Rock the Boat, Make Waves, Disturb the Status Quo

Splendes, splendeas in aeternum, Alma Mater atque amabilis

Ironically, our Higher English candidates have just sat their Reading UAE paper on why exams are out of date. For older readers the u is for understanding, a for analysis, and E is evaluation. Depending on how far back you go, you may recognise this as Comprehension or Interpretation. Instructions include “read the following passage and answer the questions which follow.”

The text is taken from a newspaper or journal, is deemed ‘quality writing’ and, usually, is an opinion piece such as one might find in the Sunday Supplements.

The principal is simple enough; the execution is less straightforward and fraught with dangers real and imagined.

Questions are designed to check for skills.

First understanding: what does the writer mean here? Can you explain- using your own words- what is said about this?

Next is analysis: how does the writer’s use of language show their mood or emotion concerning the topic? Where else is the writer fed up, scathing, annoyed, petulant, humorous? How does the writer use language to convey their opinion other than by telling you? Are we invited to agree or does their use of language show they already assume that we do?

Finally, comes evaluation: how successful has the writer been in getting their message across to the reader? How skilfully have they constructed their argument?

The language skills required to answer successfully are not inconsiderable. And the relevance to real life outwith school is significant. The mismatch, I think, is that the school system does not allow for either to be addressed adequately.

One of the central points raised in their exam paper is that the very examination system by which they are judged was designed, for perfectly valid reasons at the time, for a completely different society. In a nutshell, success signalled that further academic study was possible; failure indicated that manual work such as a trade would suit better. At the time, 18th-19th century, that was all well and good. (Allowing for the gross injustice of the social system of that era. )

I have never been more conscious that I am teaching young people who will go on to do jobs that do not even exist today.

The wheels of government and progress turn slowly. The Eleven Plus is within living memory. Huge pressure in your final year of primary. The gate of destiny in front of you and, if you do not score highly enough, it will slam in your face. But, that gate was removed in favour of a more comprehensive education. However, the disjoint remains. There is no level playing field in life, or in society. The school leaving age has crept up slowly and it would appear that as it has gone up the manufacturing industry has gone down. We need fewer factory workers. Advances in technology mean that we also need fewer farm workers. While, I understand too little to elect for ‘causality’, I recognise the result.

Aspiration is laudable. Strive to be the best you can. But, for many of our young people, our learners in school, the aspiration is to be an “influencer” : look how much they make! Look at their lifestyle! I want that.

97% of youngsters who go through football academies never play a minute of top-flight football. So even with my basic maths skills, that’s 3% success rate at the highest level. Of the less than 30% who do win a contract at 16, more than 80% are not playing professional football at aged 21. Mbpappé gets over one and-a-half million pounds a week. I want that.

A plumber at the top of their game earns less than forty thousand pounds a year. A teacher starting out earns twenty eight thousand. Average salary for nursing is thirty three thousand. The average salary for the UK is thirty thousand.

It is interesting that ASDA (company picked at random) lists jobs from just over seven pounds an hour. Only graduate positions such as pharmacist are advertised with annual salaries.

I have asked learners what kind of car they want to drive, what type of home do they want to live in. Then I’ve suggested that they find out what kind of job offers the pay that would support their choices. It can be an eye opener for many.

Not everyone is destined for university life. However, there has been a shift in expectations in the last twenty years or so. It seems now to be the prevalent assumption that most young people will at least desire to go. There have been investigations and reports concerning the worrying rise in first class honours degrees. If it is really first class, how is it possible for so many students to achieve them? (I shall refrain from mentioning the norm-referenced curve since it is heresy.)

The real life skills that allow us to be successful members of society are taught in schools but not always recognised as such. Scottish Education’s Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) [not to be confused with Certified Fraud Examiners] aims to enable all young people to become effective contributors, responsible citizens, confident individuals, and successful learners. The traits are interdependent and recognise that learning in school is not the endgame. Wisdom, justice, compassion, integrity: these are written on the mace of the Scottish Parliament, and it is from these that the four capacities in our education system are derived.

1999, and the foundation of the Scottish Parliament, is both a long time ago and no time at all. (Here is not the place to talk about 1707 and the demise of the Parliament of Scotland. It’s all in the name.) 1999 is the blink of an eye in humanity’s history. However, none of the young people we teach have known a world where there wasn’t a Scottish Parliament. Questions in Parliament and First Minister’s Questions are different beasts. Nonetheless, the Scottish Parliament is responsible for where our national education system is. They are not responsible for ‘what’ it is.

It is an inherited system, and one which, according to the RUAE preliminary examination paper at Higher, is out of date. The current examination system is less than perfectly fit for purpose. Sadly, the SQA - undergoing a major overhaul currently - is not dealing with ‘why we examine’ rather focusing on ‘how can we examine better.’

Seneca had wisdom as the principal aim of study, believing that it allows us to be truly free. Perhaps he has a point.

The philosophy of education is Janus-faced. It looks in towards philosophy and outward to education. (That doesn’t tell us anything useful.) There are those who say handwriting shouldn’t have much of an emphasis now since word-processing is de regueur. But writing by hand is how we examine - and how we judge (let’s not pretend otherwise).

In Higher Geography, there are seven different types of question: each has a formula. Learners can be taught, “for this kind of question, answer like this.”

Higher French Directed Writing has two scenarios to choose from, six bullet points to address (one of which has ‘two’ elements - and marks may be lost for not addressing both parts), and the candidate is required to write between a hundred and fifty and a hundred and eighty words. Scenarios can be practiced. Some allowances may be made for inaccurate verb endings if the sense is not lost.

In Higher Engineering Science, a candidate may receive one mark for writing the correct term (elasticity) or one mark for completing an equation correctly. Marks can be accumulated for steps in a mathematical process even if the final answer is incorrect. Here we must have knowledge of content and principles (construction - unified loading; tensile strength; electronic circuitry; etc.), thinking (to understand the problems or scenarios presented), and the mathematical knowledge to be able to work out solutions.

Engineering Science can be seen as relevant - albeit only to some. If your boat is floating, great. And, in the real world, an engineer needs to know how to work out a solution quickly - and don’t forget the budget constraints - otherwise the new A9 dualling will not be ready on time.

But how much of what we learn in schools is that relevant?

Although the Higher English RUAE paper poses some interesting questions, it doesn’t provide answers. It simply vilifies the status quo. But, I know that it is an opinion piece. I can agree or disagree. I can decide how much store to give the author based upon who they are and whether or not I consider they have an agenda. Are they believing this, or are they an agent provocateur? I do not blindly read it as fact.

Are we teaching our students to be so discerning?

We should be.

How the media presents information is hugely significant. Bias and misinformation are tied up with misrepresentation. Freedom to publish is a double edged and mighty pen. And then there’s the socials. I can have a massive world wide following and still be a bigoted idiot. How would you know, if you lack the knowledge and skills to verify my platform?

There’s an Andrew much in the news currently (although his given name at birth was Emery). Former kick-boxer and a short stint on Big Brother, alleged misogynist: incredibly important if such things are measured by column inches, tweets, and shares.

The renovation to the Old Course Bridge at St Andrews has been compared to a DIY patio.

Truth, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. But if I need glasses and don’t wear them, how far can I trust my own judgement?

Our young people are moving into a world that is being created around them. Much like a VR walkthrough, each part of the landscape comes into focus as they look at it. Their education should be shouting this loud.

What young people encounter is changing and will continue to change as they continue to move through the world. Is that letter from the gas company legit? We’re supposed to be getting better at spotting scams on the net; what about the untruths in the real world. If democracy (the common people rule) gave us BJ and the big orange T, it’s only a little better than the society with pres P, isn’t it? Nevertheless, if the former PM is on TV sounding like a blithering idiot, I get to decide if I like his spin on events. I should not dismiss him merely because he is rich and privileged. I am allowed to make up my own mind whether he understands the realities of life for the rest of us or whether he is the epitome of Shakespeare’s fool: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I get to make my judgments from an informed perspective. Can the Kardashian’s aficionados do the same? Do Andrew T’s supporters claim the same? Chairman Mao had some good things to say about education, it doesn’t make him a good man.

In Higher History, learners are taught to evaluate sources, that a secondary source has less empirical value than a primary one, and that the further they get from the original source the more scrutiny needs applied. Chinese Whispers has, through serious academic research, has been shown to be an ineffective and inefficient purveyor of truth. So something that has been tweeted millions of times might be the sky falling or not; Foxy Loxy might just have hit a sweet spot in the social media milieu.

Our learners, then, the citizens- even decision makers - of tomorrow’s society, have to be prepared to take the reins. However, they must know whether they are working a team of eight or a pony and trap. (And few Higher English candidates truly understood the word “archaic!)

Maybe the examination system does need an overhaul; maybe it is no longer fit for purpose; maybe a rethink is required. But I worry that those doing the overhaul are scarcely qualified to do so. I have a few years yet (I hope) before I become an old buffer. Nevertheless, those making the significant decisions about education are not, as I am, in the classroom. “If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath . . .” I am not sure I should be speeding young heroes anywhere. Sassoon was not wrong. Like Owen, one of the tasks he hated was the censoring of letters home. Only so much truth could be shared. And yet, only the troops in the trenches knew that truth. How many livestreams from the trenches would have been required before the whole bloody mess was stopped.

If what we are doing is not eliciting the results we desire, it is what we are doing that needs to change.

A viva is not the same as the thesis is not the same as the dissertation (averaging 80,000 words). For a PhD all are required. But most of our learners need skills for the workplace - from workshop to hospital wards - and unless we furnish them with those skills, and the strategies to decide which skills are needed where, we are failing them.

However, if - through experiences like the Higher prelim - they can be taught to check for understanding, to analyse the impact of the language use, and to evaluate the value and veracity of what they read - and what they hear - we can yet hold our heads high as educators.