Scrapping GCSEs, - views? Options

[Pixie*Porsche]

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.

I absolutely LOVE this idea. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif)

[owainsutton]

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.

I absolutely LOVE this idea. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif)

I can see where this would lead: competitive league tables, followed by schools putting kids in for the next exam every term until they pass, and on to the next...

[linda.ff]

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.

I absolutely LOVE this idea. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif)

I can see where this would lead: competitive league tables, followed by schools putting kids in for the next exam every term until they pass, and on to the next...

I left out the bit about "no league tables" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[owainsutton]

I left out the bit about "no league tables" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Get that bit sorted, and most of our other problems would disappear! Parents would pick preferred schools not on the basis of a few numbers, but on how organised, efficient and welcoming a place they prove to be when they visit. Senior staff could use their expertise to focus on the specific problems they know about, rather than having to jump to attention to the latest political whim. It'd be wonderful!

[anacrusis]

There are a number of problems around educating kids: assuming for the moment that we're talking about the send-em-to-school model. Firstly, schools do have a holding bay function for kids, like it or not, somewhere to park the sprogs whilst mum and dad work. Whilst they're being stored for the day, they get teaching in subject mixes thought to be necessary for generating a living in adulthood, and because it's the most efficient way to do it, that means group learning, and standardisation of the material to be learnt. As we pay taxes to fund all this, we tend to want to see Value For Money, so whilst each individual might reach optimum learning by having fairly individualised tuition, that'd cost us far too much in teachers: on the other hand, make the classes too huge and too varied, and the resulting cohort becomes impossible to teach.

So, we try to measure the success of our schooling by the not-necessarily-that-representative means of the results of testing how well kids have processed the education they've been given, and here comes the next problem: the bell curve. Most kids will probably land in the big middle section for ability, and in a reasonably matching middle section for achievement: how on earth does one distinguish between those in any meaningful way? I'm not really sure any exam system could do this, but I don't think those setting exams and curricula have thought hard enough about what we actually want to see emerging from the system - I'd like to see kids well grounded in English, one other language and maths, and to have had the chance to explore their strengths and weaknesses, to be confident in their abilities and to have had a chance to make the most of developing those, wherever they lie. However, the system can't individualise exams too much or we'd never be able to pay for it, so compromise is needed.

I don't like two-tier-ism, but I really resent the concept of mediocrity for all, which seems to be the default alternative. I would like to see real thought and research put into the concept of promoting achievement according to ability, whilst recognising that funding and staffing remains an issue. We bewail the lack of good musical teaching in primaries, but the fact is, it's something which has fallen by the wayside somewhat, and it's going to take years of adjustment to the teacher training system to put that right - no solution is going to work quickly. Sadly politicians really cannot plan longer term projects - by the time they've found their feet doing their jobs post-election, there is very little time left to turn round education (and come to that, healthcare too) before the next round of voting interrupts everything: plans which do get made tend to be short-termist, designed to be eyecatching and vote-winning, and unfortunately ill thought out (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif).

[Cyrilla]

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.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

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

Agree totally with Bagpuss. Sadly no energy to get ranting now but I'm sure I shall!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

[VH2]

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!

I left school teaching over 20 years ago because I hated the way Government was constantly piling new (and pointless) tasks on us, and interfering with both the structure and content of education. Since then things have only got worse.

Keep politicians out of education!!!!!

[Better still, keep them out of EVERYTHING. They do more harm than good].

There are a number of problems around educating kids: assuming for the moment that we're talking about the send-em-to-school model. Firstly, schools do have a holding bay function for kids, like it or not, somewhere to park the sprogs whilst mum and dad work. Whilst they're being stored for the day, they get teaching in subject mixes thought to be necessary for generating a living in adulthood, and because it's the most efficient way to do it, that means group learning, and standardisation of the material to be learnt. As we pay taxes to fund all this, we tend to want to see Value For Money, so whilst each individual might reach optimum learning by having fairly individualised tuition, that'd cost us far too much in teachers: on the other hand, make the classes too huge and too varied, and the resulting cohort becomes impossible to teach.

So, we try to measure the success of our schooling by the not-necessarily-that-representative means of the results of testing how well kids have processed the education they've been given, and here comes the next problem: the bell curve. Most kids will probably land in the big middle section for ability, and in a reasonably matching middle section for achievement: how on earth does one distinguish between those in any meaningful way? I'm not really sure any exam system could do this, but I don't think those setting exams and curricula have thought hard enough about what we actually want to see emerging from the system - I'd like to see kids well grounded in English, one other language and maths, and to have had the chance to explore their strengths and weaknesses, to be confident in their abilities and to have had a chance to make the most of developing those, wherever they lie. However, the system can't individualise exams too much or we'd never be able to pay for it, so compromise is needed.

I don't like two-tier-ism, but I really resent the concept of mediocrity for all, which seems to be the default alternative. I would like to see real thought and research put into the concept of promoting achievement according to ability, whilst recognising that funding and staffing remains an issue. We bewail the lack of good musical teaching in primaries, but the fact is, it's something which has fallen by the wayside somewhat, and it's going to take years of adjustment to the teacher training system to put that right - no solution is going to work quickly. Sadly politicians really cannot plan longer term projects - by the time they've found their feet doing their jobs post-election, there is very little time left to turn round education (and come to that, healthcare too) before the next round of voting interrupts everything: plans which do get made tend to be short-termist, designed to be eyecatching and vote-winning, and unfortunately ill thought out (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif).

anacrusis, you are a genius.

[anacrusis]

anacrusis, you are a genius.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif) - if I were really, I'd have some useful ideas on how to improve matters..... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif).

I can only think it would need a less political forum to look at it all, preferably based on proper research, and somehow taking into account what our culture and economy actually need our kids to be skilled in. It'd probably take a ten-year effort to achieve, and the risk would be that at the end of that time, the goalposts would've shifted....

[Tixylix]

I agree there are problems with GCSEs but I can't see that throwing in the towel and going back to the old system is going to solve anything. Some people who did O levels like to complain about how easy GCSEs are so presumably it's just to appeal to those people as changing the name of the exams isn't going to make them better all on its own. There are some promising aspects to the proposals like only having one exam board so they can't compete with each other to make their papers the easiest in order to attract the most business from schools, but that doesn't require them changing back to O levels and CSEs. There was also the problem of CSEs being regarded as inferior and the fact that in many places you now can't take GCSEs or A levels at evening classes like you used to be able to (none of the 3 major FE colleges in my county offer any A levels, or GCSEs except English and maths and in places that do the number of available subjects has reduced considerably in the last few years at least partly because of funding cuts) means people don't have the same opportunity to gain more academic qualifications later if they're streamed inappropriately, like my mum did after leaving school with virtually nothing.

If academic qualifications are not suitable for everyone then just giving those people inferior academic qualifications doesn't help them or anyone else. Also nobody, least of all Michael Gove can quite decide what the primary purpose of these qualifications is supposed to be, there are several different purposes piled on them like a child's sticker book and unsurprisingly they don't meet them all very well. Comparing our education system to places like Singapore and China while at the same time saying they want more in-depth study and critical thinking doesn't make sense as the education system in these countries is based around memorisation and regurgitation.

People in the Daily Mail article pointed out that under the old system a lot of kids left school with no qualifications. This is still true now but there is no evidence that going back to O levels and CSEs will change this - if anything that seems to be the point, that fewer kids will get O levels and we already know that CSEs weren't respected so saying they suddenly will be if they're brought back is just daft. The definition of madness is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results, as they say. I've seen it argued (with some less than polite language) that standards are dropping is a covert way of saying more poor people are being allowed to take exams. My gran used to whinge that in her day you had to have Latin A level to go to university, though she didn't understand my mum's response that that kept the 'riff-raff' out then because if you didn't go to a school that taught Latin - like the sink hole school my privately educated grandmother with a degree from Bristol sent my mum to - you couldn't go to university. I wonder what Michael Gove would say to that.

[Floss]

Three years studying Education at university and 18 years in the system has left me angry and deflated about education in this country. It has let me, and so many others, down on numerous occasions and I can only imagine that this is going to get worse. What has happened to the fundamental aims of education? Why isn't the curriculum tailored to individual students? Why are teachers so stressed and under so much pressure? Why are parents' opinions dominated by league tables? Why are pupils with SENs not receiving the support they require? Why are kids leaving school without 5 GCSEs, let alone Maths and English? Money, pure and simple. Education has become little more than a money-making machine.

(Wow, I sound bitter. I am of course thankful for the teachers who helped me along the way and for the option of free education, which unfortunately a huge number of children in the world are still not entitled to.)

[Arundodonuts]

Keep politicians out of education!!!!!

[Better still, keep them out of EVERYTHING. They do more harm than good].

Unfortunately those we would like to see running the country are too sensible to want to.

[Tenor Viol]

Somewhere in the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams has a world where the only people allowed to be rulers don't want to be....

I'm not a teacher, but I went to a grammar school in the 70s and sat 9 standard O Levels (maths, physics, chemistry, biology, English language, English literature, French, history, and Latin).

My two nephews are 17 and 16. The older one loved school but was badly let down by its tick-box attitude (I'm not going to elaborate on the details) he needed some support and was left to rot in lower sets with ne'er-do-wells.

The younger has just finished his GCSEs this last week. He is fairly sharp. I've had long chats with him about maths and English. Much of the stuff I did at O Level maths is not on his syllabus (very little trig and no calculus at all). He's planning to do A Level English, yet his GCSE does not seem to have covered the grammar or literary devices I did at O Level. It's very hard not to conclude that the academic content and rigour has reduced significantly.

He's not doing a modern language which I think is stupid (system's fault, not his).

I can accept that content evolves over time (my A Level chemistry syllabus in 1977/8 included nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy - only discovered in the 1960s). However, what we seem to have is a lowering of content and standards to a lowest common denominator, one size fits all, which means "prizes for everyone" to ensure the maximum number of ticks in boxes.

This has arisen from a mixture of the short-termism that the political system generates, exam authorities wanting to increase business, schools eager to play the system, and parts (not all) of the education system that seems to think that everyone is the same and won't accept that aptitudes vary.

There needs to be a reality check somewhere: not everyone is academically inclined. The school environment is not the right place for many and it's a waste of time after 14 for some. We need alternative paths such as trade/technical schools and apprenticeships for these.

What you call it does not really matter: content does.

Oh dear (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif) seems to have turned into a rant.

EDIT Fixed some typos!

[Pixie*Porsche]

He's not doing a modern language which I think is stupid (system's fault, not his).

Would like to know why you think a modern language is necessary? I did two languages at GCSE level (choice) and to be honest I hardly remember a thing about them, I was good at them at school but since I have never used them. I always wished I'd studied something else instead.

Luckily, I did music two years early - it was the only subject I got an A* in. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Mind you it was the only subject I had much interest in. My other interests came later (after school) all I cared about at school was music and cars. The teachers weren't engaging and I had no interest in doing my best as I didn't think the exam syllabus particularly interesting. Something that makes me angry to this day is that as Year 9 children we had NO guidance over options (how I ended up doing two languages and some silly ICT award that wasn't really worth the paper it was written on).

Teachers were frequently frustrated that I had no interest in their subjects but was obviously able. Unfortunately I was a bit of a nightmare student at school, stating I'd rather be at my music teacher's house. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

[owainsutton]

Would like to know why you think a modern language is necessary? I did two languages at GCSE level (choice) and to be honest I hardly remember a thing about them, I was good at them at school but since I have never used them. I always wished I'd studied something else instead.

I do lean towards this point of view, too. For children in non-English speaking countries, the choice of which foreign language is the most useful to learn is obvious. Here, not so much!

Something that makes me angry to this day is that as Year 9 children we had NO guidance over options (how I ended up doing two languages and some silly ICT award that wasn't really worth the paper it was written on).

I've come across this stupid ICT award, too, in the context of a school placing so much emphasis on it that pupils can't miss 30 minutes of ICT for an instrumental lesson (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

[anacrusis]

I wondered when people would pick up on the modern language thing: the answer is, because, taught early and well, it opens a wide variety of capabilities, just as having mathematical knowledge does. These range through psychology, logical thinking, and above all enhancing ability to process all sorts of communication, as well as potentially giving some grounding in cultural issues. We may live on an island, but our appalling ignorance of the world out there, and indeed even of our world within it, given that we have plenty of folk from other cultures living here, makes for tension, misunderstanding and DailyMail thinking. Okay, you may not remember the details of the vocabulary learnt, but it's curious how we inform the rest of what we do with nuggets of stuff we did cover in school - especially if we were lucky enough, as I was, to get a pretty decent education. Remember how the insularity of some parts of the US strike us - sections of our own population are very little different, and decent language learning goes some way towards providing the interest in other nations, which we really need for our country to function properly in the wider world community.