Tests don’t hold all the answers

Daniel Mann

Image © Mackius

A-levels, GCSEs, GCEs, Highers, Standard Grades, 11-plus, and SATs. Comprehensives, key stages, and grammars. Sixth form, primary, secondary, and reception. What does it all mean, what is the point, and most importantly, why do several acronyms and how one performs on them determine the course of one’s life?

Each of the acronyms above represent either a standardized test itself, or something that is determined by standardized test. A-levels are often the sole factor where one goes to university, GCSEs the sole factor in determining if and where one goes to sixth form, and in several places, one test an the early age of eleven years old determines the outcome of two more standardized tests by determining the quality of education that one receives.

Ostensibly, the purpose of standardized testing is to determine what educational stream a child should be put into, as well as determining how successful he or she is likely to be. The issue that arises here is one of educational diversity. No two people are exactly alike and, as such, no two people learn in the same way. Some are excellent in a testing situation while others perform better in a practical assessment than an exam. Education and testing is an issue which the Labour Party has historically been indecisive on, having overseen the implementation of the Tripartite System – whose sole determinant was the 11 plus to making plans to eliminate state grammar schools.

In opposition, it is incumbent upon the Labour Party to set out a clear, concise and workable education manifesto, especially having seen the effects of such Coalition-driven legislation such as the Academies Bill. The answer is not to do away with standardized testing in its entirety, but it is not practical nor is it fair to put an emphasis on testing above all else and also to attempt to stream children at the age of 11 as is done in several local authorities with, in many cases, no chance for reassessment at a later age.

Read more of this post


Would you trust Michael Gove with your child?


Image © Regional Cabinet

Mathew Hulbert

Other than national security and health, there is nothing more important than the education of our people.

It is the area of policy with which I care most about.


Because, at its best, a good education can open up a whole world of opportunities.

It can be the great leveller.

It can enable young people who, in terms of their background, have not had many chances or opportunities to shine and show that they are just as capable of great achievements as those born with rather more privilege, sometimes even more so.

That was the laudable aim of comprehensive education, when it was created under the excellent leadership of Shirley Williams (then Labour Secretary of State for Education, now, of course, a leading Liberal Democrat Peer).

So, why is this Government seemingly in favour of turning this all on its head?

Can that possibly be a good thing?

Is the future of our education system now only in the hands of the right-wing ideologue Michael Gove?

And where is the Lib Dem influence in it all?

Read more of this post