I took a look at the UK system of secondary education as a result of listening to an Inspector Morse book-on-tape. I liked what I saw. I am very impressed with the outside, objective, universal examination for credentials. "A" and "O" levels are completely standardized across the entire "public" and state school systems. I know that we are trying to do something similar in this country but I wonder whether we shouldn't take the English approach...your diploma is the business of your school BUT you choose and pursue whatever credentials you are interested in or need for your desired higher or further education and then, you are examined to precisely the same standard as every other student taking your subject by examiners unconnected with your school. Best of all, the credentials can be earned anywhere on earth by qualifying for, and passing, the same set of examinations. The Cambridge certificate means exactly the same thing in Uganda as it means in Ottowa as it means in Liverpool. Contrast that with our high school diplomas! I suppose our AP system is similar (the SATs are NOTHING like the English system; the English actually TEST KNOWLEDGE...what a CONCEPT!) but it is seriously underutilized. comments?
'O' and 'A' levels I was educated in the British comprehensive system and I have taught in the Canadian High school system. The Canadian High School system I believe is not unlike that in the United States. 'O' levels are: (GCE) General Certificate of Education 'A' levels are: (GCE: Advanced) There used to be a certificate called the (CSE) the secondary certificate of education. This was taken by those who were not seen as bright enough to cope with 'O' levels. A grade 'A' pass at CSE was seen as a Grde 'C' pass at 'O' level. However, about 25 years ago CSE and GCE were combined to make the GCSE 'O' level; General Certificate of Secondary Education. There are also 'S' levels (Special Papers) which fall between 'O' and 'A' levels, but these are mainly used to boost the strength of an application to university. there are several boards of education in the UK besides Cambridge that run 'O' 'A' and 'S' levels: Oxford,and The Welsh Joint are but two. However, every year they all get together to make sure that their exams are of equal academic difficulty. Students select their 'O' level subjects at the start the fourth form (14 years old). If they do well enough they take them at the end of the fifth form 15-16 years old. Then 'A' levels are selected, and taken during the fifth,sixth and upper sixth form depending on how able the student is. To gain university entrance one must usually have: seven 'O' levels one of which must be English Languge and the other must be Mathematics (grade 'C' or above) plus two 'A' levels related to the subject of proposed study at university. or five 'O' levels one of which must be English Languge and the other must be Mathematics (grade 'C' or above) plus three 'A' evels related to the subject of proposed study at university. High schools do not enter every student into 'O' and 'A' level exams. Because the fees have to be paid for by the school to the examining board, who set and mark these papers. Thus if the child screws around and does nothing, he or she will leave with nothing. In Canada, Ontario specifically, it has been suggested usually by conservatives that we adopt a similar system. The proposal is usually objected to by teachers and school boards on the following grounds: Canada is to big an area. regional differences in economy require regional variations in curriculum. Fixed exams won't work. Externally marked exams mean that teachers will teach to the exam, and will ignore the broader issues that arise during the educational process. Proponents of standardised testing (amongst whom I count myself despite being a rabid socialist) argue that A standardized test will allow Universities and colleges an objective measure of academic performance. Rather than having to rate individual schools ie 80% from one school is worth 90% from another just a few miles up the road. Secondly it will reduce the tendency of teachers to cheat on behalf of themselves and students. A teacher will not be able to raise marks under pressure from parents or principal. a teacher will not be able to make subjective choices cocious of unconcious coulored by gender, race, religion, sex, social class personal likes dislikes, etc. Thirdly the current system has failure progrmmed into it. If one semestera teacher has a class full of the brilliant and all get very high marks over 80% for exmple, this teacher would have a lot of explaining to do down at the office. Conversely if the teacher has a semester of the brain dead, he or she will not be able to fiddle the result to reflect a bell curve at the end of semester, in order to aviod the heat that would come from the parents and principal by what would be seen as a failure to teach. This last point focuses upon the what is my belief concerning the real fear of teachers concerning externally marked exmas. Which is teachers or others responsible would have to do their jobs and be accountable for massive and consistent failure. Some my point out, rightly, that British 'A' levels are marked on the curve. This is because 'A' levels provide university enterance for students. These places are limited thus they choose the cream of the crop. I dosn't have to be so in North America. Roy Maybery
I think it is better to test ability than to test knowledge, that after all anyone can reproduce. Even a parrot. It is very probable that the academic level of the British secondary education is superior (more demanding) to the American one. But, after university, Americans catch up. Or is there any evidence that British students, for instance, perform better at GRE or GMAT tests (since these are used consistently by American and even British Universities to evaluate academic dexterity)? I don´t think so. I wonder, nevertheless, if there is any study regarding the results of these tests and the country of procedence of the test takers. It would be fascinating. Regards
Yes 'O' levels indeed are knowledge driven though some analytical skill is necessary to achieve outstanding grades. Just as it is so with the rough age equiilent here in Canada 14-15 years old, grade 10 or maybe even 11. However,'A' levels focus on objectives in the higher levels of the cognitive domain such as; Application, Analysis, Sythesis and Evaluation. With this last criteria, Evaluation I am not referring to the grades given by the marker, but to the students ability to evaluate the material with which he or she is working within the confines of the subject of study. British 'A' levels are in essence much the same as the Ontario Academic Credit (grade13) now abandoned by the ministry of ed in this province. The only difference being of course being that 'A' levels are set and marked externally. You are correct I believe in saying that students in the US catch up with those in the UK. I think you are also correct in suggesting that 'A' levels go a bit over the top when it comes down to what is really required in university. I met several students in my first year of university at Leicester who were so burned out with their 'A' levels that they seemed to do nothing but drink too much. However the difficulty of 'A' levels I suspect is more to do with allocating limited university spots than it is to do with maintaining academic standards. Of course in fairness to the British system one should also note that US students spend four years doing their degrees as opposed to the British three years. An extra year for the US or Canadian student that must surely eat into their finances. What I think it really comes down to is being able to test test ability rather than parrot type knowledge. This is a very good point. To address this all an external exam would have to do is pose questions within its text that evaluate the higher domains of learning. Roy Maybery
