One Mark Can Make All The Difference

In my last column for this magazine I spent some time discussing what I believe is the biggest flaw, if not in our education system, then certainly in the assessment system which, these days, plays such a part in it.

For those of you who missed it, the issue centres around the impossibility of deciding on a definitive mark for an examination script, particularly in the humanities; too much of the evaluation is subjective to the examiner. However, grades and grade boundaries rely on examinations being marked with a precision that one mark can make all the difference between an A or B, a 3 or 4 at GCSE. I suggested that removing grades in favour of, say, a percentage would alleviate some of this problem.

The problem with this situation is that isn’t just an academic argument for assessment theorists. Exams and their results impact on the lives of teachers and pupils to a quite horrifying extent. For the former, particularly those working in schools in disadvantaged areas, their jobs might be dependent on examination outcomes. Gone are the days, quite rightly, when teachers could address the proverbial front row of their class and shrug their shoulders if the rest chose to idle their schooldays away. However, now the accountability system has gone too far the other way and senior leaders in school quite literally fear for their jobs should the fates, and overwhelmingly complex factors beyond their control, conspire to prevent their school from making their floor targets. So, school curricula are narrowed, interventions become more and more frequent and anxieties abound when every examination season approaches.

How about the children? Well, there is no denying that exam results have a significant impact on their lives on many levels. For some, it is the passport to the top universities and lives of success and affluence; for others, they are a measure of diligence and co-operation at school which means they are likely to be good employees in jobs that may otherwise be intellectually undemanding. In most cases, however, the occupation that is the ultimate goal has little to do the with the actual content learned in school.

This is the other great unspoken tension in the schooling system. We want pupils to study things such as History, English Literature or Physics because we believe it is good for them – the best that has been thought or said. However, we want them to do well in their History or English exams because then they will go on to get the best university places or the best jobs.

If you ask an employer what skills they deem desirable in graduates however, they are unlikely to mention a deep understanding of the causes of the First World War or the how space and time are related in relativity theory. Employers generally say they want soft skills – creative thinking, the ability to work in a team, self-reliance and reliability. The first sift in most recruitment processes, though, is a brutal rejection of qualifications which aren’t considered to be good enough.

What would really be interesting, and some bluechip companies are moving in the direction of this, would be for employers to put their money where their mouth is and evaluate applicants for jobs in other ways. It isn’t easy, but spending time with candidates and evaluating their suitability for the job, as opposed to relying on their ability to cram for exams which in no way mirror the day to day life of employment, would be a much more useful and egalitarian means of assessing people’s potential for the everchanging world of 21st century employment.