GCSE's and National Curriculum Scrapped by 2014.....O levels to replace them

[Castiel]

Still this, and also - can someone explain to me why O Levels would be better? I've seen plenty of reasons why GCSEs aren't 'good enough', but non in favour of the proposed system.

Whether they were better or not I cannot say, but the point is that it is believed that they were more challenging and gave a better indication of the ability of the individual at that point in their educational development.....the problems have been discussed, such as the two tier GCE/CSE system which automatically devalued and disenfranchised those without the GCE, something that GCSEs were developed to counter........

I think that we need to have a single system as we do now (although the baccalaureate has made limited inroads into the creation of another two tier system) but with the esteem that GCEs were held in.......

We need to get away from this 'everyone is a winner' attitude that simply devalues real accomplishment in favour of uniformity......having 10 GCSEs, 3 A Levels and a 2:1 degree is meaningless if everyone has one...there is no way to assess the value of the individual (educationally, not generally) if we are all equal........we need a system that not only rewards those of ability and those who put in the effort while not ignoring those whose talents either lie elsewhere or who develop later. The 'no child left behind' maxim, but only done individually, not by setting a national standard and making sure the standard fits to the lowest common denominator to ensure success......because that helps no-one.

 

[PermaBanned]

We need to get away from this 'everyone is a winner' attitude that simply devalues real accomplishment in favour of uniformity......having 10 GCSEs, 3 A Levels and a 2:1 degree is meaningless if everyone has one...there is no way to assess the value of the individual (educationally, not generally) if we are all equal........we need a system that not only rewards those of ability and those who put in the effort while not ignoring those whose talents either lie elsewhere or who develop later. The 'no child left behind' maxim, but only done individually, not by setting a national standard and making sure the standard fits to the lowest common denominator to ensure success......because that helps no-one.

I'm not sure i agree with this attitude. The purpose of the education system isn't to ensure that only a pre-determined number of pupils are able to reach a certain point. Educating as many people as possible as far as possible is a good goal for the system, and results in a much better country overall.

 

[RomanNose]

Couldn't they just have made GCSE's harder though?

 

[Danthus]

We can't have a two tier system, why?

The simple fact is some students are better than others, unfortunately we have this stupid notion that everyone should be treated equally.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Still this, and also - can someone explain to me why O Levels would be better? I've seen plenty of reasons why GCSEs aren't 'good enough', but non in favour of the proposed system.

I don't think its about O levels in particular its about moving to a singular system rather than a dozen different boards(which is completely ridiculous), and dropping GCSE's so needing a new name except people liked the O'levels and see them as better so why not "go back" when its just something different to GCSE's.

Education is a joke, what we need to do is push forwards, make years harder, kids learn more and work harder. Young kids need to be learning languages, not god damned finger painting, reading classics, kids absorb information like sponges when they are young and it literally hardwires the brain to be better capable to learn.

Reason education in this country has gone to **** is its been wired to the lowest achievers, leaving the smartest kids bored with nothing to do and no way to prove they are smarter(as idiots get a's and genius's also get A's). More work, harder work, real education for younger kids and you have less kids bored in school, less problematic kids.

No idea if that is there ultimate plan I'm just saying we need to make school harder, and for kids caught between the easy system and an increasingly difficult system, summer school to catch up basically.

The **** you have to do at uni now to help the less able people catch up for maths degree's is becoming a joke.

O levels might not be the answer, whatever their plan is might not work, but theres nothing worse than not trying. I don't particularly agree on the absolute need to differentiate between job candidates more and make degree's more valuable, just from a pure education standpoint, we as a nation as a people from the dumbest to the smartest, from those who stop at 16 to those who do a PHD, can all be getting more out of education and that is what matters.

Kids who are given more work and taught to work hard at a younger age will, do better in life, will get into trouble less, and better educated people are frankly more likely to be better people.

 

[RomanNose]

We can't have a two tier system, why?

The simple fact is some students are better than others, unfortunately we have this stupid notion that everyone should be treated equally.

The reason why two tier system is flawed is that in two years your academic abilities can change dramatically. And having two tiers doesn't leave you the option of switching as it's different content.
I did this when I switched from GCSE to A level, I was average but now I am much higher.

 

[Danthus]

The reason why two tier system is flawed is that in two years your academic abilities can change dramatically. And having two tiers doesn't leave you the option of switching as it's different content.
I did this when I switched from GCSE to A level, I was average but now I am much higher.

Shouldn't teachers be constantly be assessing the abilities of students and thus enable to move between the tiers if a student makes progress?

Why does there have to be an arbitrary point in time the two paths diverge?

 

[RomanNose]

Shouldn't teachers be constantly be assessing the abilities of students and thus enable to move between the tiers if a student makes progress?

Why does there have to be an arbitrary point in time the two paths diverge?

They should be and this is what happens with foundation and higher tier, but with CSE there is a danger of having different curriculums where you simply cannot switch.
If they diverge at 14 which they are proposing then someone might progress to a higher standard in the first year, then you are screwed if you are doing humanities where you might have learnt a completely different topic.
It's so much more sensible to have the same curriculum but with just harder questions.

 

[Castiel]

I'm not sure i agree with this attitude. The purpose of the education system isn't to ensure that only a pre-determined number of pupils are able to reach a certain point. Educating as many people as possible as far as possible is a good goal for the system, and results in a much better country overall.

I think you read what I said and then interpreted it as something else.....I never suggested that there should be a pre determined number of pupils able to reach a certain point (that is pretty much what happens to day with the tiered GCSE system) but assessing each child individually and enabling them to receive an education that both suits their needs and promotes their particular talents and proclivities. It is about making sure that every child gets the education that best suits each childs needs and abilities, and not the one size fits all approach that seems to be the current model....

Trying to create an artificially level educational standard only means that you are forced to effectively educate to the average ability....those who might do better are held back and those who need more support are disenfranchised.....

That is what I said and has nothing to so with only providing education to a predetermined selected group...quite the exact opposite in fact.

 

[PermaBanned]

I think you read what I said and then interpreted it as something else.....I never suggested that there should be a pre determined number of pupils able to reach a certain point (that is pretty much what happens to day with the tiered GCSE system) but assessing each child individually and enabling them to receive an education that both suits their needs and promotes their particular talents and proclivities. It is about making sure that every child gets the education that best suits each childs needs and abilities, and not the one size fits all approach that seems to be the current model....

Trying to create an artificially level educational standard only means that you are forced to effectively educate to the average ability....those who might do better are held back and those who need more support are disenfranchised.....

That is what I said and has nothing to so with only providing education to a predetermined selected group...quite the exact opposite in fact.

So why would O Levels be better than GCSEs in this respect?

 

[Castiel]

So why would O Levels be better than GCSEs in this respect?

Read the first paragraph of the post you disagreed with Permabanned.......it may answer your question as to what I said rather than what you think I said....

 

[Janesy B]

 

[PermaBanned]

Read the first paragraph of the post you disagreed with Permabanned.......it may answer your question as to what I said rather than what you think I said....

Right, so just to check - does Gove actually have a plan here? Or has he simply come out and said 'i want things to be like they were back in my day'?

 

[Castiel]

Right, so just to check - does Gove actually have a plan here? Or has he simply come out and said 'i want things to be like they were back in my day'?

Ask Gove, I don't see what that has to do with me or what I said.....with respect to you (I know you are intelligent and like reading your ideas and thoughts on politics and other topics) but if this line of questioning and considering your disagreement with a post that actually stated what you put forth as your prefered outcome is indicative of the level of comprehension being taught at GCSE currently then maybe a change is warranted.

In any case, I wasn't making the argument for a return to O levels that you seem to be implying and I thought I was clear on what I would like to see.....if that includes an O level type approach to core subjects then I see no issue with that as long as it is part of an overall approach to give each child an education suited to their individual needs and abilities and not about concentrating on an elite qualification without addressing the needs of the rest.

 

[Moley]

Were O Levels open book?

35 years ago when I did them - no. No calculators allowed either.

 

[RagingBull]

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/873443-deborah-thorpe-6-passes-gcse-maths-exam-with-e-grade

E grade? I know she's just 6 but it's not that impressive. Failing GCSE math is nearly impossible, anything under a C shouldn't be considered a pass. When you are studying for one subject it makes it much easier I think many 6 years old would be able to pass with a few months preparation.

 

[RDM]

I think the move to a single exam board per subject is possibly a good thing. Stops schools shopping around for easier boards to improve pass rates. The talk in the staff room this morning was guardedly positive about the move, though the devil is of course in the detail. The renewed focus on Computing over ICT is also something that most ICT teachers seem to be pretty happy with (though obviously concerned about having the skills to teach it).

 

[Castiel]

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/873443-deborah-thorpe-6-passes-gcse-maths-exam-with-e-grade

E grade? I know she's just 6 but it's not that impressive. Failing GCSE math is nearly impossible, anything under a C shouldn't be considered a pass. When you are studying for one subject it makes it much easier I think many 6 years old would be able to pass with a few months preparation.

I disagree, at 6 years old, even being able to answer enough questions in order to be graded at all is impressive.

 

[RDM]

I disagree, at 6 years old, even being able to answer enough questions in order to be graded at all is impressive.

He probably has an issue with her colour...

And I agree, my six year old is still trying to master multiplication!

 

[Castiel]

I think the move to a single exam board per subject is possibly a good thing. Stops schools shopping around for easier boards to improve pass rates. The talk in the staff room this morning was guardedly positive about the move, though the devil is of course in the detail. The renewed focus on Computing over ICT is also something that most ICT teachers seem to be pretty happy with (though obviously concerned about having the skills to teach it).

I had no idea that the exam boards were giving different papers, let alone that schools could shop around for the easiest ones.

I thought the exam boards were just regional and that they had to adhere to a set standard of exam.......

This makes the GCSE a lottery of sorts......