Bolton Data for Inclusion

The Action Research Centre for Inclusion

(Sponsored by: The Barrow Cadbury Trust)

at

Bolton Institute of Higher Education.

Data No 14 :

Author(s) :

Simone Aspis

Title :

Why Exams and Tests do not help disabled and non-disabled children learn in the same school.

Abstract :

An in depth analysis of the examination system and it's role in labelling learners intellectual abilities with the learning difficulties label.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following people: Joe Whittaker of the Action Research For Inclusion who had voluntarily offered financial and editing support to assist with the production of this paper. Karen Barton of Bolton Institute for providing administrative support.  Tracy Lazard for providing personal support with developing my ideas on the examination system and impact on disabled people who have been labelled as having learning difficulties.

Title:   Examinations that undermine Inclusive Education

Simone Aspis.

The Author.

I am a young, disabled special school survivor.  I was labelled by the education system via the examination/assessment system as having learning difficulties.  I am an independent advocate for inclusive education which for me is a political issue.  I believe we have to address the equalities within the educational system to give the appearance of fairness.

I see inclusive education as creating opportunities where ALL learners can work together with each other.  Where they would have their contributions valued by the educational system to the benefit of all.  We have to recognise that learning is enhanced when learners of different abilities, different skills, different aspirations can work together in a joint enterprise.  The educational system has a responsibility to create learning environments and provide teachers who are skilled at creating ways in which all contributions are recognised as being of equal value.  Where the efforts of each learner is recognised as being of an equal challenge regardless of the particular area of the curriculum in which they are working.  Fundamental to such a philosophy is the recognition that all learners will require different forms of support at different times of their study and the educational system should have a responsibility in working with the individual learner to devise the most effective and appropriate form of support.

I believe that inclusive education will only be effective when disabled learners are at the forefront of the campaign promoting it.  This will require the support of their families and allies.  This campaign has to be underpinned by an understanding of the need to change the present educational structure, which currently has not been appreciated by those who advocate inclusive education.

I have written this paper to stimulate the debate and how "real" inclusive education will only happen with the abolition of the examination system.

Introduction:

As stated by Mathews:

Quote A (ref. 1)

Attempts to address the inequalities created by the examination system have failed e.g. moving from group subjects to single subject exams, having different exams for different groups of learners or differential papers in one exam.  The method of marking, whether it is continuous assessment or normal/criteria referencing, is doing nothing to improve equality of opportunity for learners in schools.

As the demand increases for the number of examinations, the groups of learners they target decrease.  This leads to groups and individual learners being segregated into different types of curriculum.  Consequently, there will be no improvement simply by giving all learners equal access to learning, whether they be separate special schools or ordinary mainstream schools, if we then segregate them according to assumed abilities.

This critique is being undertaken to establish the effects of the "examination explosion" upon disabled learners who are being labelled as having "learning disabilities" and the subsequent effect on their opportunities to benefit from inclusive education.

Critique.

An analysis of which groups of children take particular qualifications is the starting point for understanding the categorising and labelling that happens through the examination system.

In the summer of 1998 the first batch of candidates will be taking the new National Certificate of Achievement awards (CoA) which have been approved by the School Curriculum and Assessment Council.  These single subject examinations are being piloted and used to credit achievements for learners receiving compulsory education who may not achieve the standard expected for a General Certificate in Secondary Education (GCSE) Grade G.

I conducted a survey to establish which learners are likely to be entered for the CoA awards and why?  (see Appendix A).  A questionnaire was sent to 120 secondary schools who have registered their interest in offering the awards to some of their learners.  The majority of learners who will be taking the CoA will be labelled as having learning difficulties.  These youngsters are expected to achieve low GCSE grades.  One school representative from the survey said:

Significant numbers of learners are unlikely to be entered for the GCSE.  Eleven of the schools from the survey said that learners not entered for the GCSE will "definitely" be considered for the CoA awards.  A majority of the schools saw them as an alternative to GCSE.  Nineteen schools in the survey supporting CoA entrance did suggest that it was a way of giving learners experience and achievements national accreditation, perhaps for the first time.

As one respondent from the survey suggests, we might be replacing one inequality with another:

The CoA awards should allow National Curriculum level 1 - 3 attainment to be reported.  (ref. 2).  The Syllabus must be designed to facilitate learning in practical situations, using a variety of media, which are relevant to adult life.

Figure 1.

Formula to express expected IQ attainment is:

                                                       IQ = 100 ´ Scholastic Age
                                                                            Actual Age

This labelling process not only applies to examinations directed to particular groups of learners but goes further when learners are entered for mainstream qualifications and achieve "low grades" or "fail" e.g. the GCSE which is traditionally being targeted towards learners who are not labelled as having learning disabilities.

The percentage of learners achieving individual grades in the GCSE does not change very much from year to year.

Figure 2 : (ref 5)

Each GCSE grade has a corresponding National Curriculum attainment level and IQ bands have a "Intelligence label" attached.

The Secondary Education Assessment Council 1989 recommended to the DES in 1989 that each grade starting form grade G should be equivalent to National Curriculum level attainment, for grade G this would be level 4 working up to grade A which corresponds to the highest National curriculum level 10.

Psychological tests have also had an important influence on the GCSE.  The Examinations Board of Education as early as 1924 suggested there would be a very close relationship between the grading of public examinations and the IQ grading of abilities.

Each GCSE grade is also equivalent to a corresponding IQ.  The assumption is that the learners age will be fifteen years and eight months when they are entered for GCSE's. The formula used to express the learners IQ is:

                                          IQ  = 100 ´ (scholastic age over the learners age).

A learner who receives GCSE grade G would be expected to be working at a level of a 11 to 12 year old (ref. 7) and would be considered as having "border-line normal" intelligence and achieving an attainment worth recognition.

Subsequently a child entered for the exam who does not achieve a grade did so because their attainment was below what is expected of an eleven year old with an IQ of 70.  Consequently many learners with a "mild learning difficulty" label may have been entered for the GCSE exam and failed.

The Examination grade, National Curriculum Level, scholastic age, IQ score and the label attached to the learner are all connected.  One could draw the conclusion from such a connection that this reflects nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.  This means that learners are accredited not for their efforts during their learning but simply for what is expected of them from the start of the examination system.

Figure 3 : (ref 10)

A learner who obtains a GCSE grade E would be expected to have an IQ between the band 80 - 89 which once had a corresponding pre-fixed label of "Dull - Normal" attached to the learner.

A child therefore is not only labelled as having a learning difficulty prior to sitting an exam they are labelled by the type of examination they take.  e.g. CoA and within mainstream examinations by expected attainment levels, IQ and the subsequent grade or level achieved.

On the basis of The Dearing Report recommendations, the differential GCSE papers were introduced to learners of varying abilities offering a limited range of grades, however these have done little towards reducing inequalities and continue to label children prior to sitting the examination.

Figure 4 : (ref 4)

                                                                                                NEA

                                                            Grades                        Grades                        Pre-Fixed Label

Level 1 (Foundation/Basic)                   E - G                            E - G                        Dull - Learning Difficulty

Level 2 (Central/Intermediate)               C - F                            C - E                        Normal

Level 3 (Higher/Advance)                     A - D                           A - C                       Superior - Normal

This is still the case when the papers were reduced from 3 to 2.

Figure 5 : (ref 4)

                                                            Grades                        Pre-Fixed Label

Level 1 (Foundation/Basic)                   G - C               Learning Difficulties - Normal

Level 2 (Central/Intermediate)               D - A*             Superior - Normal

It was believed that by combining the General Certificate in Education (GCE) and the Certificate in Secondary Education (CSE) into one core examination the General Certificate in Secondary Education (GCSE) this would reduce the inequalities inherited by having a two-tier system.  However, as we have seen,

Quote D

Historically the number of examinations and papers have increased from the school leaving certificate to Ordinary level GCE and CSE to the GCSE.  These have all been attempts to enable a greater number of learners to achieve accreditation but they have all failed to address the inequalities inherent in an examination system based on IQ and predetermined labelling.  Again it could be concluded that the differential attainments are more to do with indifferent attitudes of schools to significant numbers of learner abilities and contributions.

(see Graph 2)

Attempts to address the needs of learners who fail academic examinations have resulted in the introduction of a range of vocational qualifications.  The first started within the professions but soon became necessary for apprenticeships and skilled jobs.

The first attempt for a full-scale review of vocational qualifications in schools was in 1993 by the Department of Employment and Education.  Dearing (1993) had developed a national framework, which would enable students to take an academic, vocational or joint route.

Dearing proposed a framework of national awards. (See Appendix B)

Figure 6 : (ref 7)

                                               National Award - Advanced Level

As and A Level                        GNVQ - Advanced Level                    NVQ Level 3

                                             National Award - Intermediate Level

GCSE Grades A* - C  GNVQ - Intermediate Level                 NVQ Level 2

                                              National Award - Foundation Level

GCSE Grades D - G                GNVQ - Foundation Level                   NVQ Level 1

                                                   National Award - Entry Level

                                                    Common to all pathways:-

                                                        Three Grades A/B/C.

GCSE's are academic qualifications whilst GNVQ and NVQ's are vocational.  The main purpose of the comparison between the qualifications was to establish national standards with scholar attainment, if the student had completed the vocational route.

Figure 7 shows how vocational examination accreditation uses the same statistical model as the academic - examination accreditation, which in return reflects IQ.

Figure 7

GNVQ Foundation /     NVQ1 =          GCSE grades D - G     =          IQ 70 - 90

GNVQ Intermediate /   NVQ2 =          GCSE grades C - A     =          IQ 90 - 120

GNVQ Advanced /      NVQ3 =          A/AS Level                  =          IQ 115+

(see Graph 3)

In reality very few children with learning difficulties would be on the GNVQ Advanced course.  However, children who are failing in academic study will be directed onto a GNVQ course at foundation level at 14 plus.

The current standardised tests and National Curriculum have led to even further marginalisation and discrimination for learners labelled as having learning difficulties and are both linked to IQ.

With the standardised tests the Government School Inspector would set (standard x) examinations that were taken by children in all Government funded schools.  Each pupil would be required to undertake the London County Council Examinations, which had a set of full instructions and norms.  The three tests consisted of ten words, which must be read and spelt correctly, and 10 sums to be calculated accurately.

Figure8

Standard VI corresponds with a mental age of VI          + 6       =12

Standard V corresponds with a mental age of V            +6        =11

Standard IV corresponds with a mental age of IV          +6        =10

Standard III corresponds with a mental age of III          +6        = 9

Standard II corresponds with a mental age of II             +6        = 8

Standard I corresponds with a mental age of I               +6        = 7

Children who were thought incapable of passing the standard examination would be educated in Standard 0 class or sent to a special school.

School's financial survival depended on the children's ability to pass these standard examinations under the Revised Code.  Since the introduction of payment by result's, children unable to complete the standard examination requirements became labelled.

As with the revised code, those students who were unlikely to pass the standard examinations were even less likely to access the curriculum.  This same concern was expressed with the introduction of the National Curriculum.

Students can be exempted from the demands of the National Curriculum if they have a statement of special educational needs.  This gives school heads an opportunity to exclude children from assessing the national curriculum and by doing so take away the pressure of them failing the key stage tests.

A theme running throughout this paper relevant to the inequality faced by children labelled as having learning difficulties in relation to examinations is IQ.  The historical development of measuring mental ability is inherent in the testing ability entrenched in examinations and subsequent labelling process.

The first serious attempt of measuring mental ability came from Galton who was one of the co-founders of the eugenic movement.  He devised tests to find out if there were human beings who were genetically superior and inferior.  He was particularly interested in establishing whether intelligence was inherited (biological) or environmental.  Galton initially created fourteen categories from the most illustrious and eminent to imbeciles and idiots.

To achieve this aim, Galton had undertaken research recording the emotional development of children of different ages.  These diaries contained the infant's development behaviour sequences and individual differences were used as the basis for development of mental age and associated IQ tests.

Dr. Warner a consultant in London hospitals had noted a significant correlation between mental and physical handicaps in a similar way to Galton.  Warner then concluded that a child could be labelled as being mentally defective based on a physical examination.  Dr. Warner said:

This approach was based on Holt's "Diseases of Infancy" work which published the physical characteristics of the growing child's height, weight, chest, cranal circumferences, brain weight, dentition and mental abilities.  Also educational attainment in the form of reaching a Standard I - VI for 6 - 12 year olds was included. (ref. 14)

Based on Galton and Warner's work, further research was carried out to make the diagnosis of the "mental defective" more scientific and standardised so the credibility amongst the educational profession could be established.

The early attempts at constructing objective mental tests influenced the organisation of the education system and still lay in tact today.  When elementary schooling became compulsory, it appeared the easiest way to teach children was to put them into classes with other children of the same age.  It was therefore easier to design a curriculum based on what these children could achieve.

Wallin wrote that segregating children would free normal pupils from the restrictions imposed by the deficient, declaring that the education system's highest obligation was to it's normal and brightest pupils.

Binet developed the intelligence Quotation tests based on observations on a large range of children of varying ages to establish what knowledge and skills they picked up.  These tests were based on the mental age idea.  If an 8 year old child were performing tasks equivalent to a 12 year old, then he or she would be considered as having a mental age of 12.  However, if an 8 year old child were performing tasks equivalent to a 4 year old then he or she would be considered as having the mental age of 4.  The expression is IQ = 100 (mental age/chronological age).

The Binet-Simon IQ tests were generally used.  As an aid to the discovery and classification of sub-normal and mentally defective children.  (ref. 23)

Figure 9

General Terms                                                           Categories                  IQ Equivalent

                                                                                    High Grade

Mild Learning   Mildly Mental                                       Subnormal

Difficulties                     Handicapped                            Feeble-Minded

                                                                                    Mentally Handicapped              50 - 70

                                                                                    Moron

                                                                                    Docile

                                                                                    Mildly retarded

                                                                                    Educationally Subnormal

Moderate Learning       Mentally                                   Medium Grade

Difficulties                     Handicapped                            Retarded

                                    Mentally Retarded                    Imbecile                                   25 - 49

                                    Mentally Defective                    Trainable

                                    Mentally Subnormal

Severe Learning            Severely Mentally                     Low Grade

Difficulties