I like the quote "The requirement for five good GCSEs graded A* to C will be scrapped, removing any incentive to study for the exams" - I believe that the incentive for doing well in GCSEs is to get good qualifications and therefore have a better chance in life! Even when I was an arrogant/know-it-all 15/16 year old I appreciated that exams were very important.
GCSE's and National Curriculum Scrapped by 2014.....O levels to replace them
- Thread starter Castiel
- Start date
I'm not for a second suggesting that our current system is perfect but I do worry about Michael Gove.
While he's been Education secretary we've had the following changes to the education system:
There's probably more, but those are the big headline changes I can think of.
I support some of those measures; a single unified exam board makes sense to me as does scrapping the A/s Level qualification.
However, does no one else think that is an incredible amount of change to the education system in a tiny amount of time?
What's more, many of these changes have been undertaken or proposed without any consultation with the teaching profession.
The first that Primary School teachers heard about their new curriculum was through regular news outlets, and the head of the NAHT was on the radio this morning saying that the first he heard about the new O-level proposals was from the front page of this morning's paper.
It seems that a lot of these changes are purely ideological; almost as if Gove is thinking "I had a jolly good time at school, lets revert the system back to the good old days" Without any evidence, research or consultation being undertaken before hand.
The same accusation can be directed at the last labour government, or more specifically, most of the previous Education Secretaries from any party. It's almost as if they have to make massive changes to prove that they are actually 'doing something', whereas sometimes the correct course of action is to do nothing or to make minor tweaks.
I think it's incredible when we complain that our education system isn't as good as other parts of the world and then make radical, wholesale changes, only to make more radical wholesale changes 10 years later. What we need is stability for both the teachers, pupils, FE and HE establishments and employers.
The German system is heralded as one of the best in Europe and I firmly believe this is due to their predominantly coalition-led governments, which can't push through large-scale reform on a whim.
It also seems just from this thread that people's opinions on the matter are clouded by their own personal experience rather than an objective look at the facts. Just because you went through one system or the other and did well/had a good time does not mean that it's necessarily the best solution for the country. Also, our memories are warped by nostalgia whether you like to admit it or not.
I would much rather see strong empirical evidence used to form the basis of a round-table discussion between representatives from government and all levels of the education profession, with the aim of agreeing the best course of action, rather than one man having a 'great idea' which determines the outcome of children for the next 10–20 years.
While he's been Education secretary we've had the following changes to the education system:
- Explosion of Academies and Free Schools
- Introduction of an English Baccalaureate
- Revised curriculum for Primary education
- Proposed revision of A-Levels and the scrapping of A/s Level qualification
- Proposed Reintroduction of the O-Level and CSE qualification
There's probably more, but those are the big headline changes I can think of.
I support some of those measures; a single unified exam board makes sense to me as does scrapping the A/s Level qualification.
However, does no one else think that is an incredible amount of change to the education system in a tiny amount of time?
What's more, many of these changes have been undertaken or proposed without any consultation with the teaching profession.
The first that Primary School teachers heard about their new curriculum was through regular news outlets, and the head of the NAHT was on the radio this morning saying that the first he heard about the new O-level proposals was from the front page of this morning's paper.
It seems that a lot of these changes are purely ideological; almost as if Gove is thinking "I had a jolly good time at school, lets revert the system back to the good old days" Without any evidence, research or consultation being undertaken before hand.
The same accusation can be directed at the last labour government, or more specifically, most of the previous Education Secretaries from any party. It's almost as if they have to make massive changes to prove that they are actually 'doing something', whereas sometimes the correct course of action is to do nothing or to make minor tweaks.
I think it's incredible when we complain that our education system isn't as good as other parts of the world and then make radical, wholesale changes, only to make more radical wholesale changes 10 years later. What we need is stability for both the teachers, pupils, FE and HE establishments and employers.
The German system is heralded as one of the best in Europe and I firmly believe this is due to their predominantly coalition-led governments, which can't push through large-scale reform on a whim.
It also seems just from this thread that people's opinions on the matter are clouded by their own personal experience rather than an objective look at the facts. Just because you went through one system or the other and did well/had a good time does not mean that it's necessarily the best solution for the country. Also, our memories are warped by nostalgia whether you like to admit it or not.
I would much rather see strong empirical evidence used to form the basis of a round-table discussion between representatives from government and all levels of the education profession, with the aim of agreeing the best course of action, rather than one man having a 'great idea' which determines the outcome of children for the next 10–20 years.
My eldest completed his GCSEs a couple of years ago and I found it shocking how many bites at the cherry they receive. For Maths, it seemed to be split into four modules studied throughout the two year course. If you failed a module it had no real consequence since they could resit, and resit again until they passed. The eventual pass would be what was counted towards the final grade which just seems completely barking.
Number 2 son will be formally starting his GCSE course next September but, being fairly capable, his Maths set are already working through GCSE papers. Having looked through some of the questions they are quite straightforward but perhaps not as easy as you might be led to believe.
Number 2 son will be formally starting his GCSE course next September but, being fairly capable, his Maths set are already working through GCSE papers. Having looked through some of the questions they are quite straightforward but perhaps not as easy as you might be led to believe.
There's nothing wrong with changing exam structure now and again. It keeps things fresh and curriculums up to date. If you're really worried about them being too easy then encourage people to take A-levels. If those are also too easy, go for a degree and so on and so on. Everybody should have something to take away from school to show for it regardless of how "easy" it was.
Surely the ability to retain information is important?
Retaining information is important but showing understanding of a subject is more so. I have no real problem with having one exam at the end of a course, a la O Level, so long as it focuses on testing whether the examinee has understood subject matter rather than is simply able to trot out a list of remembered facts.
[edit] I must note that the above should NOT be construed in such a way as to assume that I agree, on the whole, with anything spouted by scorza. I do not.
Oh what a monumental waste of time this will be. 7 years since I took GCSE's and clearly remember that most papers came in the higher and lower band options (restricting your mark depending on what you took), so splitting it back into GCE and O-level is just a status thing, pointless to an extreme.
They really should scrap the school league tables and the "free market" of exam boards. Both make teaching a competition were the worst are left behind because the best secure funding and a better status for the school. Between these they make schooling a complete mess for the student as the good ones are under pressure to fund the school when the bad ones are making the place look untidy.
If they want to make the GCSE worth more, take control of the paper in one authority and make it harder, not much of a demanding task. Same for A-levels, make one exam board with some uni representatives in (say use the Russell Group as a membership criteria for the board) and go nuts! Something that'll take a few months of planning to sort out instead of just messing about for head lines
Politics is rubbish in the UK sometimes.
They really should scrap the school league tables and the "free market" of exam boards. Both make teaching a competition were the worst are left behind because the best secure funding and a better status for the school. Between these they make schooling a complete mess for the student as the good ones are under pressure to fund the school when the bad ones are making the place look untidy.
If they want to make the GCSE worth more, take control of the paper in one authority and make it harder, not much of a demanding task. Same for A-levels, make one exam board with some uni representatives in (say use the Russell Group as a membership criteria for the board) and go nuts! Something that'll take a few months of planning to sort out instead of just messing about for head lines
Politics is rubbish in the UK sometimes.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 1,675
- Location
- Oxford
My daughter is in the same situation. I have only skim read the article on the BBC, but it is worrying that she will be the last to sit exams in a "failed" system. That said, assuming she goes on to university (which is also failing in my eyes) it should not make any difference. I would be more concerned if she was the first to sit the new exams.
It sounds like these O-Levels would put on much more pressure on students. They have only one chance to pass the exam at the end of the course and are expected to remember everything taught in the previous years into that final exam. I'd prefer the spread out exam structure although I disagree with the resitting that you can do in GCSE's.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 2,141
With everything based on an exam at the end of the course you have to actually learn the content of the syllabus.
It'll be a big adjustment for current students, who "learn" by cramming stuff into their short-term memory for modular exams, and copy/paste their coursework off the internet.
The TES has a good article debunking the myth about standards dropping: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6027579
One of Gove's other proposals was that children in primary schools should be forced to memorise 'important' poems, which would be a complete waste of time.
If you don't have a stable home and parents/tutors who can help you with your revision techniques, you're buggered.
It's not as simple as that – A child could have a photographic memory but under perform on the day. There are a whole host of reasons why judging a child's educational career on a single 2-hour exam is a bad idea and this was part of the reason for the introduction of a modular system.
There's nothing wrong with reverting to the past if its better...
No it isn't, they're easy as pie.
I spent most of my GCSE years stoned, paid no attention, did all coursework shoddily and at the last minute, did next to no revision and walked away with 6A, 3B and 2C.
They really are not hard if you have the right support in place.
For me exams aren't the issue, it the teaching, or more accurately the method of teaching. The reason we have people coming out of schools appearing to be as thick as two short planks these days is because there has been a shift in education from developing people into well rounded individuals to jumping through hoops to achieve exam scores. Of course the ability to think and reason will be affected.
Indeed, the direction we're currently travelling in worries me greatly.
There are some things which were once just better, like education.
Unions on the other hand can do the foxtrot oscar
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Forced distribution? No, it's a **** idea for perforamnce management and it'd be a **** idea for education!
While when I went through it was GCSE's, I've certainly got no issue with a return to harder exams. I didn't do a mass of maths between the end of school and uni and stepping into uni level maths (starting at A-Level standards) was like hitting a wall.
My maths are reasonable now, I was EXTREMELY good under GCSE's standards too which probably helped a bit but it does seem there is a massive gap.
Personally I'd also like to see the moronic youth be told "your too stupid to sit the hard exams" - there does need to be less "kid gloves" about bringing children up. The fact unemployment in the young is so high is almost certainly a sign of failing education as well as a failing economy on the whole.
If folks are worried about a 2 tier system then tough, it will make it clear who should be pushing for more education and who should be studying something more vocational. Both have merit in society and both are needed.
Get the less sharp kids building, plumbing and the like. Get the smarter ones pushing the UK's science economy and we'll do better as a whole rather than everyone being held back because "poor Jonny might feel sad if he can't do it, we'll harm his self esteem" - which won't be battered the moment he leaves school anyway?!
I came from a VERY working class family (dad started work down the pit 4 days after leaving school at 16). I had a decent amount of support from my folks and a wish that I ended up better educated and living in better conditions than they had. I did reasonable in school (the bottom of the "very bright" pile) reasonable in college and went to uni. From there i've worked up to being quite a well paid IT professional (oracle DBA). The system obviously didn't hold me back due to class in the slightest so the whole "Tory's just want to keep ppl in their place" thing can get screwed. I'd much rather it like this (some bright, some stupid) than keeping ppl stupid, dependant and voting based on that dependance while those that did try pay to fund the bums interest in Jeremy Kyle and the like.
We have reality TV because the general IQ of the population is slowly going down the toilet and something basic is about all that can be understood and liked.
My maths are reasonable now, I was EXTREMELY good under GCSE's standards too which probably helped a bit but it does seem there is a massive gap.
Personally I'd also like to see the moronic youth be told "your too stupid to sit the hard exams" - there does need to be less "kid gloves" about bringing children up. The fact unemployment in the young is so high is almost certainly a sign of failing education as well as a failing economy on the whole.
If folks are worried about a 2 tier system then tough, it will make it clear who should be pushing for more education and who should be studying something more vocational. Both have merit in society and both are needed.
Get the less sharp kids building, plumbing and the like. Get the smarter ones pushing the UK's science economy and we'll do better as a whole rather than everyone being held back because "poor Jonny might feel sad if he can't do it, we'll harm his self esteem" - which won't be battered the moment he leaves school anyway?!
I came from a VERY working class family (dad started work down the pit 4 days after leaving school at 16). I had a decent amount of support from my folks and a wish that I ended up better educated and living in better conditions than they had. I did reasonable in school (the bottom of the "very bright" pile) reasonable in college and went to uni. From there i've worked up to being quite a well paid IT professional (oracle DBA). The system obviously didn't hold me back due to class in the slightest so the whole "Tory's just want to keep ppl in their place" thing can get screwed. I'd much rather it like this (some bright, some stupid) than keeping ppl stupid, dependant and voting based on that dependance while those that did try pay to fund the bums interest in Jeremy Kyle and the like.
We have reality TV because the general IQ of the population is slowly going down the toilet and something basic is about all that can be understood and liked.
Last edited:
There's definitely nothing wrong with reverting back to a better system but can either of you prove that the old system was better, or is it just your personal opinion?
The root problem isn't the teaching itself but the policies in place which result in teachers having to teach in a certain way.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 2,141
Well how far down the education system would you take that approach?
Would you pass a trainee heart surgeon who has sound theory, but a history of "underperforming on the day"?
The exam boards already take underperformance into account. If you have a genuine reason for underperforming you can re-take the exam.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why the old O-levels were better, I've explained why they weren't, which was why the last Conservative government replaced them with GCSEs. A policy based on you know, actual evidence rather than on the whim of a dangerous politician.