This is really just a test to see that it all works as it should. Some initial thoughts.......
Does assessment and measuring performance hamper learning????
Schools are measured based on pupil performance at GCSE, A Level etc... As a result schools are under a whole lot of pressure to perform (get the grades out of the students), which in itself is wrong. Shouldn't we as educators be wanting to educate students? to give them a thirst for knowledge? to help them achieve THEIR potential? It seems we as educators may want to do that but are potentially driven more by the need to get above a certain percentage of A*-Cs. I digress!
Schools are under pressure to perform - teachers are therefore under pressure to perform (lessons can become exam driven) - kids are therefore under pressure to perform (get stressed, turned off because they are bored/ anxious/ not interested in the subject/ don't see the point because they don't want to do that subject) - teachers get cross/ stressed and therefore put more pressure on students - pupils get more stressed and back away even more - teachers get more .......
I could go on but I think we all understand what I'm getting at! If schools weren't measured on the number of A*-C then perhaps there would not be so much need to constantly assess in a test format. Perhaps lessons would become more pupil driven and therefore lessons would become more engaging, which hopefully means students would want to learn. If you could afford to go off piste and go into greater detail on a topic then perhaps we would inspire students to do some indepenedent research, which may encourage them to study further. If lessons were more about 'how' are we going to learn this and 'why' is this useful to you as an individual, then perhaps students would learn better and want to learn more.
If the brain values emotions more than higher order thinking and learners make emotional connections when there is a purpose to the subject that they have set, then surely our learners should be interviewed about their ambitions, strengths, desires and abilities (to do or not to do) before they are told that they have to do GCSEs in certain subjects?
I have lots of other questions, some rhetorical, some not. I do just feel that the education system is trying to be lots of different things and perhaps the current model is not what is best for everybody.
Why one state school and not different types that are aimed at different types of learners with different strengths?
Why at least 3LOP?
Why is English and Maths so important when not every child will need either subject (in the way they are studied for GCSE)?
Since learning is a different thing for different people at different times, should there be one size fits all?
