Scrapping GCSEs, - views? Options

[saxophile]

I wondered what others' thoughts were on the recently leaked news that Michael Gove is considering scrapping GCSEs and moving back to something akin to the old O level / CSE split.

I am personally in two minds about it. I can see the merits of the argument that CSEs were always seen automatically as the "inferior" qualification, and that dividing children according to which qualification they were due to be sitting could therefore prejudice their chances in later life. But I can't help feeling (based on what I have seen in my own children's education so far plus general experience with friends and family) that GCSEs simply aren't working, and that one of the problems with it may be that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to exam courses.

When I was going through school [back in the mists of the 1980s], our local exam board operated what was called a "Common Syllabus" for some subjects, and in my view it worked rather well. Basically, everyone who was doing - say - Geography was taught from the same syllabus. The exam had 3 papers (numbered 1, 2 and 3). Everyone took paper 2. In addition, the more able took paper 3; the less able took paper 1. These two papers covered the same topics, but the questions were harder on paper 3, and the degree of detailed knowledge required was higher. In classes, the teacher could simply say in relation to a particular point in a discussion of a topic that "only those doing paper 3 really need to know this", so you didn't need to stream classes if it was difficult to do so. The outcome of the exam was that everyone who passed got both an O level AND a CSE qualification. However, if you did papers 1 and 2, the highest you could get was a Grade C at O level (and a Grade 1 at CSE).

Obviously, I was going through that as a pupil rather than a teacher, but looking at it now, I think it had a lot of positives:

- as with GCSE, everyone got the same kind of qualification, so there wasn't the problem of the "two-tier" system under which CSEs got looked down on automatically, even though a Grade 1 CSE was the same in theory as a Grade C at O level
- in a small school (as mine was) it enabled less popular subjects to be viable numerically, because you could do mixed ability classes more successfully, since you weren't trying to teach two different syllabi
- for kids who were somewhere in the middle of the ability range, there wasn't the need to decide at the outset whether they were doing paper 1 or paper 3, so that decision could be left until the point of exam entry [possibly later].

It seems to me like the above might be a good model, if they are going to change things [anyone got Michael Gove's number? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) ]

I'd be interested to hear what others think. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[ExpressYourself]

That's how I see GCSEs at the moment. Certainly for things like maths and science. You do Foundation or Higher. Foundation is easier but you can't get higher than a C.

I don't see why GCSEs aren't fit for purpose. After all, they are just a name. Politician's just like changing the names of things and it makes them feel like they've achieved something.

If GCSEs are too easy then make them harder so there is more variation in grades. If it's the modular nature that's the problem then change that. You don't need to change the bits that are working.

My main concern is that Gove has no actual insight into GCSEs or schools. He's just a bloke on a power trip and is trying to make a name for himself so that he can be the next PM.

[Susie]

If GCSEs are too easy then make them harder so there is more variation in grades. If it's the modular nature that's the problem then change that. You don't need to change the bits that are working.

Yes, I think there needs to be better differentiation and I agree with the policy of limiting the number of resits. I see no reason to change the name of the qualification.

Back in the Dark Ages of the 1970s when I did my O levels, our grades were 1 - 6 for a pass. Just as I sat my last exam they changed the system so it was A - C for a pass. Perhaps they should go back to the 1 - 6 method so you can see more clearly how well someone has passed. A few more essays in science papers would help to differentiate too!

[Misti]

There can be a choice of anything up to three different tiers for GCSE at the moment, the higher gives A*-C grades, and foundation G-C grades as previously mentioned. For some papers (I only encountered it for maths) there is a intermediate paper that gives a top grade of B, I can't remember the lower limit.

In theory all candidates learn the same syllabus, and are entered for the paper that reflects their most likely success. In practise, as pupils are so prepared for particular exams, someone sitting foundation tier will never be taught as many topics in as much depth as someone taking higher tier.

So, these changes being proposed are no change at all, as far as I can see!

[barry-clari]

My main concern is that Gove has no actual insight into GCSEs or schools. He's just a bloke on a power trip and is trying to make a name for himself so that he can be the next PM.

Possibly one of the most horrific Education Secretaries ever : he seems determined to create a two (or even three or more) tier education system.

The GCSEs as they stand are a sound concept : the exam boards need looking at though, as they're making far too many mistakes (some are saying 'let's have one board' - this is better, but I'd like to see a science board, an English board etc.)

I'd also be doing away with league tables and tick box education - this, rather than the GCSE concept, is what's primarily wrong with education in the UK at the moment.

[CJB]

I think the biggest problem at the moment is the emphasis on A*-C. I took GCSE when it was only a couple of years old. We were told that every grade from A-G was a pass grade, but even then A-C was all that counted. I do think it would be good to stretch the most able kids more. But if you for example make it harder to get a C, yet still base all the targets on schools trying to get everyone a C it can't be achieved.

I don't think the current GCSE allows the brightest to show their true potential and think that some reform may help the brightest. I don't want to see those who are currently struggling to get a C made to feel more of a failure than they already do. Having everyone (well almost, I know BTEC is an option in some circumstances) following the same syllabus does mean that a late developer isn't excluded from the higher grades.

I may return to edit this as I'm probably not very coherent after a day trying to help some kids scrape that ellusive C grade.

[Alicia Ocean]

Perhaps the less academic should be given the chance to learn practical skills rather than trawl through subjects they have no interest or competence in? At the end of their school careers those with grades less than C will be heading for the trades anyway.

[BerkshireMum]

I think the whole idea would have gone down better if marketed as introducing a new stretching exam for the more able, whilst allowing the rest to take the GCSEs as now.

The trouble with many of the current syllabuses is that children have to do a lot of work at quite a shallow level. At O-level, we actually did less work, but what work we did went deeper. I think for many subjects it's very difficult to have a "one size fits all" exam, so if you are going to let the more able go deeper you would probably need a different exam for them.

In practice, what today's GCSE results show is who is most willing to put in a lot of time and effort, rather than who is the most able. This in itself must be quite useful to employers, as for many jobs (retail, leisure, etc) you don't need a genius, just someone of average intelligence who's willing to work hard. If you need someone slightly more numerate, the current Maths exam is a good guide.

But if you are trying to prepare students for university courses, I think it would help for them to delve more deeply into subjects by the age of 16 than they do at the moment. Of course, selective private schools do this already, which is one of the reasons that private school pupils get better A-level results than those in state schools. The Maths and Science Olympiads are dominated by those from schools where these subjects are taught at a deeper level than happens in most (all?) comprehensives.

[owainsutton]

My main concern is that Gove has no actual insight into GCSEs or schools. He's just a bloke on a power trip and is trying to make a name for himself so that he can be the next PM.

Possibly one of the most horrific Education Secretaries ever : he seems determined to create a two (or even three or more) tier education system.

Couldn't agree more.

It's hard to tell which of the supporters of ideas such as this really think they could turn the clock back to a time when grammar schools really did offer social mobility for capable children. Where grammar schools still exist, and I live in one such area, the eleven-plus is a gateway to a better education almost entirely reserved for the children of parents well-educated or wealthy enough to do or pay for immense amounts of coaching for the exam. (I've got Year 4 pupils who are already doing preparatory work for it!)

I don't think it's cynical to think that many of the 'we need grammar schools back' brigade know this, and are interested in anything but social mobility.

[ExpressYourself]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/offTopic.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/offTopic.gif) I went to Alty Grammar. Every time you post Owain I wonder about the old place!

[Maria]

My main concern is that Gove has no actual insight into GCSEs or schools. He's just a bloke on a power trip and is trying to make a name for himself so that he can be the next PM.

Possibly one of the most horrific Education Secretaries ever : he seems determined to create a two (or even three or more) tier education system.

Couldn't agree more.

It's hard to tell which of the supporters of ideas such as this really think they could turn the clock back to a time when grammar schools really did offer social mobility for capable children. Where grammar schools still exist, and I live in one such area, the eleven-plus is a gateway to a better education almost entirely reserved for the children of parents well-educated or wealthy enough to do or pay for immense amounts of coaching for the exam. (I've got Year 4 pupils who are already doing preparatory work for it!)

I don't think it's cynical to think that many of the 'we need grammar schools back' brigade know this, and are interested in anything but social mobility.

Absolutely agree. There are issues with GCSEs, but throwing the whole thing out is massively unnecessary. It just smacks of trying to win votes through promises of 'traditional values' and 'academic rigour' - playing to what they think people want to hear. He is a terrifying man and it just alarms me that he is in charge. It frustrated me that teaching is one of the few professions where those in charge have never done the job! It's ludicrous!

But if you for example make it harder to get a C, yet still base all the targets on schools trying to get everyone a C it can't be achieved.

This is absolutely at the heart of the matter. If you judge schools on their ability to get a percentage of kids to a grade C and you fail them if they don't, then they will get it. Through coaching, masses and masses of intervention and support, meaning that kids who don't deserve Cs get them...

I may return to edit this as I'm probably not very coherent after a day trying to help some kids scrape that ellusive C grade.

Ditto!

[linda.ff]

It's hard to tell which of the supporters of ideas such as this really think they could turn the clock back to a time when grammar schools really did offer social mobility for capable children. Where grammar schools still exist, and I live in one such area, the eleven-plus is a gateway to a better education almost entirely reserved for the children of parents well-educated or wealthy enough to do or pay for immense amounts of coaching for the exam. (I've got Year 4 pupils who are already doing preparatory work for it!)

We had a grammar school system where I lived 10 years ago, and I would lose at least one pupik a year to the tutoring system. Parent soulwd say that this went to prove how much they wanter the grammar school system. I always countered by saying it went to show how much they didn't want the secondary modern.

If you could only pass that bloomin' 11+ by being coached, you weren't really grammar school material IMO.

I'd love to see the whole thing shaken up an operated like the music exams. No more examining kids when they reach a certain age, whether they're ready for it or not. Every subject to have a lot of different grade levels to be taken as and when the pupil is ready for it. Grade 1 is sort of year 1 level, grade 20 is university entrance level, that sort of spread. Don't need to take all grades. And the big advantage to it would be that you always had a level you had reached in every subject, like an ongoing profile which could be gradually added to.

Yes of course it would play havoc with planning and timetabling, but if it had always been that way we'd have evolved a way of working it. I've always deplored the way kids in year 11 have to bring all their subjects to fruition at the same time, which inevitabley means some subjects won't get the full attention they need.

[Bagpuss]

Frankly I think much of our education system is totally, totally broken. Once "targets" were introduced then that was it.

I don't have the energy to bang on about it now but it breaks my heart. I'm sure if C is more awake than me she will post something articulate on the subject later.

As for me, I'm going to bed.

I-Have-LOTS-of-O-Levels-Bag! Lol x

[Arundodonuts]

Perhaps the less academic should be given the chance to learn practical skills rather than trawl through subjects they have no interest or competence in? At the end of their school careers those with grades less than C will be heading for the trades anyway.

Yup. Bring back apprenticeships and City and Guilds. Not everyone is academic and we should celebrate tradesmen and artisans.

[Norway]

I just feel so sorry for school teachers and children, constantly being reorganised, offsteded, sats tested and then reorganised again by whichever bunch of idiots happen to be in power. Teachers used to have status and were trusted to exercise professional judgement, but now they are just treated like syllabus dispensers. I'm so glad I work for myself!