GCSE reforms

[Sheaf Saint]

It's not often that I find myself incensed by new government initiatives, but this has to be the worst, most ill-thought-out, simplistic load of crap ever dreamed up by a minister. The fact that it's the brainchild of Michael Gove tells me all I need to know about it.

 

There was a very good reason that GCSEs were introduced in the first place, namely the fact that lots of kids are intelligent and academically gifted but do not cope very well in exam conditions. Exams aren't something that people have to face in the real world so they clearly are not the best way of grading a child's ability. So to now revert to a purely exam-based system is a massive step backwards that will disadvantage huge numbers of kids.

 

The only possible saving grace is that the new reforms aren't due to be implemented until 2015, and there is a slim possibility we will have a new government by then who will scrap the plans.

[Ken Tone]

What always strikes me amongst the various OTT hyped up and politicised comments is the issue over re-sits. (Much of the 'evel' coursework that parents could do for their kids, has already gone from most (not all) GCSEs, though interestingly it remains in some IGCSEs, so now Gove is leading a witchhunt against the modern format of modular exams sat at various points during a course, which means that results can be improved by a re-sit later.

 

This is apparently 'A Bad Thing'.

 

Yet this is the format used throughout much of society outside schools and colleges. How would the public react if told that you could only have one go at say the driving test, no re-take allowed if you fail first time? How many of you passed the drving test first time? (I did btw!) How many accountants or similar professionals amongst you, passed all your professional qualifications first time?

 

What are we actually trying to measure when we examine children? ... is the real big question

[alpine_saint]

Thank f**k Gove is reversing 20 years of dumbing down.

 

Giving kids "well done" pieces of paper as they leave school semi-literate and adding A* grades to "try" to still distinguish the bright kids was a ridiculous load of half-baked b*ll*cks, as was the postivie discrimination in the examining system changing from tests to coursework that has left thousands of boys washed-up with no future.

[alpine_saint]

What are we actually trying to measure when we examine children? ... is the real big question

 

The real test for kids is life. How well they deal with real-life situations.

 

Whether you and Bexy like it not, prospective employers are disgusted at the literacy and know-how of kids leaving school with no ability apart from parroting curricula, and are fed-up at the costs of not finding the right people or having to re-train them in basics.

[pap]

Retrograde step and completely out of step with the reality of what we're preparing kids for; working life. I doubt that there are many jobs that require someone to remember the last 2 years of their lives in something approaching entirety, yet this is precisely what we're asking our kids to do. Question is "why"? They'll most likely never need to do it again.

[buctootim]

We really need to appreciate skills based abilities in the UK more and not be such a slave to academic qualifications. Practical instead of paper based examinations are the way to go.

[ecuk268]

Exams should be about applying what you've learned.

 

I did a number of statistics exams in the dim and distant past and there was no way that you could remember the many complicated formulae. You were therefore supplied with a small handbook which listed the ones that you may need in the exam.

 

If the exam is designed in the right way, it's a test of knowledge application and problem solving rather then memory.

[alpine_saint]

Suddenly dawned on me today just how much of a refuge for bleeding heart liberals TSW is...

 

Apparently basic literacy, basic numeracy and dealing with low levels of pressure are no longer important

[Crazy Diamond]

It's not often that I find myself incensed by new government initiatives, but this has to be the worst, most ill-thought-out, simplistic load of crap ever dreamed up by a minister. The fact that it's the brainchild of Michael Gove tells me all I need to know about it.

 

There was a very good reason that GCSEs were introduced in the first place, namely the fact that lots of kids are intelligent and academically gifted but do not cope very well in exam conditions. Exams aren't something that people have to face in the real world so they clearly are not the best way of grading a child's ability. So to now revert to a purely exam-based system is a massive step backwards that will disadvantage huge numbers of kids.

 

The only possible saving grace is that the new reforms aren't due to be implemented until 2015, and there is a slim possibility we will have a new government by then who will scrap the plans.

 

Did you take GCSE exams? I wonder, because if you did, you’d realise how flawed they are.

 

I did GCSEs, and all the negative press you hear about them is spot on. They're designed so that it's hard to fail for a start. I was allowed to choose between taking a more difficult or simpler paper in electronics, for example. The difference in the papers being that the 'higher' paper had difficult questions and a higher pass mark; the 'lower' paper had easier questions and a lower pass mark. Explain to me how that's any good to anyone.

 

I can also recount the coursework I did in science. Being told 'don't write that, write this' was one thing, getting your coursework back up to three times to make improvements so that you achieved at least a grade C on it was quite another. Then there's being separated by gender when the underachievers are spotted. I was put in an all-male class because I was deemed an underachiever. The underachievers, coincidentally, were the troublemakers that under stricter schools from an age gone by would have been long since excluded. So rather than be helped, I was put in a class full of toe-rags that went around stabbing each other with compasses and insulting their teachers.

 

Sorry, but not 'coping well in exam conditions' is not an argument for me. You might as well have a reality for kids that don't 'cope well in the real world'.

 

GCSEs were designed so that hardly anyone failed. And let's be honest, the position of education secretary is the most thankless in government. 'WHY ARE GCSEs TOO EASY?' you hear everyone cry when results improve year on year. 'WHY ARE OUR KIDS FAILING THIS TIME?' you heard when results then went down for the first time in decades.

 

A bit of logic is required here. There are universities charging outrageous fees. Why? Because there are too many students that have been promised university places, no matter how intelligent they are or how important their subject is. Why do they all want to go to university? Because they managed to get an A level pretty easily, some by doing doss courses. How did they get to college to do A levels? Because they took GCSE exams that were difficult to fail and were sold a vision of a bright future once they had taken their 'rightful' place at university.

 

To go to university and get a degree used to be an honour and a privilege. It is now an expectation. Something went badly wrong - it began with GCSEs and the 1997 Labour government.

 

We really need to appreciate skills based abilities in the UK more

 

Agreed.

[ecuk268]

Interesting comparison....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9548083/O-levels-v-GCSEs-how-do-they-compare.html

[alpine_saint]

Did you take GCSE exams? I wonder, because if you did, you’d realise how flawed they are.

 

I did GCSEs, and all the negative press you hear about them is spot on. They're designed so that it's hard to fail for a start. I was allowed to choose between taking a more difficult or simpler paper in electronics, for example. The difference in the papers being that the 'higher' paper had difficult questions and a higher pass mark; the 'lower' paper had easier questions and a lower pass mark. Explain to me how that's any good to anyone.

 

I can also recount the coursework I did in science. Being told 'don't write that, write this' was one thing, getting your coursework back up to three times to make improvements so that you achieved at least a grade C on it was quite another. Then there's being separated by gender when the underachievers are spotted. I was put in an all-male class because I was deemed an underachiever. The underachievers, coincidentally, were the troublemakers that under stricter schools from an age gone by would have been long since excluded. So rather than be helped, I was put in a class full of toe-rags that went around stabbing each other with compasses and insulting their teachers.

 

Sorry, but not 'coping well in exam conditions' is not an argument for me. You might as well have a reality for kids that don't 'cope well in the real world'.

 

GCSEs were designed so that hardly anyone failed. And let's be honest, the position of education secretary is the most thankless in government. 'WHY ARE GCSEs TOO EASY?' you hear everyone cry when results improve year on year. 'WHY ARE OUR KIDS FAILING THIS TIME?' you heard when results then went down for the first time in decades.

 

A bit of logic is required here. There are universities charging outrageous fees. Why? Because there are too many students that have been promised university places, no matter how intelligent they are or how important their subject is. Why do they all want to go to university? Because they managed to get an A level pretty easily, some by doing doss courses. How did they get to college to do A levels? Because they took GCSE exams that were difficult to fail and were sold a vision of a bright future once they had taken their 'rightful' place at university.

 

To go to university and get a degree used to be an honour and a privilege. It is now an expectation. Something went badly wrong - it began with GCSEs and the 1997 Labour government.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

Good post.

 

Skill-based abilities are important, absolutely. But I dont see what is the problem with separating vocational and academic study from 14/16, as in the past. By then, you can tell what a child is capable, interested in, and most likely to succeed at.

 

The "one size fits all - so long as you can cough up/dont mind a lifetime in debt" mentality is letting kids down much more than the "old ways"

[Saintandy666]

I think there are problems with GCSE's in some subjects, but I don't think Gove's ideas are the solution to everything. I agree there should be one exam board, and that they should be less modular, but I am not sure about the one exam for all lasting 3 hours where some students can't finish. I prefer the tiered approach of GCSE.

 

There is/was a serious problem with Science. I was one of a few students who was picked for the trial run of doing physics, chemistry and biology separately and that involved doing 3 extra proper written papers at the end of all the other exams at the end of the year which was a bit more challenging. But the actual science GCSE and then additional science GCSE(I had to sit all of those papers too as well as extra written exams to get my individual GCSE's) were extremely weak.

 

There were far too many modules at far too quick intervals designed in a such a way as to compartmentalise the whole subject. You barely needed to build up knowledge at all if you were doing the 2 normal GCSE's. They were also far too reliant on short answer questions and multiple choice. I don't have a problem with some multiple choice at the beginning of exams or just in general, but there really needs to be a shift away from learning a book by heart and regurgitating it to applying your knowledge to real world situations.

 

Personally, I would change science GCSE's back to individual subjects in all cases and make people sit 2 normal modules a year(one in January and one in June) and have more of an emphasis on application. Basically, make it more like an A Level!

 

However, on GCSE's in general, they are hard to fail... if you count a G grade as a pass, but it is certainly harder to get a string of A's and A*'s across a broad range of subjects.

[Thedelldays]

Criteria referencing in GCSEs cannot be a good thing when utterly thick people are getting Cs and above

 

Regularly see young lads at work who have all As and B's and their basic English is utterly horrific

[Saintandy666]

And I don't think coursework has to be a bad idea. My 15,000 word Chemistry A2 coursework was possibly the hardest thing I have ever had to do academically, harder than any exam I have done. It involved 4 weeks worth of lessons of lone practicals and then a rigorous analysis(fully referenced) after that of what I had done. The only help I had was a couple of chats with my teacher, but beyond that I was on my own. So I think it depends on the approach.

[Thedelldays]

And I don't think coursework has to be a bad idea. My 15,000 word Chemistry A2 coursework was possibly the hardest thing I have ever had to do academically, harder than any exam I have done. It involved 4 weeks worth of lessons of lone practicals and then a rigorous analysis(fully referenced) after that of what I had done. The only help I had was a couple of chats with my teacher, but beyond that I was on my own. So I think it depends on the approach.

 

Is that GCSES?

[dingbattigger]

 

However, on GCSE's in general, they are hard to fail... if you count a G grade as a pass, but it is certainly harder to get a string of A's and A*'s across a broad range of subjects.

 

 

What the hell is it with A*'s? Either the paper is good and worth an A or it isn't. If paper B is better than paper A then paper A isn't worth an A grade FFS

[Saintandy666]

Is that GCSES?

 

No, it isn't, so I am slightly off topic. I think what I was trying to get at is that we should make GCSE's a bit more like A2. The step up from GCSE to A Level is quite large, especially A2.

[Thedelldays]

I think when GCSEs reward average Ness for so long..... Change is not always a bad thing

[Saintandy666]

What the hell is it with A*'s? Either the paper is good and worth an A or it isn't. If paper B is better than paper A then paper A isn't worth an A grade FFS

 

I guess it does have a use because A is 80%+ and A* is 90%+. However, I do think once you hitting the high 80's on a consistent basis, the difference between A and an A* is sheer luck by which questions come up on the day.

[iansums]

We really need to appreciate skills based abilities in the UK more and not be such a slave to academic qualifications. Practical instead of paper based examinations are the way to go.

 

Absolutely agree. We need Technical colleges for 16-18 year olds who are not 'academic' to learn a skilled trade. In recent times we have been encouraging too many kids to go to University to sit half baked courses. Universities should be for the elite.

[Saintandy666]

Absolutely agree. We need Technical colleges for 16-18 year olds who are not 'academic' to learn a skilled trade. In recent times we have been encouraging too many kids to go to University to sit half baked courses. Universities should be for the elite.

 

We already have this though. In our town, we have a college which offers primarily A Levels and then another which offers more practical courses for trades and what not. Neither are bad, just different routes depending of what you want to do.

[trousers]

Did you take GCSE exams? I wonder, because if you did, you’d realise how flawed they are.

 

I did GCSEs, and all the negative press you hear about them is spot on. They're designed so that it's hard to fail for a start. I was allowed to choose between taking a more difficult or simpler paper in electronics, for example. The difference in the papers being that the 'higher' paper had difficult questions and a higher pass mark; the 'lower' paper had easier questions and a lower pass mark. Explain to me how that's any good to anyone.

 

I can also recount the coursework I did in science. Being told 'don't write that, write this' was one thing, getting your coursework back up to three times to make improvements so that you achieved at least a grade C on it was quite another. Then there's being separated by gender when the underachievers are spotted. I was put in an all-male class because I was deemed an underachiever. The underachievers, coincidentally, were the troublemakers that under stricter schools from an age gone by would have been long since excluded. So rather than be helped, I was put in a class full of toe-rags that went around stabbing each other with compasses and insulting their teachers.

 

Sorry, but not 'coping well in exam conditions' is not an argument for me. You might as well have a reality for kids that don't 'cope well in the real world'.

 

GCSEs were designed so that hardly anyone failed. And let's be honest, the position of education secretary is the most thankless in government. 'WHY ARE GCSEs TOO EASY?' you hear everyone cry when results improve year on year. 'WHY ARE OUR KIDS FAILING THIS TIME?' you heard when results then went down for the first time in decades.

 

A bit of logic is required here. There are universities charging outrageous fees. Why? Because there are too many students that have been promised university places, no matter how intelligent they are or how important their subject is. Why do they all want to go to university? Because they managed to get an A level pretty easily, some by doing doss courses. How did they get to college to do A levels? Because they took GCSE exams that were difficult to fail and were sold a vision of a bright future once they had taken their 'rightful' place at university.

 

To go to university and get a degree used to be an honour and a privilege. It is now an expectation. Something went badly wrong - it began with GCSEs and the 1997 Labour government.

 

I agree with your genral thrust (so to speak) but good luck with such a post on here....

[pap]

Absolutely agree. We need Technical colleges for 16-18 year olds who are not 'academic' to learn a skilled trade. In recent times we have been encouraging too many kids to go to University to sit half baked courses. Universities should be for the elite.

 

I went to tech college before going to Uni. Didn't get on with Tauntons. Last thing I really wanted after four years of school. Ended up doing a BTEC National in Computer Studies. Excellent course; got far more use out of that than A levels or indeed, much of the degree I did afterwards.

[Sheaf Saint]

Did you take GCSE exams? I wonder, because if you did, you’d realise how flawed they are.

 

I did GCSEs, and all the negative press you hear about them is spot on. They're designed so that it's hard to fail for a start. I was allowed to choose between taking a more difficult or simpler paper in electronics, for example. The difference in the papers being that the 'higher' paper had difficult questions and a higher pass mark; the 'lower' paper had easier questions and a lower pass mark. Explain to me how that's any good to anyone.

 

I can also recount the coursework I did in science. Being told 'don't write that, write this' was one thing, getting your coursework back up to three times to make improvements so that you achieved at least a grade C on it was quite another. Then there's being separated by gender when the underachievers are spotted. I was put in an all-male class because I was deemed an underachiever. The underachievers, coincidentally, were the troublemakers that under stricter schools from an age gone by would have been long since excluded. So rather than be helped, I was put in a class full of toe-rags that went around stabbing each other with compasses and insulting their teachers.

 

Yes I did. And the GCSEs I took were quite different from what you have described. For starters I was never given the option of re-submitting my coursework if the teacher felt that I could improve my scores by doing so. Once it was submitted that was it - as it should be. It seems to me that your experiences being placed with the under-achievers is a serious failing with the management of your school and not with the actual concept of GCSEs.

 

Sorry, but not 'coping well in exam conditions' is not an argument for me. You might as well have a reality for kids that don't 'cope well in the real world'.

 

Sorry to be so blunt but this is just utter b0ll0x. I know plenty of people who are all intelligent and capable but, like me, struggle a little when it comes to exams. This new system that is being proposed will immediately disadvantage thousands of people like this. It might be that you have a child who is brilliant at researching / report-writing etc.. but doesn't do well with exams. Does this mean that kid is stupid and unemployable? No, of course not. Then there are cases like the woman on the radio earlier who's son suffers from epileptic fits because of exam-stress but is otherwise very intelligent. How the hell does this new system do kids like this any favours?

 

GCSEs were designed so that hardly anyone failed. And let's be honest, the position of education secretary is the most thankless in government. 'WHY ARE GCSEs TOO EASY?' you hear everyone cry when results improve year on year. 'WHY ARE OUR KIDS FAILING THIS TIME?' you heard when results then went down for the first time in decades.

 

I was always told that the whole point of bringing in GCSEs was to do away with the overly-simplistic 'pass or fail' style of grading, to be replaced with a sliding scale (A-G) which would more clearly identify a student's actual abilities rather than give just a blanket-grade of pass or fail. It is commonly accepted that a C grade is equivalent to a pass, but still it isn't quite that simplistic.

 

A bit of logic is required here. There are universities charging outrageous fees. Why? Because there are too many students that have been promised university places, no matter how intelligent they are or how important their subject is. Why do they all want to go to university? Because they managed to get an A level pretty easily, some by doing doss courses. How did they get to college to do A levels? Because they took GCSE exams that were difficult to fail and were sold a vision of a bright future once they had taken their 'rightful' place at university.

 

To go to university and get a degree used to be an honour and a privilege. It is now an expectation. Something went badly wrong - it began with GCSEs and the 1997 Labour government.

 

I quite agree with you that too many people feel they have some kind of divine right to go to university these days and clearly something needs to be done to address that. But the criticisms you have outlined do not, IMO, identify failings with the general idea of GCSEs, merely the implementation of them over the years. To abandon the idea because it hasn't been put into practise very well is a mistake IMO. The idea is sound, because it grades a student's abilities in lots of different areas, rather than just their ability to cram a lot of information into their brains in preparation for a situation that they will never actually face in the real world.To scrap that and go back to what amounts to O-levels would be disastrous.

[Doctoroncall]

Absolutely agree. We need Technical colleges for 16-18 year olds who are not 'academic' to learn a skilled trade. In recent times we have been encouraging too many kids to go to University to sit half baked courses. Universities should be for the elite.

 

Agree, but I wouldn't say elite!

 

There are a few ways to prove competence. Each of us learns in different ways. Some of us prefer to study in depth before we tackle a task; others prefer to "get stuck into the job" and learn as we go along. Some of us are satisfied when the methods we use get the job done; others are more concerned with why a particular approach proved successful. Yet others spend time thinking through how the task could be tackled more effectively next time. Each an acceptable way of learning but difficult to show through just one of an exam, practical, coursework or viva.

 

For example, when Nursing degrees became an option they provided people with another avenue into that career (and a different learning style), however, when completed, the practical element can still be a challenge. It might have worked for a few but the mainstream application of nusing is practical hands-on experience. So matching careers with courses is essential... anyway I'm off as I'm late for my fire fighting degree ;-)

[Crazy Diamond]

For starters Bexy, I went to one of the top secondary schools in the country, having started out at a primary school that was one of the worst, so as far as the mis-management goes I remain to be totally convinced, but certainly there's a case for it. I had to play catch up in year two because in year one when I was educated in London (my family moved when I was six) I hadn't been taught very basic language, literature or mathematics. English is probably my strongest subject now, my maths never caught up. I'm utterly hopeless at maths - which again proves my point. I managed to get a C and I swear I had failed, and this was having taken the 'lower' or 'you can't do maths so you're going to go in with the troublemakers' paper.

 

Does it mean that someone who can't read and write within a specified time is unemployable? To a degree, yes, actually. A fair number of people who pass GCSEs these days look as if they can't read and write anyway, as thedelldays said. As for extreme cases such as the example you have highlighted, they should be viewed as that, extreme cases. Kids these days get a lot more help than they ever used to. Children that have any number of labels thrust upon them (ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia etc) are all well looked after, more than some people would care to acknowledge. A friend of mine who had very basic dyslexia, if any, was given three hours to do a one hour exam and a computer to type his answers.

 

'Overly simplistic pass or fail' - so what, there is an inbetween these days? "I didn't quite pass, but I didn't quite fail, so I'm going to Purgatory College'" ? Exams have been around for centuries, and it's only now that we start to question them. Funny that, isn't it...

[View From The Top]

League tables & to many exam boards have led to teaching solely to pass exams by schools and a dumbing down of exams by the boards.

 

Perhaps the changes to those areas will prove positive as for the rest, a step back not forward in many respects.

[Sheaf Saint]

'Overly simplistic pass or fail' - so what, there is an inbetween these days? "I didn't quite pass, but I didn't quite fail, so I'm going to Purgatory College'" ? Exams have been around for centuries, and it's only now that we start to question them. Funny that, isn't it...

 

Yeah, it's called grading... A-G, that isn't 'pass or fail'.

 

By limiting the results of an exam to just pass or fail you are basically saying that either a kid can do something or he can't, rather than looking at it on a sliding scale. It's way too simplistic IMO.

[Colinjb]

Yeah, it's called grading... A-G, that isn't 'pass or fail'.

 

By limiting the results of an exam to just pass or fail you are basically saying that either a kid can do something or he can't, rather than looking at it on a sliding scale. It's way too simplistic IMO.

 

Considering that a C grade is the minimum cut of for many purposes, then yes... there is a grey area of failure. To many major ends, a D grade for English or Mathematics is considered as failure, which calls into question the value of to differences between a D or an E grade in Core subjects such as these.

[swannymere]

Normally not pro-Tory but in this case they may be right to toughen up the qualification. Speaking as somebody who employs school age kids it's quite astonishing that alot of kids get A's and A*'s but are not very bright at all. I'm led to believe from what i read in the press, hear on the radio and watch on TV that the children are improving year on year when in real life this isn't my experience. I don't blame the teachers, i blame the system.

[View From The Top]

Normally not pro-Tory but in this case they may be right to toughen up the qualification. Speaking as somebody who employs school age kids it's quite astonishing that alot of kids get A's and A*'s but are not very bright at all. I'm led to believe from what i read in the press, hear on the radio and watch on TV that the children are improving year on year when in real life this isn't my experience. I don't blame the teachers, i blame the system.

 

The Functional Skills element has been introduced to tackle that issue. Everyone in the business excepts it's an issue but the system, geared as it is around league tables, means focus is almost exclusively on A* - C. It's all about knowing what to do to pass exams & not how to apply what has been learned in the real world.

[Thedelldays]

Isn't a grade C in the lower maths paper something like 50%

 

Same for English?

 

Also, how can it be right when the dumber the nation gets the rewards are the same?

[Colinjb]

Also, how can it be right when the dumber the nation gets the rewards are the same?

 

Careful, you might be encouraging elitism.

[buctootim]

Isn't a grade C in the lower maths paper something like 50%

 

Same for English?

 

Also, how can it be right when the dumber the nation gets the rewards are the same?

 

The nation isnt getting dumber - its just that the number of dumb people being allowed to take GCSEs is going up - they then score badly and lower the threshold for eveyrone else to get higher grades.

[Thedelldays]

The nation isnt getting dumber - its just that the number of dumb people being allowed to take GCSEs is going up - they then score badly and lower the threshold for eveyrone else to get higher grades.

 

Either way... It rewards more average people by default...

[View From The Top]

Either way... It rewards more average people by default...

 

As I said, it's the system, not the schools.

[Thedelldays]

As I said, it's the system, not the schools.

 

Yeah.

So I guess on the face of it... Making things slightly harder is a good thing at the mo..... Surely?

[buctootim]

My nine year old enjoys reading and is what I'd class as 'okay' at maths. He's bright but no prodigy. His class teacher told me last term that he can read and write as well as the average 16 year old leaving school. I found that depressing rather than pride making.

[View From The Top]

Yeah.

So I guess on the face of it... Making things slightly harder is a good thing at the mo..... Surely?

 

As long as the weaker are catered for and grade boundaries are set and not moveable.

[Sheaf Saint]

Yeah.

So I guess on the face of it... Making things slightly harder is a good thing at the mo..... Surely?

 

I can't disagree with that. Clearly there is an issue when barely-literate kids are leaving school with a 'pass' in English for instance, so something certainly needs to be done. But I don't believe scrapping the GCSE system and reverting to a purely exam-based certificate is the right way to address the problem.

[View From The Top]

The underlying problems aren't going to disappear. They are societal.

[Sheaf Saint]

The underlying problems aren't going to disappear. They are societal.

 

Yeah, agreed. When I was at school there was very definitely an attitude among a lot of kids that being brainy and actually paying attention and trying hard in lessons was somehow un-cool, so they dumbed it down and pretended to be stupid to impress their mates. I can only assume this is still just as prevalent, if not more so, than it was when I left school in 1991.

[Trader]

I was always told that the whole point of bringing in GCSEs was to do away with the overly-simplistic 'pass or fail' style of grading, to be replaced with a sliding scale (A-G) which would more clearly identify a student's actual abilities rather than give just a blanket-grade of pass or fail. It is commonly accepted that a C grade is equivalent to a pass, but still it isn't quite that simplistic.

 

Actually O-levels at least in 1966 when I took them were graded at A,B,C,D,E and O for a pass, and F,G and H for a fail.

 

And just to demonstrate how hard it was to get an A in those days, both the recipients of the A in maths in my year ended up doing maths degrees at Cambridge.

[Wes Tender]

I have to agree with most of what Crazy Diamond and Alpine have said on this topic.

[TheCholulaKid]

Worth spending 10 minutes on:

 

 

That's who the government should be listening to. Fat chance though.

[Wade Garrett]

O'levels weren't perfect.

 

I remember taking a chance with my Geography revision, and memorised an essay about the Norwegian fishing industry word for word. I was lucky that the question appeared on the paper, and managed a C. I would have been f*cked if it wasn't on there. Hardly a measure of how good I was.

 

Mind you, the fact that many who pass English and Maths, and are barely literate or numerate, does show how imperfect GCSE's are.

[Frank's cousin]

Think the problem was not with the old 'two-tiered system' (the old CSE and GCE O levels), but with opportunity and selection at 11. We seem to have become obsessed with 'standards' being measured in numbers of grades, when standards in education should be measured in equal resources, quality of teaching and ultimately in equal opportunity to realise the kids potential.... not dumbing down exams so that everyone gets them, without addressing the issue of quality.... We need to accept that kids are all different academically and practically and if you want 50% of kids to go to 'University' - well you need to improve intelligence - which is not really possible withut some genetic manipulation - instead labour simply converted all technical colleges and polys to universtities and with everyone suddenly getting higher grade a levels they could all go and do media studies - There is nothing wrong IMHO with admitting that some people are naturally academically brighter and Universities should be funded well to provide for those most able students and quality research - its good for the economy long term - And those not as 'gifted' academically need opportunity to learn practical skills, quality apprenticeships with qualifications that MEAN something.

 

The biggets issue in teh past was testing kids at 11 and assuming that was it - the best went to schools that did O levels and Alevels thta had beter resources and better teachers, and the rest to the old secondary 'moderns, which usually had the crappest facilities and crappest teachers and kids who developed a little later were often denied the opportunity to reach their academic potential

 

So IMHO, we need equaly standards and quality f teaching in schools so that they have equal opportunity - and an exam system that does identify the best to get the best Universities, but places equal value on the practiucal qualifications others can get.

[Wade Garrett]

Think the problem was not with the old 'two-tiered system' (the old CSE and GCE O levels), but with opportunity and selection at 11. We seem to have become obsessed with 'standards' being measured in numbers of grades, when standards in education should be measured in equal resources, quality of teaching and ultimately in equal opportunity to realise the kids potential.... not dumbing down exams so that everyone gets them, without addressing the issue of quality.... We need to accept that kids are all different academically and practically and if you want 50% of kids to go to 'University' - well you need to improve intelligence - which is not really possible withut some genetic manipulation - instead labour simply converted all technical colleges and polys to universtities and with everyone suddenly getting higher grade a levels they could all go and do media studies - There is nothing wrong IMHO with admitting that some people are naturally academically brighter and Universities should be funded well to provide for those most able students and quality research - its good for the economy long term - And those not as 'gifted' academically need opportunity to learn practical skills, quality apprenticeships with qualifications that MEAN something.

 

The biggets issue in teh past was testing kids at 11 and assuming that was it - the best went to schools that did O levels and Alevels thta had beter resources and better teachers, and the rest to the old secondary 'moderns, which usually had the crappest facilities and crappest teachers and kids who developed a little later were often denied the opportunity to reach their academic potential

 

So IMHO, we need equaly standards and quality f teaching in schools so that they have equal opportunity - and an exam system that does identify the best to get the best Universities, but places equal value on the practiucal qualifications others can get.

 

The old 11plus exam finished a long time before O levels finished. I went to a Secondary Modern and got a huge number of O levels.

[Frank's cousin]

The old 11plus exam finished a long time before O levels finished. I went to a Secondary Modern and got a huge number of O levels.

 

 

True, but there were plenty who this system still failed - went to school in Kent where they still have/had Grammar schools, and we had quite a few join in 6th form from the various local secondary moderns - and they managed that as you did despite the lack of investment in those schools - I daresay there were plenty who fell through that particular net.

 

And I am to the left of centre politically - but I don't feel there is anything wrong with selecting using exams to id the best - provided equal opportunity and resources are available to kids to achieve the best they can, and there are appropriate safeguards are in place so that kids aren't labelled one or the other at silly ages...

[CB Saint]

There is a good reason why more employers are selecting staff based upon attitudes and behaviours.

 

Why can't the grades be awarded based upon how well you do against your peers. Ie the top 15% get an A, the next 10% a B, etc. that way candidate removes any wailing about how hard an exam is and employers and unis know how good certain candidates are at any particular subject. (which is the entire point of the exam system)