英国的评估和学习损失:绝不让一个好的危机浪费掉

IF 1.8 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jo-Anne Baird, Louise Hayward, Michelle Meadows, Zhanxin Hao
{"title":"英国的评估和学习损失:绝不让一个好的危机浪费掉","authors":"Jo-Anne Baird, Louise Hayward, Michelle Meadows, Zhanxin Hao","doi":"10.1080/13603116.2023.2274112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Disruption of the status quo caused by the pandemic in England provides a lens to view the priorities embedded in the qualifications system. The Government’s initial priority was to avert grade inflation, followed by a populist turn to teacher assessment after a widespread backlash. Subsequent Government arguments for the return to examinations as the fairest way to assess re-introduced policies which emphasised excellence agenda. Learning loss, a consequence of the pandemic, compounded pre-existing patterns of inequality. Inclusive policies to address this in the qualification system would require fundamentally different ways of thinking compared to, for example, the current adaptations that are made for young people with special educational needs because the modern inclusion agenda is broader. The excellence agenda assumes a competitive system in which educational resources must be rationed; that there will be winners and losers. We question this logic, arguing for principles that would underpin a more inclusive qualification system. Since 2015, pupils must stay in education or training until they are 18. Thus, at very least, rationing educational access before this is unwarranted. A modern approach would be more flexible, putting learners first and embrace diversity rather than standardisation as the main principle for fair assessment.","PeriodicalId":48025,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Inclusive Education","volume":"2017 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment and learning loss in England: never let a good crisis go to waste\",\"authors\":\"Jo-Anne Baird, Louise Hayward, Michelle Meadows, Zhanxin Hao\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13603116.2023.2274112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Disruption of the status quo caused by the pandemic in England provides a lens to view the priorities embedded in the qualifications system. The Government’s initial priority was to avert grade inflation, followed by a populist turn to teacher assessment after a widespread backlash. Subsequent Government arguments for the return to examinations as the fairest way to assess re-introduced policies which emphasised excellence agenda. Learning loss, a consequence of the pandemic, compounded pre-existing patterns of inequality. Inclusive policies to address this in the qualification system would require fundamentally different ways of thinking compared to, for example, the current adaptations that are made for young people with special educational needs because the modern inclusion agenda is broader. The excellence agenda assumes a competitive system in which educational resources must be rationed; that there will be winners and losers. We question this logic, arguing for principles that would underpin a more inclusive qualification system. Since 2015, pupils must stay in education or training until they are 18. Thus, at very least, rationing educational access before this is unwarranted. A modern approach would be more flexible, putting learners first and embrace diversity rather than standardisation as the main principle for fair assessment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Inclusive Education\",\"volume\":\"2017 11\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Inclusive Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2274112\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Inclusive Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2274112","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英格兰大流行对现状造成的破坏,提供了一个视角来审视资历体系中嵌入的优先事项。政府最初的首要任务是避免分数膨胀,随后在广泛反弹后,民粹主义转向教师评估。随后,政府主张恢复考试作为最公平的评估方式,重新引入了强调卓越议程的政策。这一大流行病造成的学习损失加剧了原有的不平等模式。在资格制度中解决这一问题的包容性政策将需要根本不同的思维方式,例如,与目前针对有特殊教育需求的年轻人所做的调整相比,因为现代包容性议程更广泛。卓越议程假设了一个竞争体系,在这个体系中,教育资源必须是定量配给的;会有赢家和输家。我们对这种逻辑提出质疑,主张建立一个更具包容性的资格体系。自2015年起,学生必须继续接受教育或培训,直到18岁。因此,至少,在此之前限制教育机会是没有根据的。现代的方法将更加灵活,把学习者放在第一位,拥抱多样性而不是标准化作为公平评估的主要原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment and learning loss in England: never let a good crisis go to waste
Disruption of the status quo caused by the pandemic in England provides a lens to view the priorities embedded in the qualifications system. The Government’s initial priority was to avert grade inflation, followed by a populist turn to teacher assessment after a widespread backlash. Subsequent Government arguments for the return to examinations as the fairest way to assess re-introduced policies which emphasised excellence agenda. Learning loss, a consequence of the pandemic, compounded pre-existing patterns of inequality. Inclusive policies to address this in the qualification system would require fundamentally different ways of thinking compared to, for example, the current adaptations that are made for young people with special educational needs because the modern inclusion agenda is broader. The excellence agenda assumes a competitive system in which educational resources must be rationed; that there will be winners and losers. We question this logic, arguing for principles that would underpin a more inclusive qualification system. Since 2015, pupils must stay in education or training until they are 18. Thus, at very least, rationing educational access before this is unwarranted. A modern approach would be more flexible, putting learners first and embrace diversity rather than standardisation as the main principle for fair assessment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Inclusive Education
International Journal of Inclusive Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Inclusive Education provides a strategic forum for international and multi-disciplinary dialogue on inclusive education for all educators and educational policy-makers concerned with the form and nature of schools, universities and technical colleges. Papers published are original, refereed, multi-disciplinary research into pedagogies, curricula, organizational structures, policy-making, administration and cultures to include all students in education. The journal does not accept enrolment in school, college or university as a measure of inclusion. The focus is upon the nature of exclusion and on research, policy and practices that generate greater options for all people in education and beyond.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信