Less than three weeks ago I wrote a post about ‘closing schools’. I concluded by saying that:
‘We are better equipped to deal with unforeseen events these days, whether fire, floods or pestilence; but only if we plan for them.’
Last night, I was talking live on a local radio station when the news about school closures was being announced. I was immediately struck by the very lack of planning I had suggested was needed. Obviously, no announcement was made about the consequences for the examination system and the knock-on effects about entry to higher education this autumn. True, that doesn’t need to be solved immediately, but it is a major worry for a group of young people and their parents.
Of more concern, not least in rural areas and other locations with small schools, was the statement about children falling into two groups: those of key workers and those regarded as ‘vulnerable’.
With budgets devolved to schools, decisions the education of children in these groups may have to be made at the level of the school site. Firstly, there needs to be agreement of those actually falling into each category. Secondly, for small schools, what happens if all the staff are either off sick or self-isolating: who takes responsibility? Clearly, MATs can handle decisions across their family of schools, if the finding agreement allows. But what of other schools?
My initial reaction, live on local radio, was to call for a strategic group in the local area formed from the Anglican and Roman Catholic diocese and arch-diocese, the largest Multi-Academy Trusts in the area and the local authority.
The local authority can coordinate transport and special needs and work with the other groups on ensuring a skeleton of schools are able to open, even if staff are asked to move schools. There is no point in every small rural primary school staying open for just one or two children, unless it can also in those circumstances take other children as well.
This is where the lack of planning ahead in a society dedicated to individual freedom and choice has created a set of questions we are ill-equipped as a society to answer. Is it right for government just to dump the problem on its citizens, or should it take a more interventionist approach: especially to ‘so called public services’? It is interesting that in transport the approach to services in London by the Mayor seems much more coordinated.
Perhaps this crisis will finally bring home to policy-makers the need for a coherent middle tier in education, able to do more than arrange school transport and adjudicate on school offers.
Faced with the prospect of schools being closed until September, and the possible default of some schools in the private sector as they lose their summer term fee income, there needs to be some coherent planning, both for the closure and an orderly return to a fully functioning sector. You only have to search back through this blog to know how I feel we might move forward.
John Howson 
The cancellation of GCSEs and A levels brings home the dangers of relying on sudden-death, end-of-course exams. This has always been true for pupils who are ill or suffering from a family crisis but now it is true for all.
The cancellation of Sats is welcome – they are of no educational value. The cancellation of GCSEs could mean (a) certificates based on teacher assessment, eg mock exams, or (b) sitting the exams in the Autumn (not ideal). The cancellation of A levels could also mean pupils relying on teacher assessment although I heard on radio this morning that universities would honour provisional offers. University degrees also could be awarded on their continual assessment marks.
In the long term, the crisis should result in an complete overhaul of the exam system: less reliance on so many exams at 16 with ongoing assessment (possibly externally moderated) for core subjects and moving towards graduation at 18 via multiple routes.
Janet,
Bring back Mode 3s and create qualification for chartered examiner permitted to oversee in-school marking. In the 1990s at Oxford Brookes we abolished all examinations for Education Students. Made more work for lecturers, but didn’t seem to impair learning of the students. If anything, it helped motivate those near grade boundaries.
Never has any complaints from either external examiners or elsewhere in the university.
John
The cancellation of examinations may well be unavoidable. Whatever system the Government develops to produce “qualifications”, the current Y11s and Y13s (the class of 2020) will be tainted. They will be the cohort that do not have real qualifications. Can society be sure that HR departments will treat the class of 2020 fairly? I can only hope the Government are much cleverer than me in coming up with a solution because I have thought about this and cannot see around this cohort being “branded”. I am sure the students will be thinking along the same lines as myself.
Frank,
Good to hear from you. We must all do our best to prevent this happening. The first and second use of these ‘qualifications’ probalby matter most. After that, experience and other factors may be more important. Thus, if you have a degree, how much do employers worry about A levels, Although, that said, teaching requires minimum pass levels in some GCSE subjects, so there might be a need for some retakes.
John
Will be interesting to see what the exam boards do with the grades supplied by the schools. Will the trend for norm referencing continue? I suspect it will. In which case someone needs to tell the students its not what you have achieved in school, but what others have achieved that gives you your final grade.
Frank,
Agree. Gaming the system is still possible with norm referencing, just select your subject.