I'm just getting my head round Gove's changes to the exam system- and I am even mor horrified than I thought I would be!

We manage to fit in those things too! Just not formal science, history, geography.

With the small group setting it's lots of time DOING and not much time listening to the teacher which is how a huge amount of time is spent in many primary schools. The children learn by doing the maths/practising the spellings, etc rather than sitting on the carpet listening to the teacher.

I think there absolutely is a place for a rounded education for all children but a rounded education does not equal galloping through a set curriculum with no mind as to whether children are understanding it or not. You can't for example teach percentages if children have no idea of place value and can't divide by 10. Yet this seems to be what has to happen under the current system.

Tilly I can see what you're saying but children do need more than literacy and Maths, surely? I'm absolutely with you on the need for basic skills but what a shame to lose out on the other stuff. What if they have real aptitude for music, IT, art?

I agree with OYBBK - I work with primary aged children who are operating below expectations and they can make progress with a small steps approach, with loads of consolidation and lots of adult guidance. But this takes time and I can only help them make this progress because we focus on literacy and maths and have a high adult:pupil ratio.

If schools didn't have to teach the NC to all children, then more children could have basic literacy and numeracy skills by the time they leave primary.

By not enough, I mean, the aren't allowed to concentrate on the basics enough.

I think they are taught well but not enough, too quickly and without continual reinforcement until they really really get it.

OhYouBadBadKitten - thank you for confirming what I thought: children aren't so irredeemably dim that they cannot master basic skills (as some would have us think), rather they have been poorly taught (which is not to say that teachers are at fault - curriculum design is a huge issue).

Bonsoir its because the national curriculuum works in such a way that they have to cover so many aspects of maths and (especially in primary) dont get the chance to master the basics of one field of maths and really practise it before they move onto the next field a week or two later. I think its a fundamental flaw in the system.

No real impact other than to reduce the average score of the pupil with no effort by the government

No idea how you figure that out (or what you think the motivation would be). At KS4 (i.e. GCSE) the metric currently used is the total average (capped) point score per pupil. It is capped because it only looks at the best 8 results for each pupil. So "average of the best 8" is no change at all.

Pretty much all of the bottom set have SEN of one sort or another. Most won't have instant recall of their times tables.

"but the bottom set are having to learn to solve equations when they can barely do arithmetic"

Why can't they do arithmetic, though?

I'm currently teaching maths and further maths GCSE to my top set, which is working quite well, but the bottom set are having to learn to solve equations when they can barely do arithmetic.

I don't know how bottom sets are going to cope sitting a foundation paper which is even harder than the current offering. The new foundation paper will be pretty much the old intermediate content.

I really like the idea of a double maths gcse. I think some schools are doing this by having Additional Maths as well as Maths. However, some seem to be doing it with more success than others.

- Curriculum reviews in Maths, and I believe, English aimed at a limited beefing up (defo needs doing in Maths IMO).

Absolutely. I don't think there's a maths teacher in the country who would disagree. However, for a decade now we have been promised a double maths GCSE, with one GCSE focusing on the numeracy stuff that employers want, and the other focusing on the hard maths that sixth forms want for A-level students. Lots of reviews of maths education recommended this, including the one commissioned by Gove and led by Carol Vorderman. There was even a pilot scheme of these new qualifications running. Completely inexplicably IMO, Gove has completely ignored this and stuck to one GCSE, now beefed up, trying to be a qualification to please everyone, to suit the needs of all students, and this will undoubtedly cause problems, my guess is at the lower end.

The only concession to the double GCSE is that maths now counts for two GCSEs in the league tables. Gove recommends more curriculum time for maths, an extra lesson a week. It will be interesting to see whether this will actually materialise.

although a bit tough on what we can now maybe call the fringe subjects

What are you classing as the fringe subjects?

- "first attempt only" to stop the practise run idea.

But its first attempt only to be taken in to account in the league tables. Schools are supposed to put the best interests of the children first, I suspect that schools will be accused of holding the brightest and most able back.

- "average of the best 8" (just saw this today) to retain incentive to improve grades across the academic spectrum.

No real impact other than to reduce the average score of the pupil with no effort by the government.

- EBacc etc initiatives to encourage the "core subjects"

English, Maths and Science are the core subjects, and pushing for the academic will just split the school cohort, vocational subjects will once again be for the "thick" (One of the terms that was favoured when I was growing up)

- Ofsted "back to basics" approach with the bar set higher (and in a different place).

gove wants teacher led whilst ofsted wants child led, they need to be on the same page.

- No coursework to put the pressure on the student and the student alone.

Very few areas of the curriculum use coursework/controlled assessment it was being phased out in many areas before gove came in to his position. But I remember colleges, universities and businesses complaining that those leaving education had to be taught how to work on projects as they were not being taught it at school.

Good discussion re: rigour. Agreed. It is vague. So, if you look at what the government is doing:

• "first attempt only" to stop the practise run idea.
• "average of the best 8" (just saw this today) to retain incentive to improve grades across the academic spectrum.
• EBacc etc initiatives to encourage the "core subjects"
• Ofsted "back to basics" approach with the bar set higher (and in a different place).
• No coursework to put the pressure on the student and the student alone.
• Curriculum reviews in Maths, and I believe, English aimed at a limited beefing up (defo needs doing in Maths IMO).

Dunno.

I'm an English teacher. Last year was our first year doing the IGCSEs.

The literature course is all exam based and has no tiers.

Our lower ability children did amazingly well in these exams. Students barely scraping Ds and Cs on the Core (Foundation) paper in English language, achieved Bs and As on the literature papers.

After we received the results, we all said that we hoped language would follow suit too.

I don't know how other schools teach their students, but in our school all students follow the same topics, units of study and exam texts. No student misses out parts that other students get.

I can't stand Gove, but I think getting rid of the tiers may prove to be a good move.

It is really interesting and worrying to see how the clock is being turned back to the old 'O' level era. What Mr Gove et al seem to forget is that huge swathes of children failed and left school with nothing is those days. That is why CSE, 16+ and then GCSE were invented if my memory serves me correctly. I agree that life is tough and children have to learn to 'suck it up' and get on with it. However, the big difference today is that there are just not the job opportunities around for youngsters with limited qualifications. I just think we have got it all wrong. We should be teaching our children how to create their own jobs - what has happened to the entrepreneurial spirit in our Brave New Education World? Is the UK destined to become a huge Heritage Theme Park with anyone who wants to create wealth restricted to a public school-educated elite or forced to go abroad and start afresh elsewhere?

TalkinPeace

Exactly, and with out quantitative measures, you could change the pass rates after exams and tell moderators to mark harsher to bring down A/A* pass rates and claim success, but who would want to do that?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigour

rigour cannot be quantified, it is therefore perfect for those who wish to constantly change variables without true reference points

Bonsoir

I would like it defined by the minister of education.
Because there are various definitions of it and If you are going to make something more "rigorous" then what is the quantitative measure of it.

What don't you understand about the term "rigour"?

"rigour"

To my knowledge gove still hasn't defined this term.

In France the DC don't get a year to revise and polish - the programme is full of new material right up to the end of the year.