Alphabet Soup, Acronym Crackers

Once upon a time, when I was way too young to know anything about education policies, principles & pass rates, every school child took either 'O' levels if you had some sort of demonstrable academic ability, or CSEs if you didn't (or possibly a mixture, but that's digressing..). The system approximately expressed the division between grammar schools and secondary moderns, but tended to make less sense as more schools went comprehensives, so the introduction of GCSEs in the late 1980s was long overdue.

However, this soon translated to GCSEs effectively becoming CSEs for everyone to the extent that the proportion of students obtaining top grades is now three times what it was when they were introduced (and looking through old papers from my sister's year to my own 10 years previously shows how dumbed down they were to begin with).

This means that Michael Gove's desire to ditch GCSEs in favour of a restored 'O' level-type qualification is somewhat idealistic, but its also unlikely that the latest scheme would survive the inevitable avalanche of criticism from the educational establishment even if his coalition partners weren't dead set against it.

It raises the conundrum that any exam possessing sufficient rigour to be worthwhile, will by definition be too difficult for a minority of pupils to pass, regardless of any improvements that are made in teaching, and so requires some sort of different provision for those less able.

So if we take the position that GCSEs are now discredited with their grades inflated into meaninglessness, is the best solution to replace them with a new examination system that would, in a few years' time, fall victim to exactly the same process of grade inflation and declining confidence?

Far better then to just get rid of them, particularly as post-16 qualifications make no sense when the normal school leaving age will be 18 from 2015 and it is surely logical for the main assessment of academic achievement to coincide with the final year of school? Taking GCSEs out of the picture would then leave a convenient opening for AS levels to be introduced to slightly younger students with minimum disruption and cost as teachers are familiar with them and they integrate with 'A'-levels in a way that GCSEs never have.

To Beeb or not to Beeb, was there a question?

Visiting my father yesterday on the way back from another post-presentation trans-pennine drive, I was amused (and sceptical!) to learn that the BBC had decided to ban the use of BC and AD in favour of the more pensioner-confusing terms BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era).

Evidently, the front page of his Mail on Sunday displayed the banner headline "BBC turns its back on year of Our Lord" and followed it with claims that executives at the public broadcaster had banned the use of the dating terms and insisted that they be replaced with more "politically correct" ones. As I'm sure you'd agree, this would be an impressive feat even for an organisation with the Beeb's influence, but could it really "jettison 2,000 years of history"?
Well, er, no, as actually reading to the last paragraph makes clear via a spokesperson from the broadcaster...
"The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems. Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams."

So where did this "story" come from and why does the Mail want to castigate the Corporation for simply saying that two dating systems are common and staff can use whichever they prefer? The BBC's "politically correct, Europhile agenda" is cited as the cause, although how either has any relevance is utterly beyond me. It's not exactly an adherence to "political correctness" to tell people that they can use whatever words they like, and no stretch of my imagination can get even close to any reason why or how Europe might fit in.

As it happens, only a minimal amount of research is necessary to ascertain where the story started, but quite why it's developed into incoherent rage is much more of a puzzle.

On the Frequently Asked Questions page part of the BBC Religion religion website there's a bit saying:
"In line with modern practice bbc.co.uk/religion uses BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) as a religiously neutral alternative to BC/AD. As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians."
a paragraph which is basically talking only about the BBC Religion web site, not making statements about BBC-wide policy, and has probably been there for some considerable time as there's nothing at all to indicates that this is some new rule.

Indeed, as the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority guidelines say "CE/BCE is becoming an industry standard among historians," and "pupils have to be able to recognise these terms when they come across them", why should the BBC be only now issuing edicts about the use of terminology that's been around for over 150 years?

Going back only a week, one of the Mail on Sunday columnists has written in a review of University Challenge that "Jeremy Paxman referred to a date as being Common Era, rather than AD. This nasty formulation is designed to write Christianity out of our culture."

This was followed on Saturday by a piece entitled "How the BBC fell for a Marxist plot to destroy civilisation from within" which links the above irritation to the BBC's website FAQ page (that's how I found it!) and proclaims
"No longer will [The BBC's] website refer to those bigoted, Christian-centric concepts AD (as in Anno Domini – the Year of Our Lord) and BC (Before Christ). From now on, it will use initials which strip our traditional Gregorian calendar of its offensive religious context. All reference to Christ has been expunged, replaced by the terms CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era)."

So by the time we get to Sunday, a columnist's trivial annoyance with a quiz show, a BBC FAQ and some incoherent rantings built on non-existent foundations have evolved into a full-page story which has fuelled over 1,500 on-line comments from Mail readers (mainly) unable to read past a headline!