Observer letters on grade inflation

Catherine Bennett writes that, unlike their US counterparts, "UK universities are low on dependable side doors", but fails to mention, as do Kynaston and Green in their excellent book on private education, a somewhat dubious but increasingly common  method of getting pupils into our universities  (Americans really pay a bribe for good education? In Britain we`ve got far subtler ways, 17.03.19). Rather than entering pupils for the newly reformed and more rigorous A-levels, examinations described by Ofqual as "national examinations based on content set by the government", schools in the independent sector increasingly prefer Cambridge Assessment`s Pre-U examinations. Set and marked mostly by private school teachers, more lightly regulated than A-levels, without the requirement to follow Ofqual`s "additional rules" which, for example, require comparison with similar qualifications when setting a grade level, and allowed to use pupils` coursework as part of the final assessment, Pre-Us` proportion of A*/A grades is unsurprisingly far higher than that for A-levels. Coursework was seen by Gove as a main reason for public examinations` grade inflation, and recently described by the Ofsted chief inspector to the education select committee as a vehicle for "mark collection"!

The fact that some state schools, no doubt fearful of an Ofsted inspection being over-critical of results, are also by-passing A-levels in this way, suggests that Pre-U exams are an easier option, just like Cambridge Assessment`s IGCSEs. If these exams do not constitute a "dependable side door", I don`t know what does!

Professor Beer of Universities UK is right to warn against politicians "confusing grade inflation with student and teaching improvement" in British universities (Top universities told: cut first-class degrees or be fined, 24.03.19). Tory secretaries of state for education have a habit of questioning any signs of examination results` improvement with a knee-jerk reaction to the right, raising suspicions about the real value of the grades. Michael Gove in 2010 did just that; clearly worried that GCSE and A-level results in state schools were equalling, and in some cases, surpassing those achieved in the private sector, he made changes to the methods of assessment  to increase their "rigour".

       Anyone with any experience in education would have been able to predict the effects of the government`s higher education policy, especially the increases both of unconditional offers and first-class degrees, with universities desperate to get "bums on seats", but ignoring teaching improvements and "students working harder than ever" is typical of Tory myopia. Why is there no indignation from Hinds about the grade inflation which is so obviously apparent in the examinations most private schools now prefer to GCSE and A-levels? 
Cambridge Assessment’s IGCSE and Pre-U examinations both allow pupils’ coursework, which the head of Ofqual recently described to the education select committee as a vehicle for “mark collection”. Could private schools’ increasing preference for Pre-U examinations, rather than A-levels, have something to do with them being more lightly regulated, having no requirement to follow Ofqual’s “additional rules” which, for example, require comparison with similar qualifications when setting a grade level, and being largely set and marked by teachers in the independent sector? 
Defenders of this two-tiered system will claim the high ability of the Pre-U entrants as the reason, but the British public have been fed the right-wing propaganda that private school pupils are brighter for long enough. If they really have more ability, why enter them for the easier option in the first place?

Private schools playing the system

Zoe Williams could have strengthened her argument about the quality of students entering Oxbridge by mentioning the increased use by private schools of Pre-U examinations instead of the newly-reformed and more rigorous A-Levels (The US admissions scandal: have any mediocre students ever ended up at Oxbridge? 13/03/19) Sadly, the number of "cavalier and uninspiring students" may have been increased because of these lightly-regulated examinations, marked and set mostly by independent school teachers, allowed to include coursework as part of their final assessment, and with a much higher proportion than A-levels of A*/A grades, which Oxbridge require. Goodness knows how many state school pupils with real ability and potential have been denied a place by students following the Toby Young/Boris Johnson routes!

The fact, as John Harris says, that "Etonians and the alumni of other "top" private schools are still at the core of British right-wing politics" is proof of the "breezy confidence" which an education in the independent sector guarantees (Britain`s Brexit crisis is rooted in the power of our public schools, 18/03/19). It is strange, then, that the schools themselves do not possess the confidence to use the same public examinations, newly reformed and now more rigorous than previously, as state schools do. The preference to enter their year 11 pupils for Cambridge Assessment`s IGCSE and year 13s for the same awarding body`s Pre-U examinations, which use coursework as part of their final assessment, is increasing. The head of Eton admitted to the education select committee late in 2017 that seven of his staff were involved in the marking or setting of Pre-U exams!

 One would have thought, with all the advantages like "tiny class sizes" private schools possess, and without the problems caused by government underfunding which hinder the education of thousands of state school pupils aiming for university places, private schools would have relished the possibility of their A-level results being far superior to those of the rest. Instead they increasingly opt for what are widely regarded as easier options. The answer has to be something Harris ignored, immediate legislation making the highly regulated A-levels and BTECs the only entry qualifications for British universities.

According to Michael Pyke, "the 7% who attend private schools account for around 30% of A-level grades" (Letters, 21/03/19). Does he mean actual A-levels, the highly-regulated examinations described by Ofqual as "national qualifications based on content set by the government", or does he include in his calculations the ones set by Cambridge Assessment? These Pre-U examinations, mostly marked and set by teachers in the independent sector, including some from Eton, are more lightly regulated, allow pupils` coursework to be included in the final assessment, and unsurprisingly have a higher proportion of A*/A grades.

  I can`t be the only Guardian reader who would like to know the answer!

Tories` arrogance evident in education policies

Education secretaries of state, as your editorial states, are indeed "transient beings who move on before the extent of their incompetence is fully revealed", and Hinds`s refusal is not only an example of typical Tory cowardice, but also an acknowledgment that his tenure will be short-lived (Editorial, 08/03/19). Having no idea or willingness of how to tackle the teacher recruitment crisis, and no moral compass to admit the effects of underfunding, Hinds will rightly be never taking up more than one sentence in any Education History text-book.

   What is particularly galling about Tory education policies since 2010 has been the idea that imposing "a rigidly structured curriculum, certain kinds of learning and precisely defined bodies of knowledge " is the key to "shaping young minds". Strangely, those "young minds" do not belong to children whose parents are rich enough to pay for schools in the independent sector, where the inspection system is nothing like as rigorous as the one Ofsted imposes on the state sector. In private schools there is more freedom to teach what is thought suitable, and crucially permission to move away from GCSE and A-levels to examinations which have far more A*/A grades per entry, and are allowed to include coursework as part of the assessment process. Their alternative to A-levels, like the option preferred to GCSE, is run by Cambridge Assessment, and the exams set and marked mostly by teachers in the private sector, and with less regulations than everyone else`s traditional route to university.

       Labour`s manifesto will probably include introducing VAT on school fees and tightening up the rules for charitable status eligibility, but they could add independent schools to Ofsted`s remit, and insist all rules applying to state schools have to be followed in the private sector as well. A-levels and BTecs should be the only qualifications acceptable for UK university entrance!

Solution to obscene levels of pay

The fact that over 3,500 UK-based bankers earn over a million euros, at a time when callous austerity policies are still causing hardship, and the numbers of homeless and food bank users increase daily, is appalling (More than 3500 UK bankers paid 1m euros a year, says EU report, 12/03/19). With their average pay over two million euros, "skewed by huge payouts at the top", it is clear nothing has been done since the crash of 2008-9, either to remedy the obscene payments or create a "socially useful banking industry", largely because the Tory governments have obviously been quite happy with the situation.

      Relying on the highly-paid`s sense of fairness, or even on their embarrassment, doesn`t have any effect, so an obvious solution is to raise taxation. Labour has promised to increase top income tax levels for those earning over £123,000 to 50%, but this will only encourage bankers and their ilk to demand more. As a temporary measure, to prevent inequality increasing further, perhaps taxes are in need of further incremental increases, reaching 95% when income goes over £1m, and 100% over £2m? The right-wing`s invention, the Laffer Curve, no longer has economists` support, whilst the ideas that high taxes both decrease aspiration, and encourage the rich to emigrate, are Tory party propaganda.

 If a fair society is ever to be achieved in the UK, drastic measures have to be taken, and where better to start than with tax?

Independent Group`s Conservative policies

The Star`s editorial rightly contrasts McDonnell`s bold pledges with the rebel MPs` claims that "politics is broken" (Morning Star,11/03/19). The Independent Group say they will offer voters a new option at the centre ground of British politics, but it would be helpful for voters to know exactly what the policies of these 11 MPs were, rather than being repeatedly told how "disillusioned" we all apparently are with "broken political parties. If those policies were three elevenths Conservative and eight elevenths moderate Labour, one would assume this would that mean they supported privatisation, austerity and obscene payment for CEOs, whilst keeping taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations ridiculously low, education and health underfunded, and maintaining the present minimum wage which is way below an actual living wage. Do they care that pupils educated privately can avoid the newly-reformed and more rigorous GCSE and A-level examinations on their road to university, or is it their privilege as the offspring of wealthy parents, as so many like-minded Mandelson supporters clearly think?

  The eleven MPs are clearly against any state control of railways and utilities, a tax regime which might actually begin to address the problem of inequality, and increased regulation of the financial and rental sectors. I can`t imagine they object to the UK government selling arms to the Saudis, even though their obvious effect is to create a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, or that they would support an immigration policy which welcomed asylum seekers.

    In fact, the policies of the Independent Group are likely to prove to be eleven elevenths moderate Conservative, with some hopes of winning some Tory seats perhaps, but no hope of having any significant impact electorally. They do not hold a centrist position politically as they claim, but offer a right-wing option, which the country neither wants nor needs

Beatles Brexit

Ask me why there should be a Beatles Brexit. I`ve got a feeling Theresa May`s mantra is "I don`t want to spoil the party", because she`s a woman whose rule is not a second time. Corbyn, meanwhile, thinks things are getting better with Chuka joining with Anna; all that`s needed is for the party to come together. 

Letter on Labour`s education priority policies

The report on the Commons debate on education funding highlighted a point that could be very useful for the Labour party in the next election (Morning Star, 04/03/19). Mary Bousted of the NEU hit the nail on the head when she said that no-one involved in school education and no parents were either "impressed or fooled by the mantra of Theresa May`s front-bench that there is no crisis" in state education. Of course, there is, everyone knows it, but, despite the noble efforts of Angela Rayner, Labour is not capitalising on it, sufficiently. A change in priorities is required! The media are clearly not interested in lifelong learning, but a few speeches from Corbyn and McDonnell on how Labour would

deal with schools` problems might actually get some publicity.

     This has to be electorally sensible; a large proportion of voters have either recently left schools themselves, and seen first-hand how austerity cuts affected their prospects, or are intending or actual parents. A Labour government`s education department would be very busy, with not only the effects of Tory cuts having to be dealt with, but those of Gove`s mishandling of school assessment as well. Then there is the problem of social mobility and the way private schools are playing the exam system by their pupils taking IGCSE and Pre-U exams instead of the newly-reformed and more rigorous GCSE and A-levels.

 So much to do, and so much depending on how the electorate see Labour`s education policies. Ending the crises in state schools has to be number ! priority!

Rule by basketcase!

Just recently we`ve had Tory ideas to end the teacher recruitment crisis with job-sharing, to solve the impending ferry crisis with contracts with a firm with no ferries, and now we have Gavin Williamson! In case anyone is still not convinced the country is being run by ministers vying to, as a Labour wit put it, "rewrite the textbook for incompetence", Williamson wants to deploy "hard power against those who flaunt international law" (Williamson`s tough talk is a mad delusion, 12/02/19). In order to achieve this, he apparently intends to convert second-hand passenger ferries into warships. Whilst many will think this preferable to his last idea of mounting machine-guns on tractors, many more will worry that he hasn`t already bought the ferries from Seaborne Freight!

TIG eating at Nando`s

As Zoe Williams says, "eating out has always been vexed territory for politicians", but the problem with the Independent Group choosing Nando`s is not so much them showing how down-with-the-people they really are, but that they expect voters to be somehow impressed (A cheeky Nando`s and a sausage roll: how politicians use food to prove their normal, 27/02/19). Do they really expect us to believe that this is the sort of thing they get up to whenever time allows. The fact that these ex-Labour MPs, elected to support the 2017 manifesto, want their unity with Tory MPs who supported the callous austerity policies to be widely reported is bad enough, but then to take voters for mugs really does beggar belief.

     If  the result of their joint negotiating so far is to continue with their own version of the Tory "all-in-it-together" nonsense, they really will deserve all the electoral embarrassment that is undoubtedly heading their way!

Umunna`s principles?

Chuka Umunna has every right to be "fiercely critical" about  MPs who are "fundamentally dishonest" with their constituents about the effects of immigration, but strangely myopic when it comes to his own "economy with the truth" (Chuka Umunna: I never felt totally comfortable in the Labour party, 02/02/19). What has he been telling the voters in "his south London patch"? Did he tell them how "uncomfortable" he was with recent Labour manifestos, the ones pledging to increase taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, and to end the callous austerity policies, to which some of his new colleagues in the Independent Group, gave their wholehearted support? Should he not have admitted to disagreeing with the return to state ownership of railways and utilities, and the rest of the more left-wing policies in the 2017 manifesto?

   In fact, since 2010 Umunna has been  getting himself elected on the back of the Labour party`s policies with which he fundamentally disagreed, A defection nine years ago would have been far more honest, principled and acceptable! When the Independent Group is confined in a few years to the dustbin of history, as it most surely will be, no doubt Mr Umunna will reappear in the party to which he is most closely suited, vying with the likes of Hammond, Hunt and Johnson for its leadership!