ITS Educational News

The UK government has announced that state schools will soon be allowed to offer IGCSEs as an alternative to GCSEs. This comes as the number of pupils enrolled in GCSEs in the independent sector continues to fall as many departments and schools switch over to the IGCSE. There is a feeling in the industry that IGCSEs are a more rigorous qualification with which to complete compulsory education, especially for pupils heading into post-16 education. The overturning of the ban imposed by the previous government seems to endorse this point of view.

The IGCSE is currently provided by two of the UK’s public examination bodies – Edexcel and CIE. Figures show that last year over 500 UK schools enrolled pupils in the Edexcel version and 350 or so in the CIE version. The qualification has been used by overseas students from all over the globe for a number of years, particularly those with an eye on returning to/moving to the UK for A-levels and university. Tens of thousands of IGCSE examinations were sat across the world.

Supporters of IGCSE say it examines pupils to a far higher standard than GCSE and also moves the emphasis back to actual examinations, with less coursework involved. Critics (rather cynically) say the lower amount of coursework is attractive to teachers wanting to ease their workloads. From my experience with the IGCSE over the years here in Hong Kong, I’d happily say it is harder than GCSE. This is not to say that it should be avoided, but in fact embraced as I believe IGCSE strikes the right level of academic demand at the right age. GCSE has become too easy.

The Edexcel IGCSE courses on offer in Hong Kong are excellent ones. A wide range of subjects can be undertaken and often with a great deal of flexibility, allowing maximum access to the widest range of people. They prepare students very well both for A-level courses and the IB, whichever they may choose to move on to.

By Danny Harrington

Co-founder of ITS Tutorial School

Return to: ITS Tutorial School Home Page

The cost of education is so often at the forefront of discussions about education as it is the money available that sets many of the limits on what can be taught, to whom and at what level. New figures released in the last couple of days and reported by the BBC, have brought fees into the limelight yet again (although they’re never far from it, it must be said). Of particular concern are the latest figures for overseas students – the most lucrative and vulnerable group in equal measure.

Fees for British and EU students attending full-time undergraduate university courses in the UK are capped at GBP3,290 but there is no limit to what universities charge students from other countries, and with looming spending cuts, many of them are turning to the overseas market as a way of making up potential shortfalls. The BBC reports that the average fees for non-British/EU students will rise 5.6% to GBP10,463 in 2010/2011, with some subjects more than double that if they involve heavy usage of resources such as chemicals or lab time. The average within the Russell Group will be GBP12,162.

These changes will probably be borne fairly easily by the market but one has to wonder where the ceiling is, or where diminishing returns will begin to set in. Overseas students are bound to start asking what extra they can get from a British education that they can’t get from the US, Australia or Canada among others (not everyone can go to Oxbridge or the big Londons). They are bound to start asking why they should subsidize all those British and EU students, especially the mediocre ones at mediocre universities many of whom are just avoiding work or the dole.

I for one, sincerely hope that the government will keep a wary eye and make sure that the UK does not begin to lose out on attracting an invaluable pool of very high quality young minds to its shores, especially to its best institutions. Britain was and is built on an incredible cosmopolitanism, perhaps unrivalled anywhere else in space or time. The country gains from the students who study there, as they gain from those studies as individuals and as other societies gain when they go out into the world. As Hong Kongers we are acutely aware of the great disservice that was done when Britain denied its Hong Kong citizens full citizenship (pre-handover) as was expected by precedent, coming up with the ludicrous British National Overseas (BNO) classification as a fop. Then, half the talented and wealthy middle-class of the territory quite rightly went to a welcoming Canada, and look how Vancouver has thrived. Let’s hope Britain has learned its lesson.

By Danny Harrington

Co-founder of ITS Tutorial School

Return to: ITS Tutorial School Home Page

Even people who have never stepped foot in a bespoke tailor’s establishment appreciate the fact that tailored clothes will fit better. It is very basic common sense that if you are measured and the cloth cut exactly to those measurements; if you choose the colours and patterns that best suit your skin, hair, eye colour; that the cut hides the bits you’d rather hide and accentuates those you are proud of, then you are going to end up with exactly the clothing you want and need for the tasks you expect it to perform, be they social, work or personal. Unfortunately, we can’t all afford to have our clothes individually tailored, and so the apparel industry provides a wide price and quality range of off-the-peg clothing for the majority of us which works just fine because few of us are particularly conscious of the effect that peoples’ clothing has on our dealings with them.

But when it comes to education, the impact of the tailoring is far more deeply and overtly felt; by the individual in the first instance and by society as a whole in the second. It has always baffled me the extent to which so many people put absolute faith if the one-size-fits all approach that society provides. It’s perfectly understandable why we have most of our children processed through the school system production line fashion – costs, time factors, standardization of curricula, regulation, security. It is easy to trot out plenty of reasons, or perhaps we should call them excuses. Because it is a fact that education is massively undervalued at the societal level across all nations. Private education is always much better funded, because the returns for the investor’s money accrue back to the investor in a tangible manner (as well as to society as a whole). But when we are asked to contribute to state provision of education we are reluctant because “what’s in it for me?” So big state education funding doesn’t win votes and so it gets paid lip service.

The result is a body of professionals terribly underpaid in relation to the role they perform in society creating a spiral of falling teaching standards as the field consistently fails to attract all but the most altruistic talent. And underfunded institutions resulting in ridiculously large class sizes and ridiculously low resource availability. And then we moan that schools aren’t producing the kinds of employees/members of society that we desire and need.

Schooling began for the rich and privileged with the private tutor. It continues for the wealthy with small class sizes and private tutor combinations. It is the only proven form of education that works. Tailored learning, both in content and rate of acquisition. Governments everywhere should be taking note of the blindingly obvious and putting proper resources into getting these kinds of ratios into place. If we want a future for ourselves and our kids we have to invest in it. It isn’t free.

By Danny Harrington

Co-founder of ITS Tutorial School

Return to: ITS Tutorial School Home Page

Both in the UK and here in Hong Kong, there is a severe shortage of undergraduate places. Schools are churning out ever growing numbers of students with the qualifications, the ability and the desire to attain a university education. And despite being perfectly aware of the demographic and the fact that schools have been driving standards up, successive governments have failed to adequately make provision for their continuing education. However, as both societies operate with a free-ish market economy, the private sector has generally tried to provide that which the government cannot or will not. The problem with university education is that it is very heavily regulated and not just anyone can set themselves up and start awarding degrees. There are some very good reasons for this not least the mantra of standards, standards, standards. As the UK awards university status to a private institution for the first time in thirty odd years this week, an old argument has been dug up.

The crux of it is, can we trust privately operated, for-profit organizations, to provide high-quality degree courses and thus individuals schooled to the standards that employers and society in general demand? For me the answer is a resounding yes, and here’s why.

The main argument revolves around standards. Critics of private universities fear that the profit motive gets in the way of true academic freedoms. At undergraduate level, this is poppycock. Of course we have to be careful about privately commissioned studies at research level, but why on earth would undergraduate standards be compromised? The bottom line of any profit-making organization is just that – profit. Profit requires revenue, revenue requires customers, customers demand quality. It is no use throwing years’ worth of future earnings at a degree which means nothing and which employers won’t recognize. Of course there will always be silly individuals who think that any piece of paper with the word degree on it will suffice. That’s why the fake degree industry thrives. Private universities are not part of the equation. Instead they have every interest, perhaps more than those vying for government funding, in recruiting good teachers/lecturers/professors to deliver quality courses. Without this, they are out of business.

Further to this, who ever said that private universities would not be regulated? In the UK the Quality Assurance Agency oversees all universities without exception and ensures standards are maintained. There are procedures in place for censuring any slip in standards including the ultimate threat of removing the degree-awarding status of an institution. As long as the governance is there, the providers will do the job required (most would do it anyway – it is highly cynical to assume private = privateer).

There are some legitimate concerns surrounding the rules applying to private universities in the UK. They are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act for example. And the rules on changes of ownership are considered to be too lax. But these are minor details, open to change. The fundamental truth remains that private universities have just as much interest in producing good graduates as any other. And the proof may be in the pudding. The University of Buckingham was the last private institution to be given university status in Britain, 34 years ago, when it became Buckingham University College. The latest Guardian University Guide ranks it 2nd in the country for Business and 6th for English behind Oxford, UCL, Cambridge, St Andrews and Warwick.

It seems that many critics are simply pinning their displeasure on the word private. It is a deep-seated political position. But they are naïve if they think the public sector is somehow disengaged from private financing. Universities for years have turned to the private sector for funding, donations and sponsorship. They regularly badger their alumni for contributions. Overseas students who pay inflated fees in full and on time are courted and the summer school business is shamelessly promoted. Money is probably the most talked about topic in higher education and where it comes from is probably the least point of concern.

So what for Hong Kong? Well, we have at least one private institution ripe for university status. If the government can see past the lobbying of the groups with a vested interest in blocking the move, then, done properly, it can only be a step in the right direction for our city.

By Danny Harrington

Co-founder of ITS Tutorial School

Return to: ITS Tutorial School Home Page

A recent SCMP article highlighted the case of a Hong Kong parent who had happily spent nearly a million dollars putting her daughter through two years of school in the UK because she felt British A-levels were easier than Hong Kong ones and thus her daughter had a better chance of getting high grades and entry to HKU which treats both qualifications equally for entry purposes. In the past week two more instances have emerged querying the level of difficulty of UK public examinations.

The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual), the government body responsible for overseeing qualifications, examinations and assessments in England for a variety of levels, including GCSE and A-level, has been widely reported in the press as being unhappy with the demands of the recent raft of GCSE Science papers from all the main examination boards. Too many questions on Science papers taken in 2009 and 2010 asked for general knowledge with a scientific bent, or led candidates too far towards the answer. Ofqual has said it wants Science questions to be harder and to require students to properly demonstrate their scientific knowledge.

In a separate instance, Education secretary Michael Gove has said that he wants to return A-levels to the two year linear structure of yesteryear in response to widespread complaints that modular A-levels are “too easy”. Critics of modular A-levels say that there is too much emphasis on examination, the modules break the course up, removing any feeling of coherence, and that there is an overall lack of depth to the qualification which leaves modern students ill-prepared for university learning.

There has, however, been an immediate response against this proposal. Geoff Parks, admissions manager for the University of Cambridge, has been reported by the BBC as having written to the secretary of state pointing out the immense benefits that universities derive from the modular style, most particularly having AS results available to admissions tutors during the selection process. He says that these provide far greater insight than other available results such as GCSEs (especially pertinent given fears about those standards). Not only are they a great help in indicating bottom-line academic ability, they seem to help make the application process fairer, encouraging applications from non-traditional backgrounds and thus allowing institutions to tap into the true talent pool rather than a portion of it.

Education reform is perhaps one of the greatest areas of contention in society. It always will be as long as society needs to try and standardize the “non-standardizeable” (people). For now it seems a middle way is going to be desirable. Reducing the number of examinations to make school time more efficiently and advantageously used while still giving universities and students the best academic and intellectual indicators possible is a challenge which needs to be risen to.

By Danny Harrington

Co-founder of ITS Tutorial School

Return to: ITS Tutorial School Home Page