Gove's Baccalaureate is dead then.......(49 Posts)
CBI & Ofqual against it. MPs not happy with him.
Don't count your chickens...
It sounds as if he might force it through regardless of all the advice against it
That'd sound about right gelo
Did you see the quote from him in The Guardian?
'it seems the education secretary remains undaunted. Speaking to the select committee on Wednesday morning, Gove said he would be willing to overrule Ofqual and press ahead with reforms if he believed it was right: "If they still had concerns and I still believe it is right to go ahead then I would do it, and on my head be it."'
Also saw this link to a New Statesman article 'Why is whirlwind Gove acting so fast? - to wreak permanent havoc with our children's lives.
Why does this complete tool think he knows better than the professionals who are in the thick of it trying to implement all these sodding changes?!
I love that he refused to show anyone the letter and said that OFQUAL could release it if they wanted anyone to see it. Very mature.
His quote really annoyed me, as its not on his head if it goes wrong. It is the school children like my youngest who will suffer long term.
It might embarrass him or annoy him for a bit.
The young people who sit this qualification may have their lives blighted for years.
I'm not sure he's capable of embarrassment. If the first year is a monumental cock up, he'll find a way to blame teachers and claim that the cohort of DCs simply aren't up to scratch, thus proving his point that the education system is not fit for purpose.
I suspect the only way he'll give up on it is if he gets re-shuffled.
It's not about education, is it? All for the greater glory of the Idiot Gove.
It's an extreme form of control freakery mixed with US free market fervour. Michael Rosen got it right: 'I see you as a kind of secular cardinal, having carved out for yourself a role to rule over a far-flung flock, determining matters of dogma and delivering sermons'.
i dont agree with everything gove does but there are a few things in this consultation that seem right:
- he wants to restore public confidence in the state education system (there are lots of good schools and teachers but the unpalatable truth is that there are many places where less than 50% of kids get 5 a-c gcses...... and this seems to pass
- he wants to sort out the
unfeasible year on year increase in grades. (i can accept an upward overall trajectory but year on year growth without any downward turns at all seems ridiculous).
- one exam board per subject to remove inequalities
- getting rid of tiered subjects
- compulsory maths and english
- flexibility on age of sitting so less able get more time.
teaching to start 2015 for 2017 exams.
am i missing something? it sounds quite sensible to me...... <ignorant emoticon>?
all the things on your list have ALREADY BEEN DONE within the current GCSEs
there is no need for a new and untested qualification
I would say that the OFQUAL letter lays it out pretty well. My biggest concern is that he doesn't think it's worth running a trial or sample- just wants to roll the whole thing out, meaning an entire cohort will be guinea pigs. Also, there have been so many changes already- but no opportunity to evaluate or assess their worth before throwing them out and bringing in yet another new venture. There is also the fact that so far there has been no information about what will be put in place for those incapable of sitting EBCs. It is simply not acceptable for DC to leave school with nothing. The fact that out Education Secretary seems to have no problem with this worries me enormously. That and the fact that he doesn't care what OFQUAL thinks and plans to go ahead anyway
I think tricot's list illustrates quite neatly what we're up against.
If the wider public is under the impression that, for example, Maths & English are options then it's no wonder Gove gets away with the shite he comes out with...
"he wants to restore public confidence in the state education system (there are lots of good schools and teachers but the unpalatable truth is that there are many places where less than 50% of kids get 5 a-c gcses...... and this seems to pass"
Lots of good schools get less than 50% A*-C grades. They're good because they move the kids on - often further than schools with much better intake levels. Schools that have high numbers of SEN students, or EAL students, or that are based in areas of high poverty, or have high student mobility, or have cohorts of students whose levels are very low on intake are not necessarily 'bad' schools because they can't match the figure of St. Privilege's school for carefully selected young ladies.
balia - Fine. I agree that applies in some cases, but based on the London families of schools graphs, it is pretty clear that there is a fairly wide spread of results even between schools dealing with the same catchment/intake.
"I think tricot's list illustrates quite neatly what we're up against."
Yes. I think you are "up against it". First and foremost because Gove is an incredibly skilled politician. I am not a fan of his, but I have to admire him as an "operator". Second the general public do not have faith in the current exam/inpsection/league table system. The Ebacc might turn people into guinea pigs, but if many people feel as though the current system is failing them, they are not going to fight to save it. The OFQUAL letter means little to the general population. Gove will out-manoeuvre the educationalists unless they can come up with something clear and succint in reponse to the general public's "fears" that he has very successfully captured in his consultation document.
Lots of good schools get less than 50% A*-C grades
not according to the DFE stats...
general public do not have faith in the current exam/inpsection/league table system
the tory political class have that view
the minute you leave Islington, parents are just glad to have their kids in school till 16, with the chance of any job
and parents of bright children tend to know how to play the game.
if the CBI do not like the idea of Gove's toy plan, WTF is the point of it?
Gove will not "out-manoeuvre" a paper bag without his highly paid corporate SPADs
I struggle to see this concept of Gove as a talented politico, though. As far as I can see, just about everything he touches turns to shit.
His modus operandi is to issue a soundbite, on anything from royal yachts to the restoration of O-Levels, swiftly followed by someone who knows what they're talking about saying well, no, that isn't going to happen. Michael got a bit carried away...
He's an impressively confident bullshitter, but an operator? Not so much.
Also, I have a problem with 'he wants to restore public confidence in the state education system', when his priorities seem transparently to involve reducing confidence in it in order to sell it off to his cronies. Looks more like classic asset stripping from here, tbh.
I do agree that there needs to be clearer opposition to his notions, but I don't see much clever manoevreing - just a desperate little man on the make, who has unaccountably been handed the keys to a metaphorical JCB.
Lots of good schools get less than 50% A*-C grades
not according to the DFE stats..."^
I have it downloaded and sorted
i wasnt impressed until i accidentally watched an education debate that he "chaired" in the commons. it really struck me that he had massive sway with the mps (cross party) and commanded great respect while the public are not keen...... and lets face it, it is the mps that cast our votes.....
It kind of depends on how you define a good school, doesn't it? If a school has a below-average intake, but gets average results...
Gove seems to me a damning indictment of our weird political system of letting random people with no experience run departments.
"Hey, you've got a degree in philosophy, and have worked as a marketing manager. You should be in charge of the UK's foreign policy" How...why?!
god this government is so far removed from the populus it is becoming embarassing
* Also, I have a problem with 'he wants to restore public confidence in the state education system', when his priorities seem transparently to involve reducing confidence in it in order to sell it off to his cronies. Looks more like classic asset stripping from here, tbh.*
yup that would be political speak - state what the public want to hear while covertly doing something else
he has ideas - crap ideas, but ideas - the others have NONE so he holds sway in the house of
I'd like to see him in front of a select committee : Margaret Hodge would have him on toast
note that he does not let John, Jim or Evan interview him on R4
Hmm how did we end up with this fuckwit in charge of education?
Every single policy has me shaking my head in despair...
Yup - all underlining his weasily excellence..... Writing him off as a wee man is a mistake. He will push.this through and noone seems to be mounting any sort of credible defence.
How many people here have replied to the consultation? And or written to your mp to object?
what sort of "defence" do you want?
EVERY professional educationalist (both left and right) - the CBI and the Unions and Ofqual and the Exam boards
have asked him to STOP
and wait for the evidence of his extant changes to pay out
NB although I think he's a fuckwit, I'll give 20% of his ideas a positive spin
but the little shit will not STOP changing things.
DD is sitting the latest (much harder) version of the GCSE - but her results will not be league tabled till January 2015
so he (if he was truly scientific and competent) just shut up till then
or do you not 'believe' in evidence?
PS i'm not British - I have no MP in this country and cannot vote
I have interference without representation :-)
The next general election is scheduled for spring 2015. Our nutty system is not set up to give politicians time. <dont shoot the messenger!> if lots of people lobby their mps that equates to defence - they dont like the idea of not being re-elected. "bodies" of educationalists have less sway than mps fearing for their seat.
I have no doubt, due to the lateness of the hour and the fact I am glassy with cold/flu, that i am being very stupid. Could you give me a pointer to where the stats are that define 'good' schools as those in which pupils attain 5A*-C grades? I can't see a reference to 'good' anywhere?
Perhaps I should be asking what definition of 'good' you are using?
look at the DFE stats
VERY, VERY few schools with VA over 1000 get under 50% A-C all subjects
if you include English and maths that drops, but frankly schools with under 50% and VA under 1000 are not "good"
the database is easy to multi column sort
Right - so you're not talking about Ofsted 'good' then? Just your own definition based on?
Also - my apologies, I am not well. that link has over 20 tables and each one has numerous tabs, I'm not going to go through all of that data. I assumed you were using 5A*-C EM as it is a standard measure.
1000 is a median score - it is a comparative measure.
Why on earth would I use "ofsted good" when schools have been inspected over 6 years under 4 different regimens
All medians are comparative - so is median salary - does not make it invalid
there is no "objective" in education
especially with believers like Gove
OK - and I understand that there are issues with Ofsted judgements and criteria - but they do at least visit all these schools that you are dismissing as not good, they go into classrooms, talk to children...
What methodology are you using to define a school as 'good' or 'not good'?
many of their ratings are 5 years out of date .... before schools becoming academies
I'll stick to the stats
VA over 1000, 5 A-C over 40% : as per the spreadsheet - no 'judgement'
I have it downloaded and sorted''
I might be being a bit dumb here but I had a look at the link above and the tables provided there only go down to local authority level, they certainly do not show individual schools, and do not include things like VA.
Do you have another link to the information you were talking about?
some of the research is by school .... keep looking .....
What keeps puzzling me in this country is the speed and scale of changes in public policies. Gove comes to powers and declares that ALL IS WRONG and needs to be revolutionized. Ok, good. What about the people who built this ALL WRONG systems not so far ago? Were they acting not on the basis of sound scientific knowledge? Or their policies were built on vision, not proofs? Is there any chance that Gove also acts on the basis of imagination, not statistics? Why is he referring to an American theorist as to a source of ideas instead of social scientists and government researchers? I feel so much uncomfortable with this baselessness especially because I see how great local education industry is at the level of producing teaching methods.
any evidence that does not accord with his belief is wrong
there is no evidence in support of much of his beliefs
so he just goes with his whims
bring on the reshuffle.
Actually Gove didn't say that "all is wrong and needs to be revolutionised". The academy programme, for example, was started by the previous government. What Gove has done is put rocket boosters on that programme. Supporters of academies and free schools (which are essentially academies) will say that there is plenty of evidence that they work, both from the UK experience and in other countries. I am neutral on this but, given that academies have support from all three major political parties, it is clearly the way the country is going.
There is plenty of evidence that GCSEs have suffered from grade inflation for years. As for the idea that no-one outside Islington or the "Tory political class" is worried about this, words fail me. I live several hundred miles from Islington and there are many people here of all political colours who have no confidence whatsoever in GCSEs.
The CBI didn't come out in support of the status quo. This is what the CBI actually recommended:
A move from GCSEs in the middle of this decade, but the development of a more rigorous and diverse assessment approach that helps better decision-making by young people at the key points of age 14, 16 and 18 rather than simply substituting GCSEs with a more rigorous exam at 16
So they want a bigger change than the one Gove is making.
I am not saying Gove is making the right changes. I don't know whether or not his prescription is correct. However, we are slipping down the international tables educationally. If we don't change anything we are accepting continued decline.
we are slipping down the international tables educationally
I'm yet to see one of those international tables that does not have a significant political bias.
Interesting article I read in the New Scientist about the new Math museum in New York : the USA has top university Math departments - because it imports talent ....
I agree that grade inflation is a serious problem - BUT I genuinely do not think that most employers are not bright enough to work out the reality.
Also, employers got VERY, VERY lazy in the last 20 years.
In the past they took on 16 year olds and were willing to pay to mould them into shape.
Now employers want them free and ready made. And then moan about taxes going up.
I just wish Gove would shut up with new schemes until the current year 10 have completed their linear asessement, no retake, exams with choices based on knowing about the Ebacc
is that really too much to ask?
I'm with you at the moment bridge.
I'm not sure anyone who knows anything would try to claim that the current system is perfect, or even close. However, the pace of change, and the fact that things aren't left alone long enough to see if one change makes a difference before the next one is introduced is ludicrous. My main worry with Gove's EBCs is the lack of pilot scheme- what on earth is wrong with trialling something first?
Join the discussion
Please login first.