ok; that's maybe a bit premature, but I've been reading Hemingway (again).
That said, the arguments against this time warp of an exam certainly continue to mount. It was good to see Philip Collins adding to them last week. If you want a quick summary of the case against it, his New Statesman article is better than many, and it has some useful history.
My main argument for getting shot of it is that it would free up zillions of hours for some actual learning to take place (as opposed to revision). For those who want to see more learning about climate and the environment, this would be most welcome.
The vested interests standing against such ideas are wide-ranging and well-marshalled. They include those deluded folk who ague that if only exam boards would set more questions about climate and the environment, then schools would have to teach about it. How dispiriting.
Respond