To have not known kids have to attain grade 4 in maths?

But, as I mentioned, there are some in state schools who sit IGCSE. That is what was incorrect.

Should know about calculator/non-calculator and IGCSE vs GCSE. Sadly, not all do.

There are other differences too. Such as the style of question Teen mentioned and the number of papers I mentioned.

"The fact you felt the need to then incorrectly claim you should know if your child is doing IGCSE but if in state schools it is GCSE"

You should know if your child is doing GCSE or IGCSE,

"you don’t think it is important to know whether paper one is a non-calculator paper (AQA or Edexcel) or calculator paper (OCR)? You don’t think that is a significant difference that will influence preparation? We will have to agree to disagree on that!"

And guess what, a parent might not know that it is AQA or EdExcel but they should know if it is a calculator or non calculator. And they can know that even without knowing the exam board.

The whole conversation exchange last night was about if it is important to know the board your (a general your, not your DC specifically) DC is sitting because of the differences. That was what the conversation was about. You were the one who quoted my post from the conversation about importance. If you wanted to talk about something unrelated it is strange you felt the need to quote my post.

The fact you felt the need to then incorrectly claim you should know if your child is doing IGCSE but if in state schools it is GCSE and to ask me if I thought the content of the specification of a whole was different when that isn’t what I said, and explain about Ofqual regulation which I had already acknowledged implied, whether you intended to or not, you didn’t think it was important to know because all GCSE maths boards are regulated by Ofqual.

Some DC sit IGCSE so yes I mentioned them. I didn’t say they were they same as GCSEs.

"You are wrong about WJEC Equdas. It can be sat in England."

Which is why I deleted the comment.

My quote

"I said that there is little difference between the GCSE specifications except clearly one of them has a Paper 1 which is non calculator and another is calculator first.
Other than that, GCSE maths is GCSE maths."

My comment is that there is little difference between the GCSE specifications. Which is what I said this morning

The "except bit" is me adding information in this quote - that some of them have Paper 1 as non calculator and others don't.

(Which is not information I gave this morning )

My post was

"You should know if your child is doing IGCSE or not. But State Schools in England do GCSEs.
Do you think the maths contents for the GCSE Maths specification is different between OCR,AQA abd Edexcel"

As your comment mentioned IGCSEs which are clearly very different to GCSEs. And no comment about me saying it was not important to know whether it was a calculator or non calculator. In fact, I didn't mention the word "Important" so I am puzzled as to your inference there.

Here is the post you posted this morning. Can you point out where you said “except clearly one of them has a Paper 1 which is non calculator and another is calculator first.”

and read what I said.

I read exactly what you posted. I think you are the one who needs to read both what you said and what I said.

I didn’t say there were differences between the content of the overall specifications, just that there were differences.

The post of mine you quoted was about whether it was important. You clearly felt the need to respond to that post highlighting what you did. Not sure why you would do that if you felt knowing was important.

I said that there is little difference between the GCSE specifications except clearly one of them has a Paper 1 which is non calculator and another is calculator first.

No you didn’t. You didn’t mention paper 1s being calculator vs non calculator. I did that. Try reading what you wrote rather than telling me to read it.

You are wrong about WJEC Equdas. It can be sat in England.

"so even if your child does GCSE maths, you don’t think it is important to know whether paper one is a non-calculator paper (AQA or Edexcel) or calculator paper (OCR)? You don’t think that is a significant difference that will influence preparation? We will have to agree to disagree on that!"

We will have to agree that you didn't read what I said.

Edited

Maybe you should do some critical thinking and read what I said.

I said that there is little difference between the GCSE specifications except clearly one of them has a Paper 1 which is non calculator and another is calculator first.
Other than that, GCSE maths is GCSE maths.

Could you point out where I said it was not important?

It's the middle ground, isn't it? We've just got to get past the 'it's a dead end' attitude and start offering kids who, in the old days, would have been on the factory floor, opportunities to work their way up the old fashioned way whilst at least earning NMW.

Quite my Dh works for a subsidiary of Tesco ,they welcome bright young people .

We also need to stop sneering at NMW jobs in Tesco's, though. That can also be a career path that can end up in management if we stop giving kids the idea that starting at the bottom on NMW is the dead end forever.

it doesn't have to be uni or a trade apprenticeship , there needs to in-job progression, like there once was. We have fewer industries to do that in now, but it would help if kids didn't see the few that still do offer those opportunities as dead end. McDonalds does it, but who wants their kids having a McJob?

An old school pal of mine left school at 16 with nothing higher than a 'D'. He started delivering Pizzas for a big chain and is now in senior management. That's really what we need, now, but that requires children and parents not turning their noses up at what remains of the non-specialist trade mass employment sectors.

Perfect for those who aren't going to uni, but aren't really up for being plumbers, etc.

I would be delighted if my son went into a trade but he would still need a grade 4 in English and maths for most apprenticeship,s
It's such a huge stumbling block for so many kids .

I thought at the time it would have made more sense to stay with just one exam board for most mainstream subjects and stick with it for A level if the pupil's had used it for GCSE, but obviously they had their reasons.

Edexcel are the most popular board by far for GCSE maths, AQA are the most popular board by far for GCSE English. I know Edexcel was popular for maths early on because they had a really good post-exams analysis service where you could see your pupils' strengths and weaknesses and how they performed on each question (I think other exam boards have caught up now) and they also had lots of good teaching resources. I assume English teachers have their reasons for preferring the AQA syllabus.

And lots of trades know there is a demand- the construction and manufacturing workforce like many others has a huge demographics problem. Unless we want to keep filling that with immigration then we need young people making and building stuff.

That's what I'm trying to say. It's up to parents and children to drive the demand for change by actually "choosing" alternative options like modern apprenticeships to show employers (and government agencies, colleges, etc) that there IS a demand and start to insist that they increase the supply!

Parents also need to get over themselves as regards "image" and stop the obsession with wanting bragging rights that their little "jimmy" is going to Uni, when in reality, little Jimmy would be more suited to qualifying to be a gas engineer or electrician, but they can't have that because he may get his hands dirty and have to wear overalls! Can't have the neighbours twitching curtains seeing him come home in a Ford Transit can they - they'd rather he get into £50k debt and end up with a NMW job in Tesco!

My son's school used the Welsh Board (WJEC?) for Eng Lit and Eng Lang for similar reasons. They did explain it, but I can't really remember the detail. Just remember it seemed strange that an English school nowhere near Wales would use the Welsh board. But I do remember that it was definitely that they felt the exam question style better reflected their pupil make-up.

They also used a mix of AQA and Edexcel for other subjects, e.g. AQA for Physics and Chemistry GCSE but Edexcel for Biology GCSE, but then Edexcel for A Level Physics, likewise a "mix and match" for humanities and languages.

I thought at the time it would have made more sense to stay with just one exam board for most mainstream subjects and stick with it for A level if the pupil's had used it for GCSE, but obviously they had their reasons. Though I did suspect it was just personal preference of the Heads of Dept?

But the more parents who are a little more assertive and communicative and like to strive for change get involved with putting their kids/young people forward for vocational routes the better things get. I've got one on a more traditional A Level and university route (though her subject is pretty vocational in itself) and one who will likely go to FE college and do a vocational subject so I sort of fall into this category myself.

Also I work for a trade association in an area of manufacturing/engineering/construction and see that good apprentices/young employees can go far and quickly.

DD2 didn't get on with the Cambridge foundation iGCSE syllabus and switched to Edexcel foundation iGCSE. Seems to have found it better and easier - but we'll see!

So piping in here about different exam boards. My child’s school switched exam boards at the last minute for maths. They did an extra mock exam after Xmas and compared results and asked the kids what they preferred. They changed to OCR from AQA I think. The main differences weren’t content but how the questions were worded. One exam board is heavier on wordier problems. There’s probably more to it than that.

Well, I certainly hope things turn around too, but for the foreseeable - we have to work with the system as it is, not as we’d like it to be.

We're really not "stuck with it". We can't afford to throw people on the scrap heap because they can't achieve a degree, just as we can't afford to put them on the scrap heap if they can't get a grade 4 in Maths GCSE. We need to be more flexible than that and look at what people can do, rather than what they can't. It's like the old saying of measuring a the ability of a fish by asking it to climb a tree!

We need to challenge this kind of unnecessary and damaging development. Luckily, there's a lot more realisation that we NEED people with manual skills such as tradesmen, mechanics etc., so that's a glimmer of hope for those who'd struggle to get a degree. We're also seeing more "modern apprenticeship" schemes in large accountancy firms and other "white collar" jobs, so there's another glimmer of hope (Smaller firms have always had open doors for more able school leavers wishing to train as accountants without the Uni route). More realisation of "good" well paid jobs that don't require degrees such as train/tube drivers. I think (and hope) the tide has turned and sanity is returning, but it took 2-3 decades to get where we are, so it won't be quick to turn back time and start opening doors and giving opportunities for those unable, incapable or unwilling not to go to Uni. Bring it on, asap please!