Apparently, exams are getting easier. What a nightmare! It's funny as well, you know, because my lovely wife has sat her A2 exams this year. She's incredibly intelligent, having got three offers to do Dentistry (her first choice is King's College London, hence my new location!), and has worked her arse off every day to do the absolute best she can do - often working for 6, sometimes up to 8 hours a day.
I haven't seen her much since she started her A levels due to the incredible effort she has put into everything, which is fine - schoolwork comes first. What is surprising, however, is the news that all the exams in this country are ridiculously easy - thanks for that one, Michael Gove.
In order to redress the balance and return to the golden age of impossible exams, the impressively unintelligent Mr Gove has decided that the best thing to do is reintroduce O Levels and CSEs (Certificate of Secondary Education). For those not in the know, O Levels and CSEs were abolished (ironically by the Tories) in 1988 and replaced with modern GCSEs.
So what's the difference? Traditionally, O Levels were sat by more capable students, who you'd probably expect to achieve grades A* - B in equivalent GCSEs, and CSEs where sat by not-so-academic students, broadly equivalent to the Foundation tier in modern GCSEs where the highest achievable grade is a C.
So far, so similar. It is a blatantly tiered system, which is similar to most GCSEs which offer at least 2 tiers, higher (A* - C) and foundation (C - G), which Mathematics offering a mid-way Intermediate tier (B - E). The difference, however, is in the representation - if someone sat a foundation maths paper and achieved a C, there is nowhere on the GCSE certificate that specifically states it was foundation tier, as only the subject and grade are noted. That means that their C grade is technically equal with someone like me who sat the higher tier and also achieved a C, which is probably about right. The point is, that person who sat the foundation tier is not disadvantaged because of it and, if anything, it gives them a better chance at doing well as the paper is inline with their abilities.
Under the proposed system, children would be sorted into the O Level/CSE groups at 14. Currently, entries for tiered exams can be amended at any point - if a child suddenly starts pulling their socks up and does really well in maths, they might be bumped up from intermediate to higher to give them a better chance of fully realising their potential. With the proposed divide at 14, kids in the CSE groups wouldn't have a chance of transferring to the O level as they would be stuck on their particular course. Undoubtedly, those with CSEs would be shut out from the top Russell Group universities like Oxbridge et al, and university would once again be reseved for the elite. CSE students would be declaring on their CVs that their qualifications were CSEs and not O levels, which could further disadvantage them work-wise.
I don't know why I was so shocked to hear about this to be honest, as it really is typical Tory policy - university for the rich, menial jobs for the poor. Keep the poor squashed down as far as possible to let the privately educated 'cream of the crop' claim their rightful places at Oxford and Cambridge. Coming from the man who decided that every school needed bibles (newsflash: the unbelievably annoying Gideons already have youth indoctrination covered, thanks), it is extremely unsurprising to hear him dismissing modern qualifications as crap in favour of the elite public schools that put him where he is today.
If these plans go ahead, thousands of children will be disadvantaged and pushed further into poverty. Education is a right, not a privilege, and kids in this country deserve to be given a chance to grow into their studies and do well. We should be praising our high achieving students for working hard and doing a damn good job, not saying 'of course you did well - that exam was easy!'.
To all the candidates in this country who have finished or are sitting their GCSEs or AS/A2 levels at the moment, I wish you all the best of luck. Do yourselves a favour and ignore the deluge of stupid politicians whining about exam standards; enjoy the result of your hard work and let them bleat on with themselves. One day we might even have intelligent people running this country; stranger things have happened.
Sunday 24 June 2012
Equality Matters
There has been a lot of talk in the past few months about the 'gay marriage' issue (or equal marriage, as it should be known), and especially in the past week after that wonderfully progressive institution, the Church of England, decided to stick it's withered old oar into the debate.
I am one of the lucky ones, I tell myself. I have a civil partnership, which wasn't possible when me and my now-wife first started seeing each other as teenagers. We have legal rights akin to heterosexual married couples; there are no differences in terms of tax or inheritance that I know of, and we have the right to adopt and raise children with the protection of the state. There are people in American states who have no legal rights because they can't marry their partners and, worst of all, many people around the world who are persecuted and even killed for who they are and who they love.
All of the above are relevant points and, like I say, I feel lucky to be in the situation that I am in; but just because we have come this far doesn't mean there isn't more to be done. 'Separate but equal' still rings true in this country at the end of the day, and while some may say that words and semantics don't matter, I'd argue that they do.
To settle at this point would be akin to complacency. Do we accept that yes, we can have legal partnerships, but to call it a marriage is technically incorrect? Do we sit down and be thankful for the fact that we have civil partnerships or do we stretch that little bit further and ask for what we deserve - complete equality in the eyes of the law? Calling gay marriages 'civil partnerships' tells the world that we are still separate from the heteronormative values accepted by wider society. At best, it says that Britain are willing to be more progressive; at worst, it highlights that we are not like married couples and effectively appeases the aims of the 'militant gay agenda' as I have sometimes heard it called.
As far as the various religious organisations are concerned, I would also argue that marriage is nothing to do with religion. Marriage is a civil right - straight couples who hold any beliefs, religious or atheist, can get married at a registry office. People who have been divorced, who have been excommunicated, who are of every race on this planet can get married at a registry office. The only difference between me and these people is my sexual orientation. There is no valid argument against gay people being married - it is not illegal or immoral, does not lead to bestiality, paedophilia or incest. There is no proof to support the terrified voices shouting that equal marriage undermines the traditional family or heterosexual marriages; the only thing it undermines is the bigoted, outdated religious establishment that still has an inexplicable sway on Britain's politicians.
I see arguments against equal marriage and feel like an outsider looking in. I haven't done anything wrong; I work hard to support me and my wife and pay my taxes just like straight couples do. I give what is expected to this country and support it when I can, as does my wife. I am marginalised for being who I am and I cannot stand it - all I can think when I see this sort of prejudice on my TV before I leave for work is "what have I done to make you feel this way?". I simply cannot understand it, and I never will.
At a time where Britain lies in the murky mires of extreme Conservatism, I humbly ask our politicians not to think of equal marriage as a blight on society, but as a way of helping people like me feeling more like a part of things, like we matter. I ask that our Prime Minister fuel progress by allowing me the privilege of a marriage certificate - and for those MPs who would vote against it, just remember that this is not about policy; this is about tolerance, progression and, above all, people.
I don't want to destroy anyone else's marriage; I'd just, for once, like my relationship to be like everybody else's, and I don't think that's too much to ask.
I am one of the lucky ones, I tell myself. I have a civil partnership, which wasn't possible when me and my now-wife first started seeing each other as teenagers. We have legal rights akin to heterosexual married couples; there are no differences in terms of tax or inheritance that I know of, and we have the right to adopt and raise children with the protection of the state. There are people in American states who have no legal rights because they can't marry their partners and, worst of all, many people around the world who are persecuted and even killed for who they are and who they love.
All of the above are relevant points and, like I say, I feel lucky to be in the situation that I am in; but just because we have come this far doesn't mean there isn't more to be done. 'Separate but equal' still rings true in this country at the end of the day, and while some may say that words and semantics don't matter, I'd argue that they do.
To settle at this point would be akin to complacency. Do we accept that yes, we can have legal partnerships, but to call it a marriage is technically incorrect? Do we sit down and be thankful for the fact that we have civil partnerships or do we stretch that little bit further and ask for what we deserve - complete equality in the eyes of the law? Calling gay marriages 'civil partnerships' tells the world that we are still separate from the heteronormative values accepted by wider society. At best, it says that Britain are willing to be more progressive; at worst, it highlights that we are not like married couples and effectively appeases the aims of the 'militant gay agenda' as I have sometimes heard it called.
As far as the various religious organisations are concerned, I would also argue that marriage is nothing to do with religion. Marriage is a civil right - straight couples who hold any beliefs, religious or atheist, can get married at a registry office. People who have been divorced, who have been excommunicated, who are of every race on this planet can get married at a registry office. The only difference between me and these people is my sexual orientation. There is no valid argument against gay people being married - it is not illegal or immoral, does not lead to bestiality, paedophilia or incest. There is no proof to support the terrified voices shouting that equal marriage undermines the traditional family or heterosexual marriages; the only thing it undermines is the bigoted, outdated religious establishment that still has an inexplicable sway on Britain's politicians.
I see arguments against equal marriage and feel like an outsider looking in. I haven't done anything wrong; I work hard to support me and my wife and pay my taxes just like straight couples do. I give what is expected to this country and support it when I can, as does my wife. I am marginalised for being who I am and I cannot stand it - all I can think when I see this sort of prejudice on my TV before I leave for work is "what have I done to make you feel this way?". I simply cannot understand it, and I never will.
At a time where Britain lies in the murky mires of extreme Conservatism, I humbly ask our politicians not to think of equal marriage as a blight on society, but as a way of helping people like me feeling more like a part of things, like we matter. I ask that our Prime Minister fuel progress by allowing me the privilege of a marriage certificate - and for those MPs who would vote against it, just remember that this is not about policy; this is about tolerance, progression and, above all, people.
I don't want to destroy anyone else's marriage; I'd just, for once, like my relationship to be like everybody else's, and I don't think that's too much to ask.
A Change of Scenery
Hello internets! It's been a while since we last spoke...nearly 4 months I think? LOL.
This means, of course, that I have a few long blog posts I've been holding for a while now. I've been out of the loop as I've moved (and am still without proper internet - sorry, person who's internet I'm hijacking, but Y U HAVE NO PASSWORD?!) - I have a fabulous new job, having moved down to North London at the beginning of May, and my hopes are high for the missus to be starting a Dentistry course at Kings College London in September/October, depending of course on her A2 level results. Fingers crossed!!
So, without further ado, I shall start processing my many and varied thoughts to deposit into my virtual Jam Jars once again. Before we get to the opinion stuff, here is something unequivocally wonderful and cute - this is an absolute fact. You're welcome.
This means, of course, that I have a few long blog posts I've been holding for a while now. I've been out of the loop as I've moved (and am still without proper internet - sorry, person who's internet I'm hijacking, but Y U HAVE NO PASSWORD?!) - I have a fabulous new job, having moved down to North London at the beginning of May, and my hopes are high for the missus to be starting a Dentistry course at Kings College London in September/October, depending of course on her A2 level results. Fingers crossed!!
So, without further ado, I shall start processing my many and varied thoughts to deposit into my virtual Jam Jars once again. Before we get to the opinion stuff, here is something unequivocally wonderful and cute - this is an absolute fact. You're welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)