The Ethics of “Teaching to Exams”

A recent article in the wonderful Bagehot column of The Economist discussed the so called ‘open v. closed’ divide that some say has come to replace traditional left-right cleavages in politics that has apparently enhanced political polarisation within society. The piece was, as is almost invariably the case with Bagehot, interesting and touched on ideas related to identity politics that are quite intellectually a la mode at the moment given the work of controversial popular intellectuals such as Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson whose work is currently causing quite a stir.

However, what really struck me were the concluding paragraphs which addressed what the columnist referred to as ‘the real divide’ and a key explanation for political polarisation- that of “the gap between exam passers and exam flunkers”.  I think it is worth pasting the entire final two paragraphs in their entirety:

“There is a better explanation of political polarisation than the open-closed split. It is the gap between exam-passers and exam-flunkers. Qualifications grant access to a world that is protected from the downside of globalisation. You can get a job with a superstar company that has constructed moats and drawbridges to protect itself, or with a middle-class guild that provides job security, or with the state bureaucracy. Failing exams casts you down into an unpredictable world of cut-throat competition.

Exam-passers combine a common ability to manage the downside of globalisation with a common outlook—call it narcissistic cosmopolitanism—that binds them together and legitimises their disdain for rival tribes. Exam-flunkers, meanwhile, are united by anger at the elitists who claim to be open as long as their jobs are protected. They are increasingly willing to bring the system crashing down. Talking about open v closed is a double error. It obscures the deeper forces dividing the world, and spares winners by playing down the legitimate concerns of losers.”

Whilst you may disagree with the extent to which not being an ‘exam passer’ can affect people, I think most would agree that there is more than a kernel of truth in this.

At the time of year when exams are very much at the forefront of teachers’ minds, teachers can get bogged and disillusioned at the prospect of ‘teaching to the test’ and of hammering home ‘exam technique’ relentlessly. This is completely understandable. Most teachers love the academic aspect of their subject at least as much as the pedagogical one. Instructing students exactly how to squeeze out a final few marks on a paper at the expense of delving deeply into a topic and seeking out the richness and beauty within a subject is rarely a teacher’s favourite part of the job. I have also heard it argued that this boarders on the unethical and that a culture based around exam passing rather than enriching students’ understanding and their appreciation of the subject deprives them of what education should be doing.

Perhaps this is what education should be doing. But we have to base decisions around teaching and learning within the education system (and indeed, the economic system) that currently exists. The fact is that failing to succeed in exams limits students’ opportunities in life and does not provide them with a ‘shield’ against the more pernicious aspects of modern economic realities (please don’t trot out the straw men of Richard Branson, Alan Sugar et al who failed exams and yet made millions- they are notable because they are the extreme exceptions, rather than the rule). Surely the real ethical failing would be to ensure students are not ready for this and are not equipped with a pocket full of great examinations grades.

Much of the time, it is not a case of either or and we must be careful to avoid creating a false dichotomy. Enriching students beyond the scope of what is specifically defined by the exam specification will often improve their exam results. However, there will come a point where a decision must be made to focus squarely on the exam and perhaps we should be careful of disparaging teachers and schools who decide to do this earlier rather than later (I have heard this happen myself and seen it written on social media).

I say all this as someone who inclined towards academia and instilling within students a love of learning a subject for its own sake, without extrinsic reward. However, like all teachers, I want to give students the very best start in life. John Tomsett has written in a number of places that “I am convinced that the best pastoral care for students from socio-economically deprived backgrounds is a good set of examination results”.

The quote that most resonated from the above article was “Failing exams casts you down into an unpredictable world of cut-throat competition”. (The fact that The Economist even hinted at criticising competition emphasises just how cut throat this world must be!) At some point in the teaching year or in the process of curriculum design, a decision must be made about the trade off between the exam and the richness of the subject as a whole. They aren’t the same thing. Let’s not be too hasty to cast students into this ‘cut throat’ world in order to preserve our selfish view of how a subject ‘should’ be taught.