New O-Level

[One_Minute_Hero]

What are peoples thoughts to the scrapping of GCSEs and moving to O-Level type exams

[skunk]

Not sure the point as they are bound to keep all the monumentally pointless OCR Nationals, BTECs, Certificates of Personal Effectiveness', ALANs and myriad other qualifications that ensure that students will get equivalencies that mean no-one will bother with the New EBacc.

 

/rant - bad day!

[Michael]

GCSE or O level, students are essentially trained to pass an exam at the age of 16. Whether or not they're suitable for additional training/education afterwards or able to work is a different matter.

 

There's a mentality in the UK that qualifications and qualifications only are good and will get your jobs. It's complete nonsense. I'd much rather hire someone with years of IT experience rather than someone who has an A level or a degree in IT with zero experience.

[skunk]

Agreed, as long as they can spell on their application form, and have got some nous about them then they stand a chance with me. If the first thing someone says to me is that they have a qualification, then they are likely hiding that fact that they cannot actually do the thing they are 'qualified' to do.

[localzuk]

What are peoples thoughts to the scrapping of GCSEs and moving to O-Level type exams

 

I'm all for the change. We need a proper differentiator in our exam system. Having 22%+ get an A* or A is ridiculous.

 

Not sure the point as they are bound to keep all the monumentally pointless OCR Nationals, BTECs, Certificates of Personal Effectiveness', ALANs and myriad other qualifications that ensure that students will get equivalencies that mean no-one will bother with the New EBacc.

 

/rant - bad day!

 

Nah, those exams are all worthless as the schools won't be able to use them to prove they're doing well in the league tables.

[skunk]

nah, those exams are all worthless.....

 

Enough said!

[elsiegee40]

I think a single exam board is a good idea.

 

I agree that school system needs to ensure that everyone can read, write and do maths.

 

I have concerns that, while the new system will help with those of higher ability, the lower ability students will end up lumped together as 'failures'.

 

Gove seems to fail to understand that not all students are academic and that to be suitably qualified for their future careers they might need vocational qualifications rather than history and Spanish.

 

If we are to qualify people to work and have a suitable workforce, we must ensure everyone is able to develop the skills they have... and these may not be academic.

 

I also have concerns that schools catering for lower ability students in grammar school areas will be seen to be failing because they can't get a high percentage of their students through the new system. No allowance is made for the fact that the top 10% plus of the most able students are creamed off by the grammars at present. The new system could make this worse.

[tmcd35]

Just posted a comment to BBCs website to this effect;

 

This is the wrong answer to the wrong question. The state of GCSEs is a symptom of a wide problem. Returning to O-Level style examinations for "core subjects" is not the answer.

 

We have a problem with youth unemployment so we blindly raise the school leaving age without looking at what these kids are doing for an additional 2 years - They can't all be doing A-Levels. Re-resitting uber-easy GCSEs perhaps?

 

We have a problem of kids comming up from primary school without a solid foundation in the three Rs. So instead of telling primaries to stop teaching science, languages and ICT and concentrate on the basics we scrap GCSE and force every one to sit extra hard exams at 16.

 

Our education system is a joke because it lacks focus. What we need is a ground up, grassroots level review. An open nationwide discussion. The sort of thing that takes years with experts in the field putting forward sensible recommendations to design a system that would meet our needs for years to come.

 

Instead we get Gove's half hours worth of doodlingd on the back of a fag paper. All I can say is we got what we voted for!

[PiqueABoo]

I have concerns that, while the new system will help with those of higher ability, the lower ability students will end up lumped together as 'failures'.

 

DD of high ability, now in Y5 was neglected for years so I'll take anything that throws a little genuine attention at her "needs and potential" as opposed to the what the school needs to look good in the bleeping league tables. The latter have led to some, if not most of the worst aspects of the system and although Gove did suggest the accountability/performance aspect were on the table for consultation I won't hold my breath...

 

Not sure I like the "full EBacc" combination which feels jack-of-all-trades. Some folk can be absolutely brilliant at arts, bad at science/maths and vice versa but I'm not sure many HR depts are smart enough to grok that.

 

We have a problem of kids comming up from primary school without a solid foundation in the three Rs. So instead of telling primaries to stop teaching science, languages and ICT and concentrate on the basics..

 

Have you seen a primary timetable? Numeracy, Literacy, Numeracy, Literacy, Numeracy, Literacy.. you need a magnifying glass to spot the rest. It's already appallingly narrow, too narrow unless you have an exceptionally imaginative teacher, and that's because of the bleeping SATS, teachers must raise attainment by at least 2/3 level, league table idiocy. That you're apparently seeing lots of below average kids where you are is not a reason to limit all the average+ in England kids to what would be a rather pathetic "education" at what we keep hearing is such a critical time in terms of setting future trajectories etc. Note that one of the current key-words (via OECD) is "equity", which is very roughly about accommodating and meeting the specific needs of specific individuals i.e. not treating them all like the lowest common denominator.

Edited September 17, 2012 by PiqueABoo

[CESIL]

I have thought for a long time now that we are trying to teach too wide a curriculum at primary level.

 

Let's see, we have to teach Maths, English and Science...fair enough...but then we have to do DT, finance skills relationship sh*t and who knows what else that they decide we should be doing.

 

I think primary education should be about teaching the basic core skills and some social skills so that pupils are ready to start serious learning once they get to secondary...

 

...or am I being too simplistic?

 

...oh and primary school should be more fun so that kids get the idea that education can be fun too...

[t4ll1f3r]

Does that mean primaries have stopped teaching playing in the sand and collecting milk bottle tops?

My favourite subjects.

[PiqueABoo]

but then we have to do DT

 

Making stuff.. a la Blue Peter with some lightly attached dry academic excuse. I suppose some teachers might be capable of sucking the life out of it, but here that is very definitely part of the 'fun'.

Edited September 18, 2012 by PiqueABoo
tpyo

[localzuk]

I think a single exam board is a good idea.

 

I agree that school system needs to ensure that everyone can read, write and do maths.

 

I have concerns that, while the new system will help with those of higher ability, the lower ability students will end up lumped together as 'failures'.

 

Gove seems to fail to understand that not all students are academic and that to be suitably qualified for their future careers they might need vocational qualifications rather than history and Spanish.

 

Not really. Gove originally wanted to create a 2 tier system to deal with this very issue. A level of exams for the academically talented, and a level for those who don't suit it. The problem is actually the liberal side of things here - it is engrained in liberal ideology that everyone should be treated the same, and that is what is causing this problem.

 

If we are to qualify people to work and have a suitable workforce, we must ensure everyone is able to develop the skills they have... and these may not be academic.

 

Absolutely. However, do we want them doing this at the age of 16? It always used to be 'do an academic 11 years in school, then go onto other things' with those other things being vocational qualifications at colleges and apprenticeships.

 

I also have concerns that schools catering for lower ability students in grammar school areas will be seen to be failing because they can't get a high percentage of their students through the new system. No allowance is made for the fact that the top 10% plus of the most able students are creamed off by the grammars at present. The new system could make this worse.

 

This system is going to hit schools in poor areas hard, that is for sure. Not through 'ability' but through aspirations and motivation. I've seen it where kids are very bright but simply don't care and just doss about and therefore only leave with a few Es at GCSE. With the other qualifications being eliminated from the league tables, this means school achievement levels are going to plummet - and it isn't necessarily the school's fault, it is a wider social issue of families with multiple generations of non-employment etc...

 

However, the thought I have is - why should the education system drag those who are higher ability down because we're so focussed on trying to get an extra 2 marks out of those who are lower ability?

[elsiegee40]

However, the thought I have is - why should the education system drag those who are higher ability down because we're so focussed on trying to get an extra 2 marks out of those who are lower ability?

I agree.

 

I have a high achiever who attended Grammar and it was the best place for her. Did she get best possible value added and achieve to her potential? I have my doubts.

 

I'm also governor at secondary modern that has achieved Ofsted Outstanding 3 times in a row... no mean achievement... and gets fantastic results from "what's left" after the 11+.

 

I'm well placed to see that one size cannot fit all. I agree things need sorting out at the top, but it should not be at the expense of those in the lower half of the ability range or their schools.

 

Successive governments have been to quick to change things to suit their agenda rather than work out what really would be best for all young people... and for the future of this country's work force.

 

All young people need to succeed in a fair and sensible school system. In a perfect world we would have 100% literacy and numeracy among school leavers... what we need is a means of telling the difference between those students. Success cannot be measured by failing of others!

 

Education is an investment not something to be tinkered with constantly.

 

At present I fear we will return to the education of my parents when those were bright got O levels and everyone else didn't get anything... nothing to distinguish between the more able and less able of the lower half of the ability spectrum.

[localzuk]

At present I fear we will return to the education of my parents when those were bright got O levels and everyone else didn't get anything... nothing to distinguish between the more able and less able of the lower half of the ability spectrum.

 

The others got CSEs, or went into apprenticeships...

 

Also, I disagree about your statement that success cannot be measured by failing of others. The very nature of education and differentiating people means there are people who will succeed and those that will not. It is, in my view, silly to try and force a view that this is not the case onto the system we have. Ok, we don't want to just ignore those who won't achieve, they should be focussed upon to get the best they *can* achieve out, but we can't go around with the rather naive view that if we put more effort into it, they will suddenly become the next Stephen Hawking - it just won't happen.

 

Part of the problem also exists that the system focusses on academic achievement as if it is the only way forward in life. We need more focus on finding career aptitudes of all children, and educating them according to what they're good at. If they're good with their hands, make sure they can read, write and count properly and then focus on a DT based education etc... But that's what the college system was there for, and apprenticeships.

[elsiegee40]

The others got CSEs, or went into apprenticeships...

Not in my mother's day they didn't

 

There was a time a when O Levels existed for those that could... and CSEs had not been invented.

 

Those that could went to grammar school and took O Level. Those that couldn't went to secondary modern and hoped for the best mostly becoming blue collar workers. Unfortunately we don't have much industry left now.

[tmcd35]

I'm certain this whole GCSE vs O-Level debate is the wrong debate to be having; we're putting the cart before the horse. I'm personally not convinced that the current system, as a whole, is fit for purpose. But then I'm not a 100% certain what the purpose of the current system actually is. And that's the place to start. The proposed change is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction mixed with a bad dose of Tory ideology.

 

What we need is a proper national debate on the future of our education system. We need to agree, as a nation, the focus and purpose of the system. Ask the stake holders directly - teachers, pupils, parents and employers - "What do you want out of the system?" and "why are we sending our young to school?". Answer those questions and you can start the process of building a system from the ground up that actually suites the nations requirements, whatever they be.

 

13 years from 5 to 18 is compulsory education and it's totally free for anyone who doesn't want to pay for an alternative. That's some major investment we are making as a nation. Surely we should be confident as a nation in what we are investing in, why we are investing in it and what the outcomes of that investment are? The propossed EBacc doesn't answer those questions.

 

Just my 2c

[PiqueABoo]

What we need is a proper national debate on the future of our education system.

 

Sounds nice but I'm not sure what 'proper debate' means and I'm convinced that the type of people who would contribute have been sounding off all my (long-ish) life. The fundamental problem assuming you can get past the massive volume of seriously uninformed assertions[1], is that there are some very seriously polarised opinions on nearly every conceivable aspect i.e. the best outcome you could hope for is some lovely fluffy meaningless compromise that gets us nowhere, much the same as now in a sector dripping with dishonest, unpragmatic, 100% guaranteed inoffensive tat like "every child should reach their full potential in a system fit to meet the challenges of the 21st century" and so on.

 

 

[1] Go skim one of the Daily Mail or Guardian threads on this to get the picture.

[stevenlong1985]

It worth watching this.

 

Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity | Video on TED.com

 

[PiqueABoo]

It worth watching this. Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity | Video on TED.com

 

Will look later, but imagine that's similar in drift (and possibly more accessible) to this ~50 year-old quote from one of my favourite books:

 

Extensive psychological testing has shown that the mysterious quality called 'creative imagination' seems to exist in all people but is severely diminished by the time an individual reaches the age of six. The environment of school ('You mustn't do this!' 'You mustn't do that!' 'You call that a drawing of your mother ? Why, your mother only has two legs.' 'Nice girls don't do things like that!') sets up a whole screen of blocks in the mind of the child that later inhibits his ability to ideate freely.

 

Creativity in various guises is the area where we encourage DD by far the most at home, essentially an attempt to preserve a slowly diminishing quality that most kids seem to have lots of at birth - it just doesn't mix well with mass education.

[CAM]

I have a feeling I will really hate this in a few years time. Why?

 

- English, Maths and Science will run as a course for "those that can."

- Those "that can't" will end up doing whatever the lower level qualification is.

- How will a jump between those that can and those that can't mid-KS4 be handled if they are different qualifications?

- Whatever qualification the non-core subjects will be certified as will also need to be taken into account.

- Finally the other subjects such as BTEC (dare you to go into your data manager's office in a few weeks and utter that word!) will continue to cause boundless confusion.

 

Course Manager and census day will be soooooo much fun.

 

Oh and EBacc is a joke. "Hey guys! We are introducing this at the end of the academic year and going to start tutting at you for the next two years for not meeting it! Look at these poor EBacc attainment figures across the country even though it's too late for current and next year's Y11's to change their courses! Yaaaay!" (At the time it was introduced of course).

 

I'm grouchy because it's the run up to Autumn Census.

Edited September 18, 2012 by CAM

[localzuk]

I have a feeling I will really hate this in a few years time. Why?

 

- English, Maths and Science will run as a course for "those that can."

- Those "that can't" will end up doing whatever the lower level qualification is.

- How will a jump between those that can and those that can't mid-KS4 be handled if they are different qualifications?

- Whatever qualification the non-core subjects will be certified as will also need to be taken into account.

- Finally the other subjects such as BTEC (dare you to go into your data manager's office in a few weeks and utter that word!) will continue to cause boundless confusion.

 

There isn't a separate qualification - the EBac will be the only one for the core subjects. I *seriously* doubt any school will let any kids do the other stuff without doing the EBac stuff - it'd damage their league table standing!

 

Oh and EBacc is a joke. "Hey guys! We are introducing this at the end of the academic year and going to start tutting at you for the next two years for not meeting it! Look at these poor EBacc attainment figures across the country even though it's too late for current and next year's Y11's to change their courses! Yaaaay!" (At the time it was introduced of course).

 

I think you've not quite understood it. Its not being introduced yet. Not even to tut at. It doesn't get introduced until 2015!

[Earthling]

 

I'm personally not convinced that the current system, as a whole, is fit for purpose. )

 

if you're talking about the Education System as a whole, from year 1 to year 11, then let me put you out of your uncertainty.

 

It's not.

 

I don't know what the answer is. All I know is that I had a 1960's grammar school education, and in all aspects, today's education isn't a patch on what I had.

 

Along with the academic subjects, I was taught self-discipline, self-control, self-restraint, respect for my teachers and for my school. I think, above all, I was made conscious of how lucky I was (even in the 60's) to have a free education, and to my mind that is where we have gone most wrong over the years. We've lost sight, in this country, of the value of a free education and that value MUST be re-instated, somehow.

 

But hey, what do I know? I'm not a teacher, I'm not an educational psychologist.......I'm just an ordinary joe who sees kids leaving school at 16, unable to read, unable to write, unable to spell and believing that 'educ8', 'lol', 'rotfl' and the like are valid words that can be used and accepted in everyday correspondences.

 

My main worry is where on earth are these kids going to find paid work enough to pay the taxes to pay my old-age pension?

[tmcd35]

Sounds nice but I'm not sure what 'proper debate' means and I'm convinced that the type of people who would contribute have been sounding off all my (long-ish) life. The fundamental problem assuming you can get past the massive volume of seriously uninformed assertions[1], is that there are some very seriously polarised opinions on nearly every conceivable aspect

At the very least I'd expect to see democracy in action - A Parliamentary Select Committee charged with getting answer, MP's talking to constituents, Serious newspaper columnist and TV shows such as Question Time and News Night discussing the merits of the wider issue. Somebody respected and qualified in the field being asked to review and report back recommendation, that review by necessity means going out and talking with a wide, representative, selection of core stake holders (pupils, parents, teachers, parents). The report being published for all to see and for Parliament to debate openly in chamber. And then decisions made on those findings.

 

Democratic process, not Mr Goves autocratic Eaton ideology.

 

the best outcome you could hope for is some lovely fluffy meaningless compromise that gets us nowhere,

 

I disagree. Yes if you asked everyone and aimed for total compromise that is what you get, but at the end of the day yes Political ideology will come to bare but the policy should be based on proper research and open debate not late night moth balling at Tory HQ. Or at least when the outcome of the policy has such emence and wide reaching effects as this clearly does.

 

if you're talking about the Education System as a whole, from year 1 to year 11, then let me put you out of your uncertainty.

 

It's not.

 

I suspect you are right, although I was thinking of a wider scope - ages 3-21. Maybe not all in that range need to be in formal education, but the system should be designed around an impact everyone in that bracket.

 

We've lost sight, in this country, of the value of a free education and that value MUST be re-instated, somehow.

Personally I'd stop it from being compulsory. If you want to be there and learn...

 

My main worry is where on earth are these kids going to find paid work enough to pay the taxes to pay my old-age pension?

Have you seen Logan's Run

[ricki]

HI

 

I say the wheels on the bus go round and round and the government have to be seen to do something so we have a change round. Throw out the baby and the bath water and start again. In 10 years and a few changes along the way it will change back. I was taught programming when I was at school. I know that tells you how old I am and now its back.