Posted on by Dr James Shea

The Parnassian Phoenix and the GCSE Language Carpet

pexels-photo-164446.jpeg

If you recognise words in that headline, there’s a reason. It’s an intertextual reference to Edith Nesbit’s Phoenix and the Carpet combined with an obscure movement in reaction to Romanticism used as an adjective in a pejorative sense. It then takes the GCSE Language and suggests it is on the floor, on the carpet, knocked down by some unknown force which I am about to expound upon. Or perhaps the carpet is the new GCSE Language itself, exciting and new at first, but once the Phoenix makes it a magic carpet it starts to get frayed with the children constantly having adventures with and on it, wearing it out.

I am referring to the nonsensical GCSE Language exam revision that we are seeing in a pseudo norm referenced scramble to meet the criteria in a better way than around 55% of one’s national peers. Children learning ever more complex and obscure language devices to better impress the examiner. I remember studying Parnassianism at university, its weakness and how well that resonated with me as a reader. In a nutshell, the surface of the Parnassian text is so ornate, so layered with technical features, that it obscures the actual meaning the text is trying to convey to the reader due to an opaque and impenetrable layer of verbosity. Hopkins uses it to describe competent but uninspired poetry.

I’m not alone. The Fake Headteacher posted a tweet which provoked a nerve:

Fake Headteacher

This started a debate partly inspired by OFSTED’s conversion to machine learning. Is the future of English Language GCSE marking one where a machine is counting the techniques? Is this what good writing now looks like?

Sophie and Joe

@_MissieBee and @joenutt_author both raise really important points. In a modern world of fake news and bot authors, we are not developing original authors. We are in effect developing bot authors. Writers whose work can be read by bots with no recognition of thought and ideas. How we can get them to appreciate the new A02 phrase from AQA ‘effects of writer’s methods to create meanings’ over in GCSE Literature if we are not doing the same in GCSE Language?

Posted on by Dr James Shea · 1 Comment

Double or Quits: Triple Science and the Ethical Dilemma

cube-six-gambling-play-37524.jpeg

It is a straight forward choice isn’t it? If you intend to do sciences at A level and beyond you should be doing triple science: that holy trinity of Physics, Biology and Chemistry. If you don’t, you should do double science. Right? Well, there are some ethical points to consider.

If you want the best outcomes, grade 7-9s in your science subjects, then don’t forget there are only so many to go around give or take a couple of percent. Despite OFQUAL’s constant assurances that we have not returned to norm referencing, they are still adjusting the grade boundaries to ensure that results are broadly similar from year to year. Guess where all those top setters Grade 7-9s are? Those pupils benefitting from value added top set status,private coaching and determined aspirations are all in triple science! Looks like a blood bath for those top grades over there. If you are thinking of trying to manipulate your Progress 8 outcomes what might you put your pupils in for? Double Science of course! However, you should not be doing what’s best for the school should you – it should be what’s best for the pupil, right? And if that means cramming three subjects into the same amount of subject time as two subjects then so be it.

Yes – three subjects spread over the same time as two subjects. You might ask questions: what exactly are they learning in triple science that they are not learning in double science and is it really the best preparation for A level sciences and science in higher education? What about those who do double science but would be just as good for A level as the potential Year 8 (options are earlier every year) or year 9 pupils sitting there and thinking about their options. Would not exposure to some triple content  put you at an unfair advantage over your peer who completed double science? I hear the “I told you so. They are not up to A-Level” – well if they had a second bite of the cherry they may have been fine!

Speaking at the 2018 ASE conference, Amanda Spielman said some schools are wasting talent by putting the choice of triple science and A-level  in the hands of attainment and not aspirations. Curriculum or attainment – what should be the driver of choice?