🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <49000@sun.uucp> livesey@sun.uucp (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>	[Quite a lot in defence of the old British education system.]
>
        [Some stuff about replacing O-levels]

>    I have to say that I can't for the life of me find the basis for
>the rather sinister interpretation that a previous poster put on all
>this.   (teaching children to be second class citizens, etc).   It all
>seems like good sense to me.   Any comments?
>
>jon.

The replacement of the traditional O-levels with a more broadly based
examination system is a good idea, and I would see it as a natural extension
to the replacement of a selective by a comprehensive system.
It has nothing to do with teaching children to be second-class citizens
and doesn't really fit in with government ideology, rather it's something
that's been planned for a long time, and the government hasn't got round
to stopping it.

The more sinister plans are the introduction of regular national tests.
As Jon himself admitted in his previous posting, such tests can be subverted
by the different motivations of teachers and pupils (I think we differed on
exactly who motivated who) and by the existence of books coaching you on 
how to pass the tests.

The new system to replace O-levels involves more teacher-assessment and less 
sit-down examination. Unfortunately, I think teacher assessment can be as biased
not more so than blind examinations.

Matthew