Will new GCSE's bring a halt to Social Mobility?

See my thread about how Progress 8 can't be used as a measure of effectiveness of schools

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/2499034-Progress-8-a-data-mangling-bunch-of-arse

I think I can see this coming up a lot in the future.

BlueBelle You said earlier "My concern is that the focus of comprehensives is to achieve 5 good passes including Maths and English".

This is due to change with the implementation of Progress 8, which is supposed to eliminate the excessive focus on getting D candidates over the C boundary.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/progress-8-school-performance-measure

Apologies for being naughty!! I'm not convinced that most British people can compare the NHS with other healthcare systems and there is a strain of opinion that continues to claim it's the envy of the world but still...

I think the original question on this thread was about the new GCSE restricting social mobility, and we seem to be wandering away from that, but, on the assumption that social mobility is a good thing (as long as it's not our DC moving down of course!) then the implication of the most recent page or so on this thread seems to be that GCSE grades rank low down the scale of contributing factors.

Would agree with you that international schools' students have a different outlook, and that it isn't always very reflective of the countries' population but in the places I know anything about, my experience is that large numbers of local professionals (the MN demographic) also choose international schools because they teach mainly in English, and this alone swings the deal. Expatriates who send their DC back to UK boarding schools probably have varied reasons for doing so, but I'd guess many are in countries where there is no international school option available.

Expat international schools are far from being the only sort of alternative childhood experience that opens horizons. Not being part of the social fabric in any shape or form is not ideal but, in Europe or North America, would be highly unusual.

Cresset most British people are perfectly capable of seeing the advantages and disadvantages of the NHS compared to other international healthcares. Nowadays an international perspective is perfectly possible for most without a nomadic lifestyle. BTW IMO expat international school pupils may also have a parochial mindset due to a rather restricted socioeconomic lifestyle and social circle which often does n't reflect that of the countries' inhabitants.

"goes some considerable way to explaining why..."

In fact, wearing my agent provocateur hat, I think it explains some considerable way to explaining why the English white working class under-perform in educational statistics!

What is so fabulous about geographic rootedness? Having grown up in a services environment, most small town denizens in places I've been (from Cornwall to the Midwest USA) who have never seen much of the world bar the odd holiday resort, seem to have little experience of anything except home and family. Their ideas and horizons are limited and worse still, many seem to be proud of the fact!

That is sufficient for dinner table or work place conversations but not for being properly integrated into a society where most people will have geographical roots.

I generally rather prefer DC educated in international schools to those of either the UK private (who are often entitled and snobbish, without much reason) or state (too often blinkered, small-minded and parochial) schools. It seems to produce a mindset that can believe (for example, and only to be slightly provocative) that the NHS is the envy of the world when objectively it is fairly second rate in a First World context! Of course, if one is located in a war zone or a country where per capita income is near the bottom of the global scale, then it's a blinking marvel.

And I am with bobo in believing that it's liberating not to be too rooted.

No - it consists of anyone who has had significant mind-broadening experiences.

I don't disagree but if that continues it means being only truly part of of a society that consists of people with similar experiences of being expat and childhood in international schools.

I'm resolutely not a fan of Camus.

It is perfectly possible to be part of society without that being a geographically rooted society.

Bobo perhaps you are more suited to a Camus 'Etranger' perspective. Many others are not and never feel properly part of any society and therefore detached. That is like going through the motions of socialisation for a country rather than being socialised. Anyway an interesting debate but off topic

Bobochic, the Scottish system has changed to a smaller number of exams at 15/16, between 5 and 7 in most schools. It is not popular with middle-class parents (neither are some of the other changes to the exam system) but is at least partially designed to increase attainment by the disadvantaged. Of course we have more flexibility in the last two years of high school because we don't do A-levels so not comparing like with like.

There is something intrinsically more fair about basing judgement on two years' worth of school reports than the one-day snapshot that examination grades provide.

I must strongly disagree.An objective measure is everything.

It's not "unfortunate" not to "feel rooted", though. It's quite liberating . There are different ways of being in this world!

International schools form a different society than those of the countries in which they are based. Unfortunately they are full of DCs who never truly feel rooted anywhere unless parents make a real effort to form proper attachments for their DCs to one particular country.

TBH it's not easy to cope with a deeply monocultural society if you are used to multicultural society. I regularly tear my hair out at small minded attitudes here in Paris and do the same in England. But, as you say, learning to socialise is vital and understanding the variants and where people are coming from is an increasingly valuable skill.

I think that's amazingly sensible. An international, long-term ex-pat family of my acquaintance found their children (having attended Latino, American, German, Arabian and Asian international schools) refusing to attend a Cambridge comprehensive school because they disliked British teenagers' attitudes. The kids, now in their 20s, are at home anywhere in the world, and have friends of every race and religion, but they are least comfortable among the English. Though they live here at the moment for professional reasons, they will move overseas, whenever and wherever the spirit and opportunities arise.

Possibly I am more aware of the socialisation factor because, in my family, so many of us have grown up in part outside the UK. My DD is 10 and I work quite hard at educating her such that she will be able to hold her own in both French and English society - and hopefully anywhere else she chooses. It's so much more than ensuring she speaks English as well as French. I regularly stick her on holiday courses when I am staying with family in England to ensure she knows how to behave with properly English DC.

Thank you for your kind words bobo! Not many people seem to regard education as even partly socialisation; there is a widely held view that it is all about encouraging individuals to stand out rather than helping them find a niche which is both congenial and valuable over a life.

"So much of education is about preparing young people for the society they will grow up in, its culture and mores."

I agree very strongly with this, and think it is a point that is not made often enough.

Course work was added into GCSEs to allow even kids without retentive memories to pass them.
Then the course work was gamed by the retentive kids
so it was abolished

Modules were added in and removed for the same reasons

so the GCSEs are back where they were 20 years ago

• great for kids with retentive memories
• rubbish for the rest

which is a bit daft considering the vast majority of jobs as against careers do not need extensive retentive memory

I could be swayed. If nothing else, eliminating the do or die selection points might encourage consistent effort, but there probably is no such thing as a really blind testing regime that could be both fair and rigorous. So much of education is about preparing young people for the society they will grow up in, its culture and mores.