have to concede the point. I actually think the story would have been better if Tonks had lived, and I do think that Lupin should have had an 'on-screen' death (though I can see the attraction of the brutality of having it off-screen).Next, we have the accusation of JKR being inconsistent. The examples used are 'Why don't wizards always apparate instead of using other methods of transport?' and 'Why don't they use time-turners and veritaserum more?'. The apparition question is answered several times in the books - not all wizards can apparate, not all wizards like apparition, apparition is risky (splinching). Time-turners are so dangerous as to be practically illegal. The question shouldn't be 'why they don't use them more?', but 'how was Hermione allowed to use one?' - this was clearly an exceptional situation for an exceptional witch. Veritaserum? To be honest, I don't know. This may well be a plot hole. But in a story this complex, plot holes are guaranteed to appear occasionally. Having said that, I am sure JKR would be able to answer this question, given the amount of background information she knows. In fact, a quick internet search reveals this quote from JKR on the very first hit:
Veritaserum works best upon the unsuspecting, the vulnerable and those insufficiently skilled (in one way or another) to protect themselves against it. Barty Crouch had been attacked before the potion was given to him and was still very groggy, otherwise he could have employed a range of measures against the Potion – he might have sealed his own throat and faked a declaration of innocence, transformed the Potion into something else before it touched his lips, or employed Occlumency against its effects. In other words, just like every other kind of magic within the books, Veritaserum is not infallible. As some wizards can prevent themselves being affected, and others cannot, it is an unfair and unreliable tool to use at a trial.
Sirius might have volunteered to take the potion had he been given the chance, but he was never offered it. Mr. Crouch senior, power mad and increasingly unjust in the way he was treating suspects, threw him into Azkaban on the (admittedly rather convincing) testimony of many eyewitnesses. The sad fact is that even if Sirius had told the truth under the influence of the Potion, Mr. Crouch could still have insisted that he was using trickery to render himself immune to it.
So that's that settled.
The final criticism in the article is of the length of the last four books. The author cynically suggests that this was because editors didn't want to drive away the by-then very successful writer that Rowling was. No evidence for this. And, to be fair, the books are awesome. I'd rather the first three be longer than the last four shorter.
So there we go. My defence of the Harry Potter series against whoever it was who wrote that article.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Gove's plan hides a bigger problem
The education system, and particularly its assessment, is a bit of a mess. This has been clear to me since I started teaching, 4 years ago. Grade boundaries fluctuate, sometimes wildly. The difference between a C in one qualification and another can be huge. Many exams are an unrealistic way of assessing people. The number of resits that can be taken has become absurd. Teaching to the test is rife. Grade inflation has become a joke.
I can completely understand Michael Gove's desire to change things. I just don't agree with all the changes he is planning to make. I don't agree with all of them...though I do agree with some of them.
First, a bit of background. A year or two ago, the English Baccalaureate was introduced. This is an award gained by achieving grade C or higher in English, Maths, Science, a humanity and a language. Achieving the EBac would be a sign of general all-round academic ability. Less academic subjects such as drama and DT were not included in the EBac but are still assessed as normal GCSEs. This sounded (and still sounds) like a good idea - essentially, pupils do GCSEs in the same way as before, and there is a way of identifying the all-round academic pupils by seeing who achieved the EBac. The problem is that schools can be assessed not only on the magic '% of 5 A*-C including English and Maths', but on the % of pupils achieving the EBac. In my school, this led the management to look at our EBac target (e.g. 65%), then find the 65% of pupils most likely to achieve the EBac, and force them to take those subjects. It restricted choice and pushed kids into subjects they didn't want to take. (Note 1: pupils subject choice fuelled by school targets and results)
In the last week, Gove has proposed the English Baccalaureate Certificate - a new qualification to replace GCSEs in some subjects (English, Maths and Science to start with). It is designed to be more rigorous, with no coursework or modules. It will be assessed by a single exam at the end of year 11. The idea behind increasing the rigour stems, I believe, from the desire to stop ludicrous grade inflation. A GCSE grade C is worth less now than it was ten years ago, simply because more people achive grade C now than they did ten years ago. Exams are (or at least they were until about a year ago) easier than they used to be (that is not a myth). This desire to stop grade inflation is a good one. More rigour is needed. Another way that Gove plans to reduce grade inflation is to have only one exam board, to prevent the current situation of exam boards competing to offer slightly easier qualifications than their competitors, so that schools will choose their qualification and improve their results. Having only one exam board is a good idea (though not a difficult one to come up with). (Note 2: grade inflation due at least in part to schools competing for better results)
However, removing coursework and modules is a mistake. Admittedly, we need fewer modules than we currently have. At the moment, pupils sit exams in November, January, March and June. Mental. But stopping modules altogether is a step too far. As is removing coursework. I can't put it better than this quote from Liz Brimacombe on the BBC website:
"My final comment is that doing a limited amount of work all year and then cramming like mad for a three-hour exam (as was the case in the O-level days) is not a skill relevant to most jobs. Having to produce quality work, under deadlines, sometimes project based throughout a year is far more applicable in today's world."
Traditional-style exams are not a good way to assess pupils. In no real-life situation do you have to do something like that. The ability to produce good coursework, however, is a skill transferable to the real world. This does not necessarily mean there is no place for exams - it is important to assess what pupils understand by themselves, without reference materials.
Another feature of Gove's new plan is to remove the two-tier system of Higher and Foundation courses, because Foundation courses, while easier, have a maximum grade of C, and could be seen to prevent aspiration. A good sentiment, but it is countered by the idea of more rigour and a traditional end-of-course exam, which will make it more difficult to achieve the top grades. Under this new system, less academic pupils could find themselves unable to get good grades. Gove's new system appears to cater for only certain types of pupils - the academic ones who are, probably, the minority. Classic Tory.
However, the fact that this new system will only benefit a few is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that as qualifications get, basically, more difficult for the majority (no resits, no coursework, more rigour etc), schools will be under even more pressure to deliver results. Emphasis on exams, teaching to the test, and exam pressure will all increase, and the main reason will not be to enable pupils to do as well as they can (though it should be). The main reason will be so that schools get the best results that they can. Because, sadly, the thing that drives almost everything in education is league tables.
Schools strive to improve results each year, because the better their results in the broadsheets at the end of August, or the better results they can put in their prospectus, the more year 6 applications they will receive, the more money they will receive, and the more staff will want to work there. This desire to improve results (a) is ludicrous, and (b) drives many other things.
It is ludicrous for a variety of reasons. Grade inflation for one. The fact that some years are cleverer than others for two. Varying exam boards, varying difficulties of exams, the fact that some schools have a catchment that predisposes pupils to do well at school, and so on.
It also drives many other things - the courses that pupils are allowed to take being a huge one. Targets that teachers have to set for themselves each year. Which pupils get extra help for coursework. Grade inflation over the years, as exams steadily become easier. Teaching to the test. Pupils breaking down with stress. Staff breaking down with stress.
There are some good things about Gove's proposals - one exam board, fewer modules. There are plenty of bad things - no coursework, no modules, only benefits a minority of pupils. But it simply masks, and is a response to, the competitiveness between schools to out-achieve each other.
I don't have the answer at the moment. I do have some ideas, which mostly revolved around more teacher assessment of pupils, moderated by external examiners (as mentioned above, traditional exams are not a realistic method of assessment). But I don't get paid a six-figure salary to come up with the answer. That would be Mr Gove's job. And so far, he has failed - I'd probably give him grade E.
I can completely understand Michael Gove's desire to change things. I just don't agree with all the changes he is planning to make. I don't agree with all of them...though I do agree with some of them.
First, a bit of background. A year or two ago, the English Baccalaureate was introduced. This is an award gained by achieving grade C or higher in English, Maths, Science, a humanity and a language. Achieving the EBac would be a sign of general all-round academic ability. Less academic subjects such as drama and DT were not included in the EBac but are still assessed as normal GCSEs. This sounded (and still sounds) like a good idea - essentially, pupils do GCSEs in the same way as before, and there is a way of identifying the all-round academic pupils by seeing who achieved the EBac. The problem is that schools can be assessed not only on the magic '% of 5 A*-C including English and Maths', but on the % of pupils achieving the EBac. In my school, this led the management to look at our EBac target (e.g. 65%), then find the 65% of pupils most likely to achieve the EBac, and force them to take those subjects. It restricted choice and pushed kids into subjects they didn't want to take. (Note 1: pupils subject choice fuelled by school targets and results)
In the last week, Gove has proposed the English Baccalaureate Certificate - a new qualification to replace GCSEs in some subjects (English, Maths and Science to start with). It is designed to be more rigorous, with no coursework or modules. It will be assessed by a single exam at the end of year 11. The idea behind increasing the rigour stems, I believe, from the desire to stop ludicrous grade inflation. A GCSE grade C is worth less now than it was ten years ago, simply because more people achive grade C now than they did ten years ago. Exams are (or at least they were until about a year ago) easier than they used to be (that is not a myth). This desire to stop grade inflation is a good one. More rigour is needed. Another way that Gove plans to reduce grade inflation is to have only one exam board, to prevent the current situation of exam boards competing to offer slightly easier qualifications than their competitors, so that schools will choose their qualification and improve their results. Having only one exam board is a good idea (though not a difficult one to come up with). (Note 2: grade inflation due at least in part to schools competing for better results)
However, removing coursework and modules is a mistake. Admittedly, we need fewer modules than we currently have. At the moment, pupils sit exams in November, January, March and June. Mental. But stopping modules altogether is a step too far. As is removing coursework. I can't put it better than this quote from Liz Brimacombe on the BBC website:
"My final comment is that doing a limited amount of work all year and then cramming like mad for a three-hour exam (as was the case in the O-level days) is not a skill relevant to most jobs. Having to produce quality work, under deadlines, sometimes project based throughout a year is far more applicable in today's world."
Traditional-style exams are not a good way to assess pupils. In no real-life situation do you have to do something like that. The ability to produce good coursework, however, is a skill transferable to the real world. This does not necessarily mean there is no place for exams - it is important to assess what pupils understand by themselves, without reference materials.
Another feature of Gove's new plan is to remove the two-tier system of Higher and Foundation courses, because Foundation courses, while easier, have a maximum grade of C, and could be seen to prevent aspiration. A good sentiment, but it is countered by the idea of more rigour and a traditional end-of-course exam, which will make it more difficult to achieve the top grades. Under this new system, less academic pupils could find themselves unable to get good grades. Gove's new system appears to cater for only certain types of pupils - the academic ones who are, probably, the minority. Classic Tory.
However, the fact that this new system will only benefit a few is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that as qualifications get, basically, more difficult for the majority (no resits, no coursework, more rigour etc), schools will be under even more pressure to deliver results. Emphasis on exams, teaching to the test, and exam pressure will all increase, and the main reason will not be to enable pupils to do as well as they can (though it should be). The main reason will be so that schools get the best results that they can. Because, sadly, the thing that drives almost everything in education is league tables.
Schools strive to improve results each year, because the better their results in the broadsheets at the end of August, or the better results they can put in their prospectus, the more year 6 applications they will receive, the more money they will receive, and the more staff will want to work there. This desire to improve results (a) is ludicrous, and (b) drives many other things.
It is ludicrous for a variety of reasons. Grade inflation for one. The fact that some years are cleverer than others for two. Varying exam boards, varying difficulties of exams, the fact that some schools have a catchment that predisposes pupils to do well at school, and so on.
It also drives many other things - the courses that pupils are allowed to take being a huge one. Targets that teachers have to set for themselves each year. Which pupils get extra help for coursework. Grade inflation over the years, as exams steadily become easier. Teaching to the test. Pupils breaking down with stress. Staff breaking down with stress.
There are some good things about Gove's proposals - one exam board, fewer modules. There are plenty of bad things - no coursework, no modules, only benefits a minority of pupils. But it simply masks, and is a response to, the competitiveness between schools to out-achieve each other.
I don't have the answer at the moment. I do have some ideas, which mostly revolved around more teacher assessment of pupils, moderated by external examiners (as mentioned above, traditional exams are not a realistic method of assessment). But I don't get paid a six-figure salary to come up with the answer. That would be Mr Gove's job. And so far, he has failed - I'd probably give him grade E.
Monday, September 03, 2012
First World Problems
I've had a bad day (bear with me, this post is not just a whine). I started off pretty tired, physically and emotionally. My sister got married on Saturday - I was ushering and managing logistics. We finished clearing up at about 12, then I had to be at church for 8 to set up on Sunday morning. Following church and then clearing up from it, I was helping to clear the wedding reception until about 5. Then there was the mix of emotions that goes with one's sister getting married, and the bizzare feeling of situations like seeing my oldest friend, Annie, for the first time in about 3 years, and only having time for a quick hug,
I woke up pretty shattered. And my knee (long term injury) and shoulder (more recent but currently more annoying) were both aching. The last thing I wanted was the first day of term. Particularly this term, knowing that, although the kids don't come back until Wednesday, we will only have Tuesday to move our entire science department, including all the equipment, back into science labs following a refurb (it took us a whole week to move out).
This morning we found out we won't be able to get into the science labs until Wednesday. Yes, that's the day the kids come back. And the labs will be empty when they arrive. Today was filled with mostly boring, mostly pointless, mostly inefficient meetings.
I came home via taking two carloads of church kit back to our normal venue. When I got home I locked the car and then realised that half the key had snapped off and got stuck in the lock. It's less than a month since I had to get a replacement car key cut.
I decided to play football for an hour with some friends to try to let off some steam. I played really badly and got really frustrated, and damaged my thumb playing in goal. I didn't have much appetite for dinner.
It was all a bit pathetic.
This evening I went to our monthly prayer evening. I reckoned I needed to get some perspective. As I stood in a room filled with people I love and trust, I remembered that phrase 'First World Problems'. I remembered that I have a continual supply of food. I have a phone, a car, and a house. I have time to do things I enjoy, beyond just staying alive. I have a laptop on which to write this. I have had amazing experiences in the past. I have played for possibly the greatest sporting club on earth. I have done Lord of the Rings marathons. I've climbed to the top of a mountain in Norway at 11pm to watch the sunset. I've seen Idlewild live in concert three times. I've been to the mast wonderful summer camp a total of ten times. I've been up the Eiffel Tower. I've watched live athletics at London 2012. I've ushered at my sister's wedding.
And that's not to mention any of the people in my life. My family, my friends from home, the imperfect people who somehow make up the seemingly perfect community in Durham.
Suddenly I was feeling overwhelmed with gratitude.
The contrast between my blessedness and my ungratefulness is staggering and sickening. My short-sightedness is shameful. And the scary thing is, I do this every day. And if you have the means to read this, you probably do too.
I woke up pretty shattered. And my knee (long term injury) and shoulder (more recent but currently more annoying) were both aching. The last thing I wanted was the first day of term. Particularly this term, knowing that, although the kids don't come back until Wednesday, we will only have Tuesday to move our entire science department, including all the equipment, back into science labs following a refurb (it took us a whole week to move out).
This morning we found out we won't be able to get into the science labs until Wednesday. Yes, that's the day the kids come back. And the labs will be empty when they arrive. Today was filled with mostly boring, mostly pointless, mostly inefficient meetings.
I came home via taking two carloads of church kit back to our normal venue. When I got home I locked the car and then realised that half the key had snapped off and got stuck in the lock. It's less than a month since I had to get a replacement car key cut.
I decided to play football for an hour with some friends to try to let off some steam. I played really badly and got really frustrated, and damaged my thumb playing in goal. I didn't have much appetite for dinner.
It was all a bit pathetic.
This evening I went to our monthly prayer evening. I reckoned I needed to get some perspective. As I stood in a room filled with people I love and trust, I remembered that phrase 'First World Problems'. I remembered that I have a continual supply of food. I have a phone, a car, and a house. I have time to do things I enjoy, beyond just staying alive. I have a laptop on which to write this. I have had amazing experiences in the past. I have played for possibly the greatest sporting club on earth. I have done Lord of the Rings marathons. I've climbed to the top of a mountain in Norway at 11pm to watch the sunset. I've seen Idlewild live in concert three times. I've been to the mast wonderful summer camp a total of ten times. I've been up the Eiffel Tower. I've watched live athletics at London 2012. I've ushered at my sister's wedding.
And that's not to mention any of the people in my life. My family, my friends from home, the imperfect people who somehow make up the seemingly perfect community in Durham.
Suddenly I was feeling overwhelmed with gratitude.
The contrast between my blessedness and my ungratefulness is staggering and sickening. My short-sightedness is shameful. And the scary thing is, I do this every day. And if you have the means to read this, you probably do too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)