Do you like the GCSE system?

OK the ebacc is a (stupid) measure of how well a school does - it relates to those GCSEs and the number of students sitting them. It's of no benefit to the students (except as in it promotes a spread of subjects - but most students do something fairly broad at GCSE anyway).

I wonder if you are talking about the IB - international Bacc - which is an actual qualification taken instead of A levels?

I thought the same about colleges no longer offering a resit year for GCSEs but the college my DD wanted to go to has just been offered this as she only got 2 grade 4's (predicted grades were way higher but the stress of exams meant she did terribly in them). I'm hoping this year we can work on exam techniques and due to her SEN she can get better exam conditions.
The college didn't advertise this so I was really surprised when we were offered it.

They do offer those subjects, but as A-levels, not part of the eBacc, is how I understood it.

@TickingAlongNicely the school I worked at offered animal care GCSE - it was amazingly popular and genuinely gave a chance for some students to shine where they might not have done so well in other subjects.

I agree btw that tho the vast vast majority of schools make the ebacc available, fewer schools IME are enforcing it now. I think they got bitten. DS2's year (GCSE 2019) was forced to take MFL and a lot of them did badly compared to their other results.

How can that be true? You mean very few private schools offer maths, English, science, history or geog and MFL?

Oh wow! Animal care GCSE sounds fab! Never seen that before!

My DDs school doesn't enforce EBACc fortunately. Her dyslexia makes languages hard. She's planning on History, comp sci and then dance or animal care as her last option... and will get a better grade for those than a language!

@Pythag Very few independent schools offer the EBacc.

Optional is key here. It can’t be a valid measure if a proportion of pupils choose not to take it. It skews data if one school has 100% take up and another school 25%

i think all schools offer the Ebac (I am not aware of any that don’t offer it) but lots of schools don’t require kids to take it.

it is still useful as a standardised measure, to see what percentage of kids in each schools pass it.

If it isn’t all schools that follow a strict ebacc then Surely it can’t be used as a standardised measure?

Yes they have the same weighting but most school do ebacc as well so:

English lang and Literature (2)
Maths (1)
MFL (1 or 2)
History or geography (1)

Then you get the sciences, most schools do double or triple (2 or 3) but there are 4 options if they don't do that so Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Computer Science.

It's only then you can fit an art subject. And it is usually one. When there was a free choice you could do Art, photography, 3D design and a couple of others.

STEM subjects don’t have a different weighting in progress 8. English and maths have double weighting, but sciences have same weighting as humanities and languages.

GCSEs are the main exams taken at 16 but they are not the only exams / qualifications.

GCSE passed at grade A*-C or 9-4 depending where you are in England, Wales and NI are 'level 2' qualifications, lower grades are 'level 1' qualifications.

Level 3 can be A Levels or a certificate / diploma often called BTECs but other exam boards have their own. You can also take IB, depending if you have a local provider.

Scotland has a different education system.

Pros of the system are that the school choses the exam board and all children taking that GCSE sit the same paper wherever they are.

So teachers cannot play favourites or mark down students they don't like.

Everyone understands the system, '5 GCSEs or equivalent with English and maths' is regarded very much like a HS diploma and counts as such if you apply for a US college.

Cons of the system - well it favours the students who are good at exams and there is little incentive to work all year if you are that kind of student.

I'm old and we did O Levels and CSEs which were amalgamated into GCSE. What often happened under that system was:

a) academic students being entered for one or two exams a year early giving more time to concentrate on the other subjects

b) you could sit both a CSE and an O level in the same subject, very common if you were borderline on a pass.

c) you were only entered for the exams your teachers though you could pass.

At present schools are constrained by 'progress 8' which means the school's 'rating' depends on the 8 GCSEs the student sits in their final year. So academic students can be twiddling their thumbs for 6 months and less able have to sit exams they may not be ready for. Or have no interest in. The government also weights subjects differently so there is bias towards STEM.

Things have also changed uni wise. When I left school in the 1980s nursing was not a degree profession, you worked and trained at your local hospital and entry was the aforementioned 5 O levels including English and maths.. Now you have to take a degree.

FE colleges used to run 'consolidation' courses which were basically resits in a year, these have disappeared so outside school it is difficult to do a reset of anything other than English and maths.

You can actually leave school at 14 and transfer to an FE college, although it is rare, it does happen. Personally I think it should be used more, schools in England (I can't say for the rest of the country) don't have the facilities to teach things like mechanics or catering.

I've taught in the US and in the UK. One aspect of 'teacher assessed' versus 'final standardised exams' is that in the UK, the teacher is, at least in theory, a coach trying to help the student get the best grade. In the US, the teacher is also the judge, jury, and sometimes executioner, personally responsible for issuing the grades. It makes for a very different dynamic in the classroom and with parents!

Nope, it’s hideous. Too much pressure too young, too many exams all bunched together. My DD just did hers, and has passed everything and got onto the A Levels she wants, which is brilliant. But the one she got the lowest grade in was the subject where the exams were right at the end of the exam period and she had 2 exams in one day. She was exhausted by then and dropped 2 grades compared to her mock.

Also all subjects are not equal- I’m am MFL teacher and students typically get a grade lower than their other subjects. And don’t get me started on the higher/foundation tier fiasco!

I also feel quite strongly that students who will not get a grade at Eng or maths should not be forced to do it.

A student of mine made themselves ill with worry and when I asked their Eng teacher she said “they won’t get a 1” well what’s the point then? But the govt insists.

There are other quals - DS1 has three English fails and then a pass at FSL2 which was much more accessible for him.

@EBearhug yes the whole "they have to stay until 18 now" is such a lie.
Technically if they have a full time job that includes some "training" (don't all jobs have that at the start 🤔) it's perfectly legal.
There are still jobs available that are happy to take on a 16 year old.
The only restriction on 16 year olds is they can't work nights.

When they came in children could leave education at 16 so this was their main shot at qualifications. Now they have to stay in education until 18 anyway and get further qualifications

Aren't they meant to be in education, training or employment? So you can leave at 16 if you have a suitable alternative path. For most, this does mean more school, college or an apprenticeship (which involves some college,) but for a few, it could be the only qualifications they do. No idea what the numbers are; presumably low, but could still be thousands.

@Baital completely agree!

@Needmorelego I completely agree. I was the first year of GCSE's many years ago. A large part of them was course work but that seems to have vanished. So unfair on the ones who are not great at exams. Hate them.

I agree with all this.

Ridiculous pressure.

Also they are not fit for purpose any more. When they came in children could leave education at 16 so this was their main shot at qualifications. Now they have to stay in education until 18 anyway and get further qualifications so this is a lot of work for something that is superceded and made almost valueless within two years. I don’t know anyone who lists their GCSE grades on a CV these days, yet they’re really pressured for top grades.

Maths and English are vital so I agree these need focus. The other subjects don’t need that level of examination at that point and should be internal testing via the school to determine their skill level for moving on to A level which can be done via both exam and practical work over two years.

My oldest has just done really well in them but they had to push themselves so hard with the sheer volume of work

DS (13) has ADHD and honestly I'm thinking in terms of what subjects does he 'sacrifice' focus on so he can manage decent maths and English Language because there is no way he will be able to put the work and focus in for all 9 subjects.

It makes sense to have separate papers in some subjects - e.g. languages usually have reading/writing, speaking, and listening. And I agree a single exam doesn't help if someone has a bad day.

When GCSEs were introduced (I was I the first year, 1988,) part of the aim was to make them fairer by including coursework - it recognised that not everyone is well-suited to exams and a one-off performance.

Part of the issue is that GCSEs are very important to league tables etc. Every school can tell you its percentage of students achieving at least 5 GCSEs at grade 7 or above. But that completely overlooks the schools where getting someone from a 3 to a 5 is a far greater achievement than a very capable student getting straight 9s.

Also, we narrow the curriculum too soon. I resented being allowed to take only 3 subjects at A-level - I was an all-rounder. I wasn't really ready to give up maths and sciences. Specialisation does help some people who have clear preferences, but there are millions of 16yos who don't really know what they want to do yet. There is the option of doing the Bac, but that's not available at all schools. Perhaps that's not an issue in cities, but in places with large rural catchment areas and a reliance on school buses, you don't have those choices. And I can understand why Sunak wanted everyone to do dome sort of maths up to 18, but constant GCSE resits isn't the answer.

When I went into 6th form, we had a lot of people staying on for a year (when they could have left at 16,) doing things like extra numeracy and literacy. At the other end of the scale, they were supporting those of us who were Oxbridge candidates. I fear those less able students would not get the same options now. Although most people will now have to stay in school until 18 rather than 16, the focus is now very much on what counts towards league tables, which will work fine for those who are academically able, (I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets some enjoyment from the challenge of having to answer a question within a certain time,) but people aren't all the same and some would do better with other options. Options which mostly don't really exist.

But I don't really know enough of other countries' education systems to compare and contrast.

DD did incredibly well yesterday so yes, on paper the system suits her. The reality is, however, that she is spent most of this year bored. They started revision classes in January and took a full set of mocks (23 exams in her case) at the end of Feb. After that it was back to revision classes until the exams. So this year she hasn't learnt anything new and has sat 46 exams. I'm not sure what the solution is but the number of exans seems excessive.