Transcript
Speaker: So welcome back to the fifth episode of the debatable discussion podcast.
Speaker: Today, we're going to be talking about something which, well, hopefully most of our listeners would have experienced.
Speaker: And this is education.
Speaker: Now, what is the purpose of education and how best to measure someone's understanding and knowledge?
Speaker: Is standardized testing the best option?
Speaker: I guess we're going to discuss that later.
Speaker: But first, let's talk about the purpose of education.
Speaker: What is education actually supposed to do?
Speaker: So education is literally just the transfer or transmission of knowledge and skills.
Speaker: So as you see in a formal setting, such as a school, one person teaches someone and transfers knowledge about a subject to another person.
Speaker: Traditionally, this is tested through something called standardized testing, which we'll touch on more in a second or two.
Speaker: But, you know, we also have things like coursework or projects which can be used to assess effectively how well you've been able to retain and know this knowledge.
Speaker: Education can happen in a formal setting, such as a school, or a non-formal setting.
Speaker: And you have many schools across the UK which do things like outdoor learning, more of nowadays.
Speaker: This is sort of quite a progressive, modern way of transferring this knowledge in a more progressive environment.
Speaker: But we'll firstly touch on standardized testing.
Speaker: So, Diane, can you please explain what it is and why there are some sort of issues with it?
Speaker: Yeah, so it's, you know, for example, your GCSEs, A-levels, and if you're from other countries, IB, the SAT, and other tests, they're basically tests which everyone in the country sits at the same time or for the same period of time.
Speaker: So it's a two-hour paper, everyone sits the same paper, same questions, and it's supposed to make testing very fair and to be an easy way to compare.
Speaker: Okay, these are the best students, these are the worst students, because it's the same test.
Speaker: However, there are some issues with it.
Speaker: For example, are they really fair?
Speaker: Are they really standard?
Speaker: And do they actually test understanding?
Speaker: So yes, I think these are the biggest questions.
Speaker: It's very difficult to test understanding because in the United Kingdom, you have your GCSEs and these tests are effectively how well you retain and can write to your knowledge.
Speaker: And this is an issue seen with a lot of standardized testing.
Speaker: It's hard to really sort of test intelligence and not just how well you can learn and write out some facts or key information.
Speaker: But I think the most interesting, most valuable part of a standardized test
Speaker: is that it's a reliable comparison between students.
Speaker: So you can directly say this student is effectively smarter or knows more about this topic than the other.
Speaker: Whereas this is sort of harder to do with, let's say, a project, because with a project, you can do a project on a different thing, something that is perhaps easier.
Speaker: But with a standardised test, everyone, they're under the same pressure, under the same circumstances, and they write the same questions.
Speaker: What other issues do you think there are with standardized testing?
Speaker: I mean, I would, for example, I would not say it's really that black and white by making the comparison easier because there are some factors which can come to the advantage of an individual.
Speaker: For example, if someone types in an exam, we know this, people type in the exams, they tend to get higher marks, especially in history, RS, English, because it's easier to read.
Speaker: if you have really bad handwriting and the teachers are struggling and spending time trying to figure out what you're actually saying, you are probably going to lose marks, although your ideas might be better.
Speaker: Extra time as well.
Speaker: I'm not saying people don't need extra time.
Speaker: I'm saying it's just the fact that you need to bring in considerations perhaps means the test itself is not fair.
Speaker: And also, you know, it's,
Speaker: my main issue with it is that it doesn't actually test any of it doesn't test the course it tests a part of the course which you might know better you might know worse um a exam question could come up that is literally about a single word and you don't know that word then you lose four or five marks in an exam could be the difference between an eight and a nine seven and an eight and also i know a lot of people who just
Speaker: learn Mark seems all day long.
Speaker: And is that really understanding?
Speaker: How many people, John, do you actually think know the difference between transcription, translation, or know why when you increase the temperature, the equilibrium moves to the left?
Speaker: Because I don't.
Speaker: I mean, I can definitely see what you're saying here, but I think the idea of standardized testing is that you have to learn everything and revise everything in case it does come up.
Speaker: And if that one word doesn't come up, which you don't know in the test, well, then you clearly didn't know enough about the subject, even if it wasn't that one word.
Speaker: That one word is clearly sort of essential to the subject if you didn't know it.
Speaker: Thus, you wouldn't have had that greater knowledge of it.
Speaker: But I think another main issue of standardized testing is how you actually get to the test and by that, the education you receive.
Speaker: I'm sure you'll talk about it in a second, Dan.
Speaker: But, you know, there's definitely a big inequality in education in any country, especially with sort of race, social class and economic background.
Speaker: But I thought I'd firstly just sort of quickly allude to the United States of America, where school funding is done on districts.
Speaker: So you have school districts.
Speaker: So in districts of big houses where they pay lots of taxes, the schools are better because the schools receive more money from the taxes.
Speaker: Whereas in poorer communities, generally those which are of, you know, whereas I said of poorer people, the schools are less good because they receive less in taxes.
Speaker: And so immediately you can see how people who are richer will perform better at school.
Speaker: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker: I was thinking about a quote from Nietzsche right now, actually, where he says that in countries, the public school system will always be mediocre.
Speaker: Just for the same reason that the food is usually bad if the kitchen is overly large.
Speaker: It's because of the idea that you cannot fully...
Speaker: fund it properly as well.
Speaker: So, you know, we were very fortunate in the fact that we do go to an independent school where we do get a lot of support from teachers in a way that perhaps not everyone does.
Speaker: And this can cause major issues because we are so lucky in the fact that our teachers actively see, okay, let's do AQA or let's do edXL because it's more, you know, logical.
Speaker: or makes more sense, students will do better.
Speaker: And I think a lot of schools don't have the privilege, and that is a very big issue.
Speaker: Yeah, I definitely agree that there's the difference in funding for schools in America, or even in the UK, where state schools, there is definite lack of funding.
Speaker: And to really resolve equality in the education system, I think the government really needs to consider increasing the funding.
Speaker: to four state schools and also increasing the funding by way of getting better teachers, because there's a big issue with, with recruiting teachers.
Speaker: And I do think that if the state sector was willing to pay teachers more than more teachers and more people would want to join state sector.
Speaker: So I definitely think, I definitely think the government needs to increase funding.
Speaker: You know, it,
Speaker: it just doesn't make any logical sense why you wouldn't invest in the future of a country.
Speaker: By not investing in schools, you're fundamentally limiting the options of people in a very unfair way.
Speaker: You know, it's 2024, we're supposed to have the same start and the same chance when we're 18 and we go, we apply to universities, but that's just not true, unfortunately.
Speaker: Because...
Speaker: Why would you want to become a teacher in the state sector when you can get paid double or triple in the private sector?
Speaker: Or why would you even want to be a teacher at all if you don't really have a huge vocation for it?
Speaker: Because of this fact, even some people that do have a vocation for it think very pragmatically and say, I'm not going to be able to have a lifestyle that I really want with this profession and I'm going to have to do something else.
Speaker: I think that is hugely, hugely sad.
Speaker: Yeah, I mean, I definitely agree with you there.
Speaker: I think, you know, reasons why there's quite a big shortage of things like physics teachers is definitely because with such a valuable degree like physics, you've the ability to get quite a high paying job.
Speaker: And, you know, with the UK school sector, which is lacking funding, people see those high paying jobs as far more attractive than lower paid, probably more pressure and job with more hours, such as teaching.
Speaker: Computer science is another example.
Speaker: You've got these extremely valuable degrees and people have no incentive to go and teach.
Speaker: I thought we'd also touch on the different sort of pedagogical approaches.
Speaker: Sorry if I'm saying that wrong.
Speaker: Pedagogy is the theory of learning.
Speaker: It's mentioned in Plato's Republic and Socrates even mentions it.
Speaker: And what it is, yeah.
Speaker: And it's really just the way in which you teach, for example, and you've lots of different types of it, such as dialogic or critical.
Speaker: Diane, what are your opinions on education?
Speaker: How should we reform it to be more effective?
Speaker: Well, I think this really comes down to the purpose of education and what the purpose should be versus what it is today.
Speaker: So, you know, from my experience, we're sitting at GCSEs this summer in three weeks, and we can see a lot of exam factory-style learning.
Speaker: You know, we do past papers every day.
Speaker: Every lesson, we do past papers.
Speaker: And it's just about getting into that math scheme, building the exam technique in a way that, frankly, I don't think is very useful.
Speaker: further on in life.
Speaker: I don't think we actually developed some skills.
Speaker: Also, my view, the purpose of school should be to make you, again, my mind jumps to a Nietzsche quote in which he states that the purpose of school should be of making human empathetical and with good morals, but instead, unfortunately, it goes into a very scientific way where it just spits out machines.
Speaker: Yes, I agree with you there.
Speaker: I mean, I think, yeah, I mean, I totally agree with you there.
Speaker: The schools have just become about really getting, what is it, 10 in the UK, 10 or 11 GCSEs.
Speaker: And it shows how now 10 numbers determine your future almost.
Speaker: And schools are just preparing people for that end piece of paper, which they receive with their GCSE grades.
Speaker: And they don't really think about what comes after that, you know, the skills that you actually need or the knowledge that you actually need when you're older.
Speaker: But I think it's sort of a hard balance for schools because you've got to value very highly those 10 letters or A-levels in the UK, the three letters, which determine which university you can go to, determine how good a job you can get.
Speaker: But then I think schools should also value skills in life that will always be necessary.
Speaker: You know, there's knowledge you don't learn at school, which is actually very important, you know, key aspects of history or science.
Speaker: which you don't learn at school, but are actually very interesting and very necessary to how we live.
Speaker: I thought I'd also mention a sort of type of learning, which is critical pedagogy.
Speaker: Sorry if I'm saying it wrong again.
Speaker: And this encourages more critical thinking.
Speaker: And I think, you know, this goes beyond studying the past paper or studying the market schemes.
Speaker: And it's about debating, discussing and, you know, really thinking about the topics which you're learning.
Speaker: And you can almost see strains of this going into the UK education system.
Speaker: But I think it's something that should definitely be introduced more, because not only is it more interesting for the pupils to sort of interact with a topic like this,
Speaker: But I also think it's a very effective way of learning and advising.
Speaker: I've got two things with that.
Speaker: Number one, I say this all the time to any adult that we listen, is that I think philosophy should be mandatory because it makes you learn how to think.
Speaker: It makes you examine some ideas that perhaps you wouldn't have thought about before in a way that is hugely important to your future life.
Speaker: And second of all, we are again very, very lucky.
Speaker: in this regard that we have extracurriculars at school that allow us to develop some skills that are very, very, very important for our future lives, which again, in the state system, you don't really have access to.
Speaker: But I would definitely say that's a good idea.
Speaker: Discuss, basically have a debatable discussion in lessons.
Speaker: Yeah, I mean, it is.
Speaker: You do need this sort of debaseable discussion in lessons.
Speaker: And I think, you know, it links back to the lack of funding in UK state schools.
Speaker: But encouraging things like extracurriculars, perhaps where you learn more about philosophy or one which you best know about is modern United Nations or debating.
Speaker: Things in which you can interact with real world topics, such as politics, what's happening on the news.
Speaker: This not only makes you more aware of the world, but it gives you skills which you'll find yourself us ing in life.
Speaker: Exactly, even if you want to be a doctor, if you want to be a lawyer, that's what people.
Speaker: You just have to examine ideas and you still have to examine, you know, either research papers, legal documents, but you still have to think critically.
Speaker: And a lot of people in our society, unfortunately, have lost the ability to think.
Speaker: They cannot think in a critical way due to the fact that it's not something that is valued.
Speaker: What is valued, on the other hand, is getting those four A stars and ten nines at GCSE
Speaker: even if all you know how to do is to memorize the mark scheme without actually understanding anything.
Speaker: So my question to you, John, is also, do you think another problem with education is that some of the material is, I quote unquote, dumbed down for GCSE and I level?
Speaker: I think, you know, it definitely is dumbed down for GCSEs, which in the UK are an exam which you sit three years before you leave school.
Speaker: But I think the idea of dumbing down information isn't actually too bad.
Speaker: The reason why it's done is to give you a basic summary of a topic.
Speaker: So, for example, in biology, you don't go into the in-depth workings of it, but rather they give you a sort of dumbed down, but quite good summary of how it works.
Speaker: And so, yes, you sacrifice knowing the real sort of mechanics behind it, but then you do gain quite a good basic understanding of that topic.
Speaker: For example, with languages, you know, you don't become fluent, but you gain a decentish grasp on, you know, basic phrases,
Speaker: greetings, perhaps how to order a meal, for example.
Speaker: So yes, it is dumbed down, but I think it gives quite a good basic summary and all-round knowledge to the subject.
Speaker: I kind of agree with you there.
Speaker: What do you think about that, Dan?
Speaker: At the same time, it's very difficult for me to fully justify the fact that we're not actually learning the real thing sometimes.
Speaker: And you do have to distinguish that
Speaker: Because, you know, you can be in certain conversations and it's good to know what is real and what isn't because then you can make yourself look very stupid very quickly.
Speaker: If you say something incorrectly because that's what you've been taught GCSE.
Speaker: But I think perhaps isn't the idea of the GCSEs is that it gives you a basic summary for which when you come to A-levels, as in the UK, A-levels are when you only study three or four subjects.
Speaker: There you're able to gain a more in-depth knowledge of that specific subject.
Speaker: However, even with that, we do find that in certain A-levels, particularly the sciences, it even takes until university where you get the proper knowledge.
Speaker: you know, knowledge of that subject.
Speaker: But I think the idea of GCSEs is that they're a good building block.
Speaker: And if you want to, you know, make that building higher at a levels, you can do that and go in more in depth to that subject.
Speaker: But if you just want to say, you know, I'm done with that subject, but I've learned something.
Speaker: At least you have a decent, I agree with that.
Speaker: I summary knowledge of that subject.
Speaker: An example popping in my mind is if you do history, which I think you will do next year.
Speaker: when they start talking about the beginning of the Yugoslav war, it is said the whole thing started after a football match, which is, you know, frankly, both insulting and at the same time, hugely stupid.
Speaker: And if you are in a conversation about that, it is, I think, quite embarrassing if you speak with your friends who perhaps study history or other
Speaker: related fields at university and you start having a conversation and then you suddenly say you know guys the whole conflict in the Yugoslav area started after a football match you are probably going to get fairly ridiculed very quickly
Speaker: Yeah, I definitely agree with you there.
Speaker: I think, I mean, it just comes back to the start of our whole discussion today.
Speaker: And that is, there are definitely some major flaws in the UK education system.
Speaker: As you said with that, you don't totally gain the actual knowledge of a subject, but you at least gain an in-depth, perhaps, or at the very least, basic knowledge of how it works.
Speaker: I was going to say, Dan, are there any...
Speaker: I've got one more question for you actually before we finish.
Speaker: If you had to do one or three things, let's say, to the UK education system, what would you do?
Speaker: Philosophy mandatory without an exam at the end.
Speaker: I would make it mandatory so you have two or three hours a week.
Speaker: Just like PSD, you have basically, PSD is an hour a week where you get taught about a subject.
Speaker: I would have an hour or two a week where you can just discuss as a class questions and ideas.
Speaker: That's number one, definitely.
Speaker: Number two, I would probably perhaps teach less, but teach it properly.
Speaker: I think if you want to do seven subjects at GCSE instead, but teach them properly, I would do that instead.
Speaker: And my third point is I would heavily, heavily increase the pay for teachers, especially in the state sectors.
Speaker: What would you do?
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: I think similar to you I think combining sort of
Speaker: sort of necessary subjects for the outside world, perhaps like politics, as well as philosophy, things like that, I would definitely make compulsory to, you know, add to an education system, obviously increase sort of funding for schools.
Speaker: And also, and I would do that to sort of evaluate and to help decrease the huge inequality there is really between private and state schools.
Speaker: I just had one question actually for you quickly.
Speaker: It's about should we have exams?
Speaker: Because you mentioned with the philosophy for it to be like the PSD model, which is personal social development, in which you learn about things such as basic skills in life.
Speaker: Do you think it's good not having exams?
Speaker: Do you think we should have exams for subjects?
Speaker: There is definitely a need for an exam.
Speaker: I don't see how you can test understanding in maths without doing a maths paper.
Speaker: Do I think two maths papers is enough to test full understanding?
Speaker: 100% not.
Speaker: I think the final exam is a good idea, but I would implement a system where you would also have tests throughout the year, which would count for 50% of your grade.
Speaker: So it's a bit, I don't know if it's like the BTEC or not fully, but it's a bit like the BTEC where you have tests very frequently.
Speaker: So once a topic, and then I would have those tests once a topic, 50% of your grade.
Speaker: And then the final exam,
Speaker: papers as another 50% of their grade so in case you happen to bomb one of the papers because you had the flu or something you're not prevented from doing what A-levels you like or whatever course you like just because you had a bad day what do you think yeah
Speaker: Yeah, I definitely agree with you that.
Speaker: I think final exams are good because there's something always good about having the pressure and the need to learn everything.
Speaker: And even if it hasn't come up, hopefully you'd have learned it.
Speaker: But then I think, you know, a major thing being said about sort of schools in the UK right now is do they put too much pressure on the pupils?
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: And the main source of that pressure is really exams.
Speaker: And so I can see a sort of argument for not having exams, but at the end of the day, I think exams are necessary for testing understanding.
Speaker: And there's really not really that great enough a way, in my opinion, to test understanding other than an exam.
Speaker: So I think you find yourself at this dilemma.
Speaker: Yes, you can put pressure on the students by having an exam, but there is really no other way to test their understanding.
Speaker: And yes, exams have many flaws.
Speaker: You know, as you said, Diane, they don't really test understanding perfectly.
Speaker: But I think at the end of the day, there is really no perfect way to do something.
Speaker: perhaps you can mitigate the risk of just having a bad day.
Speaker: But here we come to the end of another episode of the Debatable Discussions podcast.
Speaker: Thank you everyone for joining in with us this Sunday.
Speaker: And we'll now change our upload schedule and we will upload once a week, every Sunday around 5 or 6 p.m.
Speaker: So thank you for listening.
Speaker: And yes, thank you for listening.
Speaker: And I hope you tune in and also follow and give us a five star review.
