Extension

Is it just me, or does the idea of carting dead animals infected with Foot 'n' Mouth Disease across the country - from their farms in Surrey to the incineration point in Somerset - seem counterintuitive? It's not the most instinctive way to control the spread of a virus! I'm sure they know what they're doing, it just seems a little odd. As does the irony that the outbreak possibly derives from the Pirbright laboratories, in which scientists develop vaccines for such diseases. Ooops. Their little motto is painfully wrong at the moment, too - "Good science, Useful science"...ahem, Deadly Science...
If it were seven years since the last outbreak I'd go on about Biblical pestilence again, but it was only six so I won't. (I don't really think it's a plague sent by God - though what do I know? - but as I briefly mentioned yesterday that's what I was reading about. Tangential point of interest: in Leviticus 14:44, simple mildew is described as "fretting leprosy", so if there's any green mould climbing your walls your house has a plague. I like the idea of building surveyors looking for brick-leprosy instead of damp rot, there's something as dramatic as house prices about it).

********************
And the Education rant of the day. The front page of today's Telegraph finally reports what we knew was on its way, the changing (again) of the A Level system. The fundamentals of what's being said are: the current system doesn't stretch the brightest students; new-style exams will cover 4 units instead of the current 6 (more depth, less breadth); an A* grade will be introduced for results above 90%; students will be expected to complete an 'extended project' (like in the International Baccalaureate). There is more to the new system than simply this, but it gets complicated (and detailed) very quickly, so I'll keep it at this for now. These changes are set to come in from 2008.
Much of what's being done is okay, or at least it's well-intentioned (often just the best of a bad job, though), and of course there is no perfect system for everybody - particularly not in a culture obsessed with everybody achieving according to the same standards. (1) They are right in saying that the system as is doesn't stretch the brightest students, and at the moment they are left to challenge themselves or Lady Luck finds them a fantastic teacher/mentor who prevents them from going off the rails with boredom and introduces them to new ideas. (2) Although the intention is to encourage greater depth in doing just 4 units, I suspect that by studying fewer subjects there will be far less accessible cross-referencing, which will ultimately lead to anaemic thinking and examination responses. The consequence will be, I think, increasingly narrow-minded, bored and unaware students. (3) The introduction of an 'A*' we've seen before, and it's an integral part of the GCSE system now. I'd argue for harsher marking and an upping of expectations, rather than the weak filtering that the A* will cause. Stop pussy-footing around the issue and pretending that everyone should be allowed to get A's and above. Make A's more difficult to achieve.

Finally, (4) the International Bacalaureate-like 'extended project', which is where I start gnashing my teeth. Instead of sliding along trying not to look like they're aware of the IB, why don't the Educationy governmenty people just introduce the IB into our mainstream schools? If that sounds like a wild idea to you, get a life. It seems like an incredibly straightforward option, and I have no idea why people aren't taking it. Maybe the same mindset as holding onto the Pound Sterling, though with little historical interest nor economic problems. The A Level system is a broken cobbled-together mishmash of diktat after diktat, respected by few and struggled against by hundreds of thousands of students every year. It is a mess, and unfixable without major alterations - alterations policy-makers are not willing, or not able, to effect. So it's broke, and we can't fix it. The IB, on the other hand, is continuing to have great success and is well-respected across the globe, and schools in Britain are increasingly adopting it as an alternative - or sole - curriculum. It's really good. It's not perfect, but it works. It challenges the most talented students, a fact indicated by the offers Oxford and Cambridge give IB students every year: marked out ouf 45, the standard offer from these two universities is between 38 and 42 points, with the Higher Level subjects requiring between 7,6,6 and 7,7,7. Compare this to A Level offers, which are almost always AAA or more.

The IB covers a broader range of subjects in greater depth. It doesn't sacrifice breadth for hoped-for 'depth' (cf: imminent changes in A Level system) - they study more. It's challenging for the most able students; respected and recognised world-wide; the government wouldn't be able to embarrassedly fix results because our examinations scripts would be sent all over the place for marking. It would require teachers to completely revamp their syllabuses and methods, but if the sweeping changes claimed by this 'new' system are really that sweeping then teachers are going to have a hellish settling-down period anyway, so why not go the whole hog with a system that has been tried and tested? They'd have far more fun teaching it. From what I've seen of IB students, they are quite simply better educated - that to me screams volumes, and it's not just because they all seem to have gone to private schools of one kind or another.

IB, please, Education Balls.

(I did A Levels, by the way).