The problems with A levels, and why Gove's reforms will do nothing to fix them.

The fact that Michael Gove is in charge of education in this country is as bizarre as it is terrifying, and time and time again he has found ways to outdo himself in terms of ill-thought out, illogical and simply strange proposals for how children in this country should be educated. And he’s done it again with these proposed changes to A levels.

Now, I am not a massive fan of A levels, as they are currently. I think they are seriously flawed in a lot of ways and do not encourage critical or creative thinking, and because of this are not adequate preparation for university (or, more importantly, whatever Gove may think, life). Gove’s proposed changes do not even begin to solve these problems; they do, however, create a bunch of new ones.

Taking AS and A level exams is incredibly stressful. However, you know what would be even more stressful? Taking all that pressure, and instead of dividing it up between two sets of exams, placing it all on the one set of exams at the end of Year 13. Dividing up the pressure between two years’ worth of exams eases the pressure on the individual exams. Having to keep a tonne of information in your head at once to be able to regurgitate it over a two or three hour period during an exam is horrible enough, without it being a whole two years’ worth of information. And then there’s the taking away of the ability to retake modules without retaking the entire exam. The level of pressure this would put on pupils is ridiculous. Have a bad day? Feeling sick? Family problems? Any of these cause you to screw up just one of your exams and you have to do the entire A level again. How is this fair on pupils?

And these reforms do nothing to solve the problems that Gove is, apparently, trying to tackle. He says that A levels are not in depth enough. Although this isn’t always the case, generally I would be inclined to agree. However, he then goes on to say this is because they are modular. Um…what?

Now, Gove has not made it clear whether, under this new system, pupils would still do different topics during the first year of study and the second or whether they would study the same topic all the way through. If the former, then this is literally no different to the current system, aside from far more pressure being heaped on year 13 exams. I wouldn’t put such a ridiculous move passed Gove, but let’s assume for the sake of argument it’s the latter; pupils would study the same topics for the whole two years.

I am currently at university. I study different modules, mostly relating to politics, but still on a vast range of topics. I do not study each of these topics for two year. I don’t even study them for one. I study each for half a year. Does Gove really think my university degree is not “in depth” enough?

Doing different modules at AS level and A level increased my breadth of study in a way that was really beneficial for my learning. It meant during my Politics A level I got to learn about House of Lords reform, and political pressure groups, and the history of Liberalism and the war on terror (as well as a tonne of other things); if Gove’s proposals mean that a pupil taking A level Politics could only study two of these things, that would be a great loss.

The reason that A levels are often too shallow in the level of both knowledge and critical thinking that they require is because of the way that they are marked. You don’t get marks at A levels for having read related books that aren’t on the syllabus, or for thinking outside the box; you get marks for fulfilling marking criteria a, b and c. It doesn’t matter that you don’t understand this philosopher’s argument in the slightest, because you know one quote that they said. You don’t get marks for looking at the importance of gender in this political theory because feminism isn’t part of this module.

There is no reason why, under the current system, this cannot be improved. I was lucky enough to have some amazing teachers, who didn’t let the shallow nature of the marking schemes prevent us from studying in depth. It wasn’t enough to know these two sentences on Iraq to write in the exam; we looked at it in detail. Conversely, I also got to experience learning philosophy via reading a page of quotes said by philosophers, completely without context and, very often, which told me nothing about their arguments. The problem is, right now, it’s the latter that is rewarded by A level markers, not the former.

But Gove’s proposals say nothing about mark schemes; they say nothing about actually adding depth or critical thinking to A level syllabuses. Having less exams, but exams that are marked in exactly the same way, will do nothing to improve the current system.

They will, however, rob pupils of a clear indication about the A level results they are likely to achieve, and therefore which universities they should think about applying to. They will remove one of the indicators that universities rely on when accepting or rejecting applications. They will also mean that pupils have to choose which subjects to study for the entire two years while they’re still taking their GCSEs; I know if I had had to do this I would not have picked the three subjects I did end up studying all the way to A level. The British education system already forces you to narrow your choices at a really early age; let’s not make this problem even worse.

That Michael Gove thinks that getting rid of AS level exams, as part of A levels, will magically make A levels involve more in depth thinking without any changes to the syllabuses, that placing increased pressure on a single set of exams will make the entire thing less exam-centric and that robbing pupils of an early indication regarding what kinds of universities they should be applying to will be in any way beneficial has to make you question whether this man has any understanding of how best to govern education in this country.

Which isn’t that surprising, since Michael Gove has absolutely no understanding of how best to govern education in this country.

A manifesto, of sorts.

I am delighted to have been elected unopposed as the Youth Rep to the London Labour regional board. I am really excited to take on the role at what is such an exciting and important moment for young Labour members and Labour as a whole, and work to make Labour more friendly, accessible and welcoming to young members (something that has improved considerably during the time I have been active within the party; but there is still more to be done).

I just wanted to just post my manifesto here, cause although I was lucky enough to be unopposed, I still wanted to put it out there, so there would be something by which I can be held accountable.

Also please check out all the other people standing for various positions if you haven’t already; there are some amazing candidates up for various positions:

http://www.younglabour.org.uk/uploads/8df031de-bf35-9424-6101-451bda205c06.pdf

I first joined the Labour party in 2010, and was a very active campaigner within my CLP, but was almost completely unaware of how to go about getting involved in other aspects of the party or how to connect to other young members. I am standing for Youth Rep on the London Labour regional board because I want to work to ensure that all young members in London are able to get involved; because come 2015 young people need to be at the forefront of the fight against a government which is putting the future of our whole generation at risk.

I will work with CLP Youth Reps to help them recruit more active young members to their CLPs, and ensure they keep their young members up to date with what is going on in their CLPs, as well as letting them know about other ways they can get involved with the party (such as through Young Labour, Labour Students, Young Fabians etc). I will work with CLPs who don’t currently have youth officers to recruit more active young members who can fulfil the role.

In order to ensure young members are a fighting force in London, we need to offer them more than just occasional requests to campaign. I will help to facilitate regular campaigning days in key seats in London, and help young people get involved in campaigning with their CLPs; as well as liaising with members in safe seats to help them get involved in campaigns in more marginal seats. But I will ensure that this is combined with other social and policy focused events to make young people feel a part of the party they are campaigning for.

Looking at the success of Tower Hamlets Young Labour, I’ll examine the merits of having smaller Young Labour groups in different parts of London to work alongside London Young Labour, and help to set up such groups.

I want to work with sixth forms and other political organisations (including those I may not personally agree with) to get Young Labour in schools talking to young people about how to get involved in politics, as London Young Labour did in the run up to the mayoral campaigns; this was a brilliant scheme that needs reinvigorating.

Trade unionism is, of course, a central part of the Labour party; but it is, worryingly, declining in our society. As well as working and campaigning alongside young trade unionists, we need to be encouraging far more young people to be joining trade unions. I will organise events for young members who are not currently in trade unions with trade union officials and young trade unionists to facilitate and encourage this.

And, crucially; I will work to make sure every young member knows about what is happening and what they can get involved with. You shouldn’t have to already know the right people, or follow the right twitter accounts to know how to get involved; and too often young people, especially those not at university, don’t get involved just because they don’t know how. I will ensure that London Young Labour has an up to date social media presence and website, that CLP Youth officers send out regular emails (or that CLPs send out regular young member specific emails in cases where there is currently no youth officer), encourage people to set up facebook events for events and campaign days, and make sure these are linked to in emails and work to ensure young members are always welcomed and not simply overlooked when they first try and get involved. Getting involved in the Labour Party shouldn’t have to be a series of ever more complicated challenges, and I will work to make Labour in London an open and accessible community for all. 

Talking about UKIP on the doorstep...

Out campaigning during the recent Rotherham by-election I, and many other Labour activists, encountered first-hand the rise in support for UKIP; I’ve met the occasional UKIP supporter here and there on the doorstep, but nothing like the number I was meeting here. According to a recent ComRes poll, most of UKIP support is not coming from those who voted Labour in 2010, and anecdotally I’d be inclined to agree.

However, this doesn’t change the fact that there are former Labour voters who are turning to UKIP; enough that Labour activists need to know what to say to them on the doorstep. And, I think, there’s still a lack of understanding about UKIP policies and what UKIP really stands for; and there is so much there for us to attack.

Because these voters might support UKIPs policies on the EU and immigration – and of course there are serious issues there we need to address – but I doubt that Labour/UKIP swing voters support grammar schools (or a voucher system for schools, for that matter), or increased privatisation of the NHS, or a 20% flat tax and the resulting cuts to public services. UKIP’s far right economic policies are quite, well, right wing, and if the person you’re talking to is a libertarian then fine; not much you’re going to be able to do about that.

But to those who are supporting UKIP because of their immigration/EU stance, or as a protest vote, Labour activists need to start talking about what else UKIP stands for; the libertarian-leaning, free market party is far from on the side of the working class (or, you know, most people).

Additionally, there’s the interesting (and admittedly, impressive) issue of UKIP getting former none-voters to vote; these voters most likely part of Labour’s target demographic, but where Labour has failed to get them out to the ballot box. And although I may not be thrilled at their party preference, it is good that these people are engaging with the political process. And we should be talking to them. Because now they are engaged, hopefully, they’ll be more inclined to talk us, both about what UKIP really stands for (because, like the former Labour voter, I’d hazard a guess that they wouldn’t be a fan of large chunks of UKIP’s policy program) and about what Labour stands for, and what Labour can offer them in government.

None of this is to dismiss the reasons people are turning to UKIP; as well as the issues of the EU and immigrations there’s, of course, a general disenchantment with mainstream politics and politicians, and we should take seriously how we address these issues.

But we must also start properly attacking UKIP’s dangerous economic policies; and get our activists talking about them to voters who are unlikely to support such policies if they are made aware of them.  

A new sense of optimism, and musing on Labour Party Conference.

A while ago I wrote a blog post asking why so many of my fellow Labourites did not feel optimistic about our party, our electoral chances and the direction we were moving in. More recently, I discussed the need for Labour to show greater courage of their convictions. After this year’s Labour Party conference, both blog posts no longer seem relevant. I left conference unsure of my opinion on party conferences, but so sure of my opinion of my party, its leader and its vision; so filled with optimism that was now shared by far more people than when I wrote a blog post calling for the party to cheer up.

This was my first year attending conference, and beforehand I read the occasional conference tips blog post, as well as following the little labourlist debate over whether conference is even worth having…but mostly I was excited to go but didn’t do much to really plan or structure what I was doing to do, and I didn’t really know what to expect. So what do I think of conference, post having actually done it myself? I’m not sure. I guess the one thing I’d say is it’s kind of what you make of it. I had a really great time at conference, but when I go again I’ll be sure to plan more, to structure more; to really fill my time, try and meet more new people (however lovely it is to keep bumping into old friends), attend more training sessions (two of the highlights of conference, for me, were Young Labour’s speech writing training and a workshop on using contact creator for community organising)…or maybe I’ll just apply to be a steward and ensure I’ll be productive during conference that way. Because, yes, I did have a lot of fun, but the length of conference is a long time to kind of just be milling around for a lot of it.

That being said, there were some excellent fringes; Andy Burnham talking about the living wage was seriously inspiring, and I’m really excited to work on Young Labour’s priority campaign on youth homelessness, having attended its launch. There were a lot of really interesting stalls (although there were also some really random ones; including what was, as far as I can tell, a completely none-political jewellery stall. Also the Countryside Alliance seemed to have got confused and wandered in by mistake). And there were also a lot of really awesome people collected together in one space, and I wish I’d had more time to see more of them.

And, really, it was worth going to conference just for Ed Miliband’s speech; I’m not going to go into depth about how amazing it was…that’s been done enough, but if the only purpose of conference was to give this speech the media attention it deserved (which I don’t think is the only purpose of conference, by the way) then that would be more than enough of a reason for it. It was phenomenal (I may have been teary eyed throughout; in fact I may have been teary eyed before it even began, having welled up when I realised David Tennant was narrating the montage of Labour’s achievements shown before Ed took the stage).  

And the optimism after this amazing speech was just wonderful. A party maybe still a little dubious about its leader before was now no longer. The Fabian’s Spin Alley fringe after the speech was required to do very little spinning (the whole panel went something along the lines of: “how good was it?!” “I know; it was SO good!”. It was very enjoyable). Cheers of “Ed, Ed, Ed!” as Ed walked into the Young Labour reception illustrated a mood felt throughout conference; our leader is amazing, his vision is there and it’s a vision we believe in and want to fight for and we can win in 2015. One Nation Labour, reused and echoed throughout other conference speeches, and also just in everyone’s conversations, is a really rather brilliant framework for the Labour Party to move forward within.

“One Nation: a country where prosperity is fairly shared. One Nation: a country where we all feel part of a shared endeavour. One Nation: a country that we rebuild together” 

Reading my free copy of Total Politics on the train home from conference, I was happy to be getting back to politics. But wow, was I excited about the politics I was going back to.

The Labour Party vs The Democratic Party; the courage of our convictions and what we stand for.

“If [the party] can’t articulate what Labour stands for, voters will lose interest.”, says Jenni Russell in a recent article; and the sentiment here seems to be one that is shared by much of the electorate. Why is it such a struggle for Labour, and Ed, to say what we stand for? I spent the past month-and-a-bit working on a Congressional and Senate campaign in the US. Of course my experience was of one campaign in one state, but during that experience something that struck me was that the Democrats knew what they stood for, and the voters I spoke to knew what they stood for. This is a party with far less party unity, where candidates do not all communicate the same “message” and quite openly have differing views on certain issue; but there was a far clearer sense of what made them Democrats, and what they stood for and were fighting for, than, I think, there currently is in the Labour Party.

Of course, it is easier when you’re in government; it is far easier to have a concrete policy agenda when it consists is what you’ve done, from which point it is easier to say what you will do. And it helps that there is a massive divide on social issues; to be socially liberal becomes a far more defining feature than it ever would be in the UK. But these factors don’t go the whole way towards explaining why the Democrats seem so much more successful at communicating, as well as fully understanding themselves, what they stand for, than the Labour Party.

Firstly, they have a coherent economic plan. Now, on one hand, so do we; the fundamental divide between Labour and the Tories; stimulus vs austerity; is clear. But the Democrats have a far clearer vision on what money will be spent where, which taxes will be cut and where that moneys going to come from. Of course, this is easier when you’re in government; and it’s easier when the election is in site, and the economic circumstances in which you will take power are (relatively) clear. Of course Labour can only say, “this is the plan; but that may change as the circumstances change”. But we can still form more of a plan; VAT cut, house building, jobs for young people…what else? What other, concrete things will Labour do? And in forming our economic plan, it may take the courage of our convictions, when it comes to where the money will come from, to say, “some will be raised through taxes, but some will come later; when the economy is growing and we are generating more income. And we can afford to wait for that to really tackle the deficit”.

The courage of their convictions is something the Democrats are displaying in spades, right now. And that is something that has alot of weight, politically. Trying to be all things to all people, or seeming to be apologising for yourselves, makes you look weak. The Democrats were guilty of this in 2010; Obamacare being treated as this shameful issue of which they must not speak. By contrast, the at the Democratic National Convention, Obamacare was celebrated; even if you did not like the policy, you could not doubt that Bill Clinton, or Michelle Obama, or Stacey Lihn, the mother of a child she feared would die without Obamacare, or Barack Obama himself, liked the policy. Labour has its moments of conviction and self-belief, but all too often it can seem to be trying to appeal to everyone. We need to courage to say “this is our policy; this is why it’s right”.

And the Democrats, without a doubt, have values. As does the Labour Party. But the power in the values the Democrats communicate, and in the rhetoric they use, is that they relate it back to people. Very specific examples of how this college grant helped his person succeed, or this healthcare expansion saved this person’s life; be they hypothetical or real people. And if I were to summarise the values that the Democrats stand for; it would be enabling people to be able. Empowering people to be as limitless as they can be; not letting circumstances get in the way of their potential. And beyond this, the Democratic Party has been broadly pragmatic; to achieve this goal, they approach individual issues not as ideologues but as problem solvers. This puts them in stark contrast with a Republican Party that is, currently, fiercely and stubbornly ideological.

The Labour Party could so easily paint ourselves in the same way; the Tory’s economic policies are horribly, stubbornly and idiotically ideological. But it is tempting to try and counter this with a grand vision of our own. But no one knows what will happen while you’re in government. And portraying a Labour government that tackles each knew problem, with values, but also with pragmatism; and looking at, fundamentally, how decisions will really affect individuals and communities, is a strong message.

A lot of this is about conviction and coherence. There are times when we have alternative policies, but we attack the Tories rather than express them; times when we could develop more policies but shy away because we do not know what’s coming; times when we could paint a picture of ourselves as the competent problem solvers of British Politics, and instead we attack the Tories. In an ideal world, the Labour Party would get Bill Clinton to explain to the electorate who we are, what we stand for, what we will do in government and the attitudes with which we would do it. But, since that is unlikely to be a realistic option any time soon, we should probably work out how to do it ourselves. 

Political Play-goer.

London right now’s a pretty good place for political theatre; and over the past few months I got to see three of the plays that fit that bill.

A Walk On Part

Soho Theatre

Now on at the Arts Theatre from 19 June - 14 July 

The tale of Chris Mullin’s, an MP from 1997-2010, experience of the New Labour era, based on his autobiography, is both very much one guy’s perspective on that time, as well as a truly fascinating insight. John Hodgkinson’s portrayal of Mullin acts both as an endearing figure and an effective audience surrogate. The play is fast moving and the dialogue strong; very easy to follow if you have a general awareness of the events that happened during Labour’s time in power, although it would perhaps get a little confusing if someone came to it with next to no knowledge of the events that took place. The portrayals of Blair and Cherie, as well as figures like John Prescott are not exact copies of them, nor are they caricatures, but rather they are effectively invocative of and recognisable as them, and it’s very affective. Howard Ward’s portrayal of Gordon Brown does, perhaps, descend a little into caricature.

It’s a really great watch for anyone wanting to gain an inside view on the New Labour period; one that seems honest and neither dramatically negative or over zealously positive. It’s also a personal story of a man who just really wants to make a difference, and his personal struggle to do this, and to believe he is doing this. The portrayal of his relationship with Blair is interesting, and you get a sense of the charisma and draw of Blair; although this could have perhaps been deeper explored.

The staging was effective and the actors good at juggling multiple characters without letting it get confusing. Probably enjoyable for anyone with a general interest in the politics of the period, but especially for Labourite political geeks (might annoy real Blair-loathers for its balanced view if the man but all those from Blair lovers to “he-wasn’t-great”-ers would probably be able to appreciate the perspective this play provides).

Yes, Prime Minister

Trafalgar Studios, from June 6 2012

I’ve never seen the TV series, so I was going into this with no real expectations. It’s certainly witty; with a lot of humour that felt somewhat specifically aimed at political activist types. Although the humour feels routed in political reality, the play itself does not; it’s very spoof-y in a way that doesn’t, for the most part, feel attached to reality. It’s main “real” political message is its perspective on the civil service; certainly relevant right now with the recent talk of reform. This is well done, and Michael Simkins’ portrayal of Sir Humphrey Appleby, the conniving and all too powerful civil servant is excellent.

Mostly, though, this play is just light entertainment for political geeks; and if that’s what you’re looking for then it’s pretty much the perfect evening.

And Michael Heseltine was in the audience the night I went….although I don’t think he’s a permanent feature!

Democracy

Old Vic Theatre

20 June 2012 - 26 July 2012

The divided period of Germany’s history that forms the context of this play is one that’s permeated public consciousness; it’s hard to imagine anyone walking in without a generalised understanding of the time when Communist east Germany was cut off from Capitalist west Germany. However, I personally had less of an awareness of the specifics of the historical basis for the play; with the story  of West German chancellor Willy Brandy relationship with Communist spy Gunter Guillaume, who worked as his secretary and hears some of the state's most important secrets.

The play does not require any great deal of background knowledge, however; it guides you through the narrative clearly with incredibly good acting and very strong dialogue. It’s a fascinating and gripping insight into the events and the personalities who shaped them.

There’s something incredibly…political about the play; compared to A Walk On Part where one would think it’s immediacy would make it more political than historical, it’s almost the opposite; it acts mostly as a narrative account of the events that took place, whereas Democracy, although clearly historical, has such strong political dialogue it feels routed in ideology and politics; in a way I found incredibly compelling but might block out some who feel less attachment to the political process.

The ending was somewhat abrupt, but the play certainly left me both more knowledgeable about the period and eager to research more; defiantly one to check out.