GCSE reforms

[Saintandy666]

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)

 

Rubbish idea. How are you meant to compare from year to year?! What if you were in a competitive year and got a B because of that. Your whole life would be changed. If you are good enough for an A, you are good enough for an A. The argument is over what standard that A should be.

[CB Saint]

Rubbish idea. How are you meant to compare from year to year?! What if you were in a competitive year and got a B because of that. Your whole life would be changed. If you are good enough for an A, you are good enough for an A. The argument is over what standard that A should be.

 

What do you mean a more competitive year. One age group does not become more or less intelligent each year, and the point is irrespective of how competitive the year is if you are the top 15% then your grade reflects that, and I as an employer know what i am getting.

[Frank's cousin]

This is how it used to be done - the bands were set as Cb saint has alluded to and then the Bell curve was shifted to adjust for year on year fluctuations in the difficulties of the paper. This allows for direct comparison between peers within the year, but not between years... which is less relevent when going on to A levels etc, but was considered unfair as IF a year group all worked a darn site hardert his would not be reflected in their grading.

[Sheaf 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)

 

No, I don't think that's the way forward at all. Like Saintandy666 has already said... How is it right that a kid who would have been in the top 15% in a previous year gets a lower mark just because there were more kids that got a higher score than him/her in his year? Marking should always be objective rather than comparative.

[pap]

With the higher and lower paper setup, GCSEs are already two-tier in certain subjects. When I was at school it was impossible to get higher than a C on the lower paper, any lower than a D on some higher papers, and you got no grade at all.

 

Even in 1991, when I sat my exams, Cantell were already shopping around the various exam boards. Doesn't really matter what era it is; people will try to game the system. League tables have just brought that behaviour front and centre.

[alpine_saint]

With the higher and lower paper setup, GCSEs are already two-tier in certain subjects. When I was at school it was impossible to get higher than a C on the lower paper, any lower than a D on some higher papers, and you got no grade at all.

 

Even in 1991, when I sat my exams, Cantell were already shopping around the various exam boards. Doesn't really matter what era it is; people will try to game the system. League tables have just brought that behaviour front and centre.

 

Well I did proper O Levels at Glen Eyre, so thank f**k I missed the education slump generally and the decline in Glen Eyre when it became Cantell in particular...

[CB Saint]

This is how it used to be done - the bands were set as Cb saint has alluded to and then the Bell curve was shifted to adjust for year on year fluctuations in the difficulties of the paper. This allows for direct comparison between peers within the year' date=' but not between years... which is less relevent when going on to A levels etc, but was considered unfair as IF a year group all worked a darn site hardert his would not be reflected in their grading.[/quote']

 

And that's the point. A entire year group from across the country aren't all going to work harder than a previous year. Therefore you will get the correct grade for your ability in comparison to your peers.

[CB Saint]

No, I don't think that's the way forward at all. Like Saintandy666 has already said... How is it right that a kid who would have been in the top 15% in a previous year gets a lower mark just because there were more kids that got a higher score than him/her in his year? Marking should always be objective rather than comparative.

 

This would only work if everyone took the same exam every year. Because the questions change each year you cannot say that 90% one year is the same as 90% the next.

[alpine_saint]

And that's the point. A entire year group from across the country aren't all going to work harder than a previous year. Therefore you will get the correct grade for your ability in comparison to your peers.

 

No, no, no, no, no.....NO.

 

Every year the teaching unions come out and say the grade improvement is down to how much harder the teachers and children are working in comparison to the previous year.

 

I often wonder how they say it live on TV without sniiggering, however...

[pap]

Well I did proper O Levels at Glen Eyre, so thank f**k I missed the education slump generally and the decline in Glen Eyre when it became Cantell in particular...

 

Yeah, Glen Eyre was tops. You all did a bang-up job with Hampton Park too. Wasn't at all scary going to the chippy from Bassett Green and seeing blood, razor blades and rozzers all over Burgess Road

[Window Cleaner]

I don't even know what GCSEs are, is that O levels or A levels. Don't you get a make your own A grade certificate in boxes of Cornflakes nowadays?

[Colinjb]

Now, the idea of many exam boards. At School and Sixth form a decade ago, it wasn't so much a case of being taught a curriculum, it was an obvious and open philosophy for both Kings' School Winchester and Peter Symmond's College to play the exam boards to maximise chances of success, grades and therefore funding rather then teaching within a set format to get the Children to learn for their own benefit.

 

It's quite symptomatic of the country as a whole. A culture of playing the system rather then reach for true excellence and achievement.

 

For me, the use of only one exam board for the Baccalaureate qualifications can only be a good thing in preventing this game playing.

Edited 18 September, 2012 by Colinjb

[alpine_saint]

Now, the idea of many exam boards. At School and Sixth form a decade ago, it wasn't so much a case of being taught a curriculum, it was an obvious and open philosophy for both Kings' School Winchester and Peter Symmond's College to play the exam boards to maximise chances of success, grades and therefore funding rather then teaching within a set format to get the Children to learn for their own benefit.

 

It's quite symptomatic of the country as a whole. A culture of playing the system rather then reach for true excellence and achievement.

 

For me, the use of only one exam board for the Baccalaureate qualifications can only be a good thing in preventing this game playing.

 

I dont like how secondary education is now dedicated to exam passes and league tables rather than the basic principle of expanding young minds, including outside of a limited curriculum. For me the issue of board selection is simply garnish over that fundamental weakness. What use are school leavers incapable of independent thought, problem solving, and can only parrot a load of limited facts ?

[View From The Top]

 

It's quite symptomatic of the country as a whole. A culture of playing the system rather then reach for true excellence and achievement.

 

For me, the use of only one exam board for the Baccalaureate qualifications can only be a good thing in preventing this game playing.

 

As most in the profession have been saying for a while.

 

League tables introduced a culture of playing the system and I actually know a Knight of the Realm whose honour is based on his school working out how to play the 5 A*-Cs game better than anyone else & before anyone else. It was a simple con but politicians & the Establishment happily ignored it as the results looked awesome.

[pap]

As most in the profession have been saying for a while.

 

League tables introduced a culture of playing the system and I actually know a Knight of the Realm whose honour is based on his school working out how to play the 5 A*-Cs game better than anyone else & before anyone else. It was a simple con but politicians & the Establishment happily ignored it as the results looked awesome.

 

It might have been you who told me that since the advent of league tables, schools have been more concerned about converting D students to C students than genuinely encouraging the best and brightest.

[Dibden Purlieu 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.

 

What an excellent post.

[pap]

I dont like how secondary education is now dedicated to exam passes and league tables rather than the basic principle of expanding young minds, including outside of a limited curriculum. For me the issue of board selection is simply garnish over that fundamental weakness. What use are school leavers incapable of independent thought, problem solving, and can only parrot a load of limited facts ?

 

I actually agree with a lot of this, but as to your last point, I'm not sure that's what school was ever for. For starters, there's a curriculum to be taught, and the more that is on that curriculum, the less scope there is for independent thought.

 

Then you've got the issue of maturity. For some subjects, like maths; it's irrelevant. For others, particularly stuff like history, I think we ask too much of our kids. A big part of history is empathy, getting into the minds of people that were there at the time. In short, a big part of being good at history involves understanding what it means to be a human.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

No, I don't think that's the way forward at all. Like Saintandy666 has already said... How is it right that a kid who would have been in the top 15% in a previous year gets a lower mark just because there were more kids that got a higher score than him/her in his year? Marking should always be objective rather than comparative.

 

Ok, so what about this.

 

I was the first GCSE year to do 2 languages.

I was the first GCSE year to take Maths GCSE in Year 9.

I was the first GCSE year to do Additional Maths GCSE in Year 11.

I was the first GCSE year to do half A levels for Drama in Year 11.

I was the first year to take AS Levels.

 

The way I see it is sh!t happens, you deal with it. GCSE's mean jaff all. If you're dropping out of school and going to work then it's not going to make a difference to what you're going into. If you're going to College then you have the opportunity to get a better qualification. Getting into College isn't like getting into University.

[alpine_saint]

I actually agree with a lot of this, but as to your last point, I'm not sure that's what school was ever for. For starters, there's a curriculum to be taught, and the more that is on that curriculum, the less scope there is for independent thought.

 

Then you've got the issue of maturity. For some subjects, like maths; it's irrelevant. For others, particularly stuff like history, I think we ask too much of our kids. A big part of history is empathy, getting into the minds of people that were there at the time. In short, a big part of being good at history involves understanding what it means to be a human.

 

I always felt when I was at school that the teachers didnt mind elaborating on stuff and answering questions outside of the curriculum. Now I get the impression that teachers panic or say "wibble" in the best case when an inquisitive bright spark does this, set a punishment for disrupting the class in the worst case.

 

As for your point about history, its all to do with how you feel it should be taught. Personally, I think dates, events, and reasons/causes are best taught in an analytical, cold, objective manner.I dont think the human experience is essential for this, though it seems to fit with our places on the political spectrum that you deem this of importance.

[pap]

I always felt when I was at school that the teachers didnt mind elaborating on stuff and answering questions outside of the curriculum. Now I get the impression that teachers panic or say "wibble" in the best case when an inquisitive bright spark does this, set a punishment for disrupting the class in the worst case.

 

As for your point about history, its all to do with how you feel it should be taught. Personally, I think dates, events, and reasons/causes are best taught in an analytical, cold, objective manner.I dont think the human experience is essential for this, though it seems to fit with our places on the political spectrum that you deem this of importance.

 

Oddly enough, I was all about the fact recall. That was my problem. Not enough empathy at that age.

 

Besides, what you suggest is practically impossible unless you're trying to brainwash kids into accepting a certain version of history. Just look at the situation with the native Americans over in the US. From one perspective, you've got romantic dreams of pioneering, hardship and manifest destiny. From a less entrenched perspective, looks a lot like multiple genocides.

 

History is all about asking questions, IMO. At sixteen. Kids just don't know the right stuff to ask.

[Lord Duckhunter]

As an employer I sit in front of candidates and their exam results are pretty meaningless to me. I dont really understand them (what the ****s an A*) and have no faith in them telling me anything about the candidate. I end up making decisisons based on a gut feeling, and also which school they attended. Maybe I'll miss out on a few decent people, but the Grammar School and another comprehensive which has a great name here, both jump out of the page at me. It can't be right. I should be able to look at all the candidates details and be able to pick out the brightest from their exam results. At the moment I dont trust the results to give me that information.

[pap]

Ok, so what about this.

 

I was the first GCSE year to do 2 languages.

I was the first GCSE year to take Maths GCSE in Year 9.

I was the first GCSE year to do Additional Maths GCSE in Year 11.

I was the first GCSE year to do half A levels for Drama in Year 11.

I was the first year to take AS Levels.

 

The way I see it is sh!t happens, you deal with it. GCSE's mean jaff all. If you're dropping out of school and going to work then it's not going to make a difference to what you're going into. If you're going to College then you have the opportunity to get a better qualification. Getting into College isn't like getting into University.

 

Historically, this is untrue - but more true now.

 

GCSEs used to be the only concrete thing that higher education institutions had to go on. My daughter is starting sixth form. She's doing 5 AS levels this year, and will move onto four A levels for her final year. Better way to go, imo - for both student and university.

 

That said, GCSEs are mostly just a stepping stone.

[Saintandy666]

What do you mean a more competitive year. One age group does not become more or less intelligent each year, and the point is irrespective of how competitive the year is if you are the top 15% then your grade reflects that, and I as an employer know what i am getting.

 

But in a job market, it isn't people from one particular year competing. It's from all years, so you need an exam that maintains constant standards(by moderation of grade boundaries) which shows which people are A standard, which B standard and so on and the number will fluctuate from year to year.

[hypochondriac]

My advice is get parents or friends who run a successful business. That way you can go to college and uni but when you get out you can go straight into a job with more training involved that leads you to either follow in their footsteps (or work alongside them) or move into other things when you are more qualified.

[The9]

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.

 

*I* am disgusted at the complete lack of literacy in the majority of people under the age of about 25, never mind the bloody prospective employers. I had the misfortune of helping a friend's kid with her A-level coursework a couple of years ago and she couldn't compose a coherent sentence on paper based on the arguments I was proposing to her, never mind understand the argument. This was A-level.

 

I'm also still p155ed off at the introduction of A*s at GCSE level which by definition reduce the impact of my 5 As, which may or may not have been A*s at the time. Not to mention the whole "more people passing everything for 20 successive years" despite the obvious and tangible drop in the use of accurate written English over that time period.

 

Anyway, teach the kids the basics of academics, and teach them some life skills too, until the age of 13. Then teach the ones who aren't good academically the kind of practical skills they might find useful in a trade, or business, etc. And teach the same stuff to the academic kids to make them realise academia in itself isn't necessary a means to an end. And for Christ's sake start teaching grammar, spelling and comprehension again.

[The9]

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.

 

Both is the way to go.

[Thedelldays]

Thing is.... Many will oppose change for no other reason than because the torys are doing it...

[View From The Top]

Thing is.... Many will oppose change for no other reason than because the torys are doing it...

 

Wrong. There is almost universal agreement that change is needed.

[View From The Top]

*I* am disgusted at the complete lack of literacy in the majority of people under the age of about 25, never mind the bloody prospective employers. I had the misfortune of helping a friend's kid with her A-level coursework a couple of years ago and she couldn't compose a coherent sentence on paper based on the arguments I was proposing to her, never mind understand the argument. This was A-level.

 

I'm also still p155ed off at the introduction of A*s at GCSE level which by definition reduce the impact of my 5 As, which may or may not have been A*s at the time. Not to mention the whole "more people passing everything for 20 successive years" despite the obvious and tangible drop in the use of accurate written English over that time period.

 

Anyway, teach the kids the basics of academics, and teach them some life skills too, until the age of 13. Then teach the ones who aren't good academically the kind of practical skills they might find useful in a trade, or business, etc. And teach the same stuff to the academic kids to make them realise academia in itself isn't necessary a means to an end. And for Christ's sake start teaching grammar, spelling and comprehension again.

 

It needs to be taught properly BEFORE they get to secondary school. My 7yo in Y2 uses punctuation & grammar correctly because she's taught it properly, as is my nipper in Y6. It's almost to late by the time they get into KS3 & certainly to late by KS4.

 

However, I see plenty, every day, who have been taught poorly & our English Dept spends 1000s of man hours teaching 16+ how to employ it correctly.

[The9]

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 a lot of that, but the "expectation" of a University place started with the unification of the Uni and Polys from UCCA and PCAS to UCAS in 1990/1991, which was a Tory government after more than 10 years in charge.

 

I took my GCSEs in year 2 of the exams, so I have a longer view.

 

So, of the problems with GCSEs you stated :

Presumably having different papers for different abilities reduces the likelihood of disruption during exams themselves, fewer kids mentaling out cos they can't do the difficult stuff and interrupting the other kids. Doesn't always work, for example I'm still narked that I didn't get to take the higher paper for Physics due to my school's bonkers policy on streaming the classes for ability, but only for some subjects. I sat at the back in that one, got a C, which was my second lowest grade.

 

The remarking and resubmission of coursework is of course a big problem - in 1989 there was already a trend towards giving you the stuff back with corrections to redo it all, but the coursework was still quite a low share of the overall mark back then.

 

As I already noted, the "underachiever" thing was a "streaming" policy in my school - nothing to do with GCSEs though, and would have been even worse with the GCE/CSE split before it too, you'd get lumped in with the thickies much sooner and were unlikely to get the chance to do anything better.

 

At least with GCSEs there was the chance to do higher exams until the exam entry was completed. That said, we were streamed for the 5 subjects I got As in and not streamed in classes for my lowest 4 grades. I think we both agree streaming for ability is the way to go, but they need to pay more attention to the actual abilities of the kids, as opposed to how they're impacted by the rest of the group, and allow them to move up or down.

 

I'm awesome in exam conditions, FWIW, but I readily agree that there needs to be a way of assessing kids who aren't. It's the same with job interviews, at which I generally suck. As for the education secretary, I just don't understand how it took 20 years for people to work out that you can have more people pass each year nationally just by setting the number of people you want to pass slightly higher. If you set the overall parameters of pass percentages comparatively year on year, then the marking itself is irrelevant, the overall figures will always add up to what they want them to because the comparison WITHIN the year just determines who is in the "20% A*s" rather than how many A*s there are.

 

But the illiteracy levels in English that are evident on a massive scale in under 25s compared to when I was in school (even the thick kids only got a few words wrong and they all knew their/they're/there etc.) prove that the academic standard in English at least is much lower than it was.

Edited 18 September, 2012 by The9

[The9]

It needs to be taught properly BEFORE they get to secondary school. My 7yo in Y2 uses punctuation & grammar correctly because she's taught it properly, as is my nipper in Y6. It's almost to late by the time they get into KS3 & certainly to late by KS4.

 

However, I see plenty, every day, who have been taught poorly & our English Dept spends 1000s of man hours teaching 16+ how to employ it correctly.

 

I completely agree, I knew pretty much everything I was ever taught about grammar by the age of 8 - and my grammatical education was by no means complete compared to my uncle who was 9 years older than me in the same schools. I had spelling tests every week until at least 10 years old. High school (or Comprehensive school in my case) was still regular comprehension tests, and we still had the Use of English pseudo-exam alongside my GCSE exams.

[Trader]

Thing is.... Many will oppose change for no other reason than because the torys are doing it...

 

The plural of tory is tories.

 

QED.

[Thedelldays]

The plural of tory is tories.

 

QED.

 

Oh god... Is this going to be an English pedant fest

[The9]

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.

 

There's an element of the gamble in all exams though, for my A-levels (1991) for two of my three subjects (Eng Lit and Politics) I only revised one topic more than the number of questions we were going to get asked on the exam knowing perfectly well that I could then answer any question on that subject and didn't have to worry about more than half of the rest of the curriculum at all. I didn't even turn up to an English lesson after January because I'd already decided which books and poets I was going to answer questions on, plus my teacher was menopause mental, but that's another story.

 

Also, for A Level English I learned, verbatim, 50 quotes from Anthony & Cleopatra and wrote them all on the question paper the second the exam started, in order that I could plug all of them into my exam answer on the play no matter what it was about. Got a B, but that was fine, it got me into my chosen University (of Southampton) anyway.

 

FWIW, I came a complete cropper on my British Politics paper, as they changed the format of for the first time in 10 years and none of the expected questions came up. Every single person on my course got at best a D, and then later it transpired (from those who did the resit) that they had changed the curriculum and the school had taught us completely the wrong syllabus for 2 years, so it wasn't even my revision method at fault, I could only just have answered the three questions even if I'd learned absolutely everything. The year after, following a significant change to the lessons, someone actually got the A I was projected. I nevertheless got a 2:1 degree in it, which implied that I did actually know enough about the subject to have got better than a D at A Level.

 

But the whole thing does show there are techniques of playing exams and they predated the implementation of GCSEs, coursework and even league tables (which weren't around then) by some distance.

[The9]

Oh god... Is this going to be an English pedant fest

 

Capital G for God - and it's "pendant" on SW.

[Thedelldays]

Capital G for God - and it's "pendant" on SW.

 

I just leave what my phone spews out.... Blame android lol

[Crazy Diamond]

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.

 

Not even going to lie, my maths is absolutely terrible. As I said before, I have no idea how I pased my GCSE and even then it was the lower paper.

 

I spoke to someone yesterday who was in the first year to do GCSEs. She said back then you only had coursework in English. Look at it now, it's nearly every subject. I'm not sure that's right.

 

She also made the point which I was unaware of, which is that there will only be a certain number of people allowed to get certain grades (I think that's what she said.) Whilst I disagree with that idea, I still believe change is absolutely necessary and has been for quite some time.

[CB Saint]

Not even going to lie, my maths is absolutely terrible. As I said before, I have no idea how I pased my GCSE and even then it was the lower paper.

 

I spoke to someone yesterday who was in the first year to do GCSEs. She said back then you only had coursework in English. Look at it now, it's nearly every subject. I'm not sure that's right.

 

She also made the point which I was unaware of, which is that there will only be a certain number of people allowed to get certain grades (I think that's what she said.) Whilst I disagree with that idea, I still believe change is absolutely necessary and has been for quite some time.

 

PI think it depends on the exam board. I sat them that year and had coursework in physics biology, chemistry, English.

[Bath Saint]

It needs to be taught properly BEFORE they get to secondary school. My 7yo in Y2 uses punctuation & grammar correctly because she's taught it properly, as is my nipper in Y6. It's almost to late by the time they get into KS3 & certainly to late by KS4.

 

However, I see plenty, every day, who have been taught poorly & our English Dept spends 1000s of man hours teaching 16+ how to employ it correctly.

 

Whoops. If you are going to comment on the standards of English teaching in schools......

[View From The Top]

Whoops. If you are going to comment on the standards of English teaching in schools......

 

Well spotted. It, of course, should have been too. Interesting that the usual pendants didn't spot the error. It also illustrates why I don't teach English!

Edited 20 September, 2012 by View From The Top

[Crazy Diamond]

PI think it depends on the exam board. I sat them that year and had coursework in physics biology, chemistry, English.

 

There in itself lies another problem. There should not be competition between exam boards, and naturally there will be. I think I sat exams under two or three.

[View From The Top]

There in itself lies another problem. There should not be competition between exam boards, and naturally there will be. I think I sat exams under two or three.

 

That's the thing in the reforms that everyone welcomes. One board for each qual.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I don't think anyone will argue with making exams harder. However, what was disgusting and typically Tory in its under-hand nature, was the moving of the grade boundaries between the January and August results. Make them harder by all means, but don't stitch the pupils up in the process who, despite the depiction in the national media, still work extremely hard to get these grades. It will never happen, but I would dearly love for some of the old guard in this country who cream themselves over O-Levels to sit a current GCSE history paper. Having studied O-Levels for my MA, there isn't a lot of difference and despite claims to the contary, the O-level questions are far more open-ended.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

That's the thing in the reforms that everyone welcomes. One board for each qual.

 

Agreed, as long as the government announces this sooner rather than later.

[TheCholulaKid]

I couldn't give a monkey's who's in power, I just want them to stop ****ing with things. I've just spent half the summer rewriting schemes of work for the most recent GCSE changes. Now, we'll have to do it all over again. On top of that, the A level schemes of work will also need rewriting. If they want teachers to teach consistently outstanding lessons how about giving them 5 minutes to actually the implement the changes, teach them and tweak them so that those changes succeed. Instead, successive governments come in with half baked ideas backed up by no educational research and have no interest in actually listening to teachers or those with experience of working in schools. They're too busy point scoring to actually give a **** about what is best for this country's children.

[View From The Top]

I couldn't give a monkey's who's in power, I just want them to stop ****ing with things. I've just spent half the summer rewriting schemes of work for the most recent GCSE changes. Now, we'll have to do it all over again. On top of that, the A level schemes of work will also need rewriting. If they want teachers to teach consistently outstanding lessons how about giving them 5 minutes to actually the implement the changes, teach them and tweak them so that those changes succeed. Instead, successive governments come in with half baked ideas backed up by no educational research and have no interest in actually listening to teachers or those with experience of working in schools. They're too busy point scoring to actually give a **** about what is best for this country's children.

 

I've also spent hours rewriting SoW for the new GCSE standards which will now be redundant. As our boss said today "why the fu.ck did we bother?"

 

One course we've delivered for the last few years changed on August 31st. Taken ages to redo and today we had an email to tell us that those standards will be replaced again next summer.

 

Insane.

[GAS]

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.

I didn't know they printed the sun in Austria. Hopefully the new generation of boys (and girls) will have a better outlook on life than you.

[Sheaf Saint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21363396

 

 

Good news IMO. The whole thing was ill-conceived and badly flawed. I'm all in favour of making the assessment of education more stringent, but Gove's plan was never the appropriate solution, and I'm glad the govt have listened to the teaching unions on the matter.

[alpine_saint]

This government is spineless and pathetic. The minutae about Gove's plan might have been flawed, but the principles were the right ones to bring us into line with other European nations in the 21st century.

 

At least the coursework is still being ditched for proper examinations.

[hypochondriac]

I couldn't give a monkey's who's in power, I just want them to stop ****ing with things. I've just spent half the summer rewriting schemes of work for the most recent GCSE changes. Now, we'll have to do it all over again. On top of that, the A level schemes of work will also need rewriting. If they want teachers to teach consistently outstanding lessons how about giving them 5 minutes to actually the implement the changes, teach them and tweak them so that those changes succeed. Instead, successive governments come in with half baked ideas backed up by no educational research and have no interest in actually listening to teachers or those with experience of working in schools. They're too busy point scoring to actually give a **** about what is best for this country's children.

 

Amen. You only have to look at my sector (early years) and the absurd proposals supported by no one with experience to know this is the case. Put people in charge who have experience like an ex head ffs.