Planned changes to secondary-school exams (EBacc etc): teachers say there should be more consultation; what do you think?

No, I don't think the current GCSE is fit for purpose, LV. It has been the opinion of many in the maths community for many years (and highly recommended in the Tory commissioned Vorderman maths report of 2011) that maths become a double award. The problem with maths GCSE is that it doesn't serve the top end or the bottom end well, and employers want something completely different from it to what it actually provides.

Employers want students who can apply what they have learned in maths to everyday problems. However, a C grade in maths requires stuff like plotting quadratic graphs, Pythagoras and algebra that they're probably never going to use in real life. The Scottish model which separated arithmetic and pure maths seems reasonable, and there have been twin GCSEs piloted along the lines of Methods in maths and more solid algebra and esoteric geometry. The suggestion for EBCs doesn't seem to fit this.

Everyone supports functional maths, Chloe. The problem was actually agreeing what it meant and how it should be tested. Years ago (2006?) when it was decided that maths coursework would be scrapped, it was also decided that the exam would contain longer tasks to replace it. Perhaps some sort of functional maths that employers were keen on. Different exam boards came up with very different ideas of the sorts of questions that represented 'functional maths'. There was supposed to be a separate functional maths exam paper that everyone had to sit and if they failed the functional maths paper, they weren't to be awarded a C or above at maths GCSE no matter what they scored on their GCSE exam. The qualification was piloted, it was all set to go, and then the September (2009?) it was supposed to be first taught, it was just completely scrapped. It was then decided that functional maths (now redesigned to be questions the kids had a chance of answering) was to be incorporated into the Maths GCSE exam - if the kids failed those questions they could still get a C by pulling extra marks on the other questions.

And functional maths represents a small proportion of the maths GCSE content. It has taken years and years to sort out. And they want to introduce a whole new exam system, two exams, a different grading system and a new syllabus, with no tiering in 3 years? They're having a laugh. Strong leader or not, it's going to be chaos, especially seeing as the first year is probably going to be spent deciding who's in charge of what.

That was addressed to noble BTW.

Presumably the additional maths would be aimed at those who are planned to do Maths A level to bridge the gap between GCSE and A level, which seems to be a particular problem? In itself, I don't suppose it's a wholly bad idea, but it needs thinking through.

Was it you who said that you didn't think the current Maths GCSE was fit for purpose? If it was, in what way did you think so?

Someone said that the Scottish system used to have an Arithmetic standard grade separate to Maths. That doesn't seem a bad idea to me either although I believe that exam was abolished. (I grieves me to go into a shop and find an assistant who hasn't been shown or worked out a better way to add up say £3.99 and £5.99 without writing it down and laboriously adding up the columns.)

I am not a particularly big supporter of Gove but I do believe on giving him a chance, there are some genuine people in the world. And if you gave so called 'experts' his role I don't believe for a second they would do any better.

Obviously its of concern to teachers whether its pure/applied/additional. All I care about is its well taught to a high level, then it doesn't really matter how many papers the exam comes in. I am also a supporter of 'functional maths' or a version of. noble, I agree the 'experts' couldn't come up with something in 3 years, or even 6 years if you asked them. That's why it takes a strong leader to push it through.

They're not just changing the exams, they are changing the syllabus and the entire approach. The suggestion is that maths might be two qualifications, one pure and applied and one additional maths. Wtf does that mean? What will go on each paper? What content will be added? Who will sit each exam? What is the purpose of the two exams? They don't even know which exam board will be writing the bloody thing.

If you knew the utter chaos that has whirled around in maths education these past few years over the simple words 'functional maths' you wouldn't have the slightest bit of confidence that the 'experts' could come up with something in 3 years that will actually work, let alone be 'better' than what we've currently got.

OK - I had missed the info about your DC.

I haven't heard that there are any proposals for iGCSE or IBacc but to my mind it would be worth putting those options on the table. It seems odd, to say the least, to be putting so much effort into a qualification at age 16 when you know that those who will take it will be going on to two more years education. If most people still left school at 16 I could understand it, but not now. It seems a good opportunity missed to really have a good look (again I may add) at 14-18 education.

I suspect you are right re the exam orientated schools. I can't share your faith in Gove, but time will tell.

LaVolcan - Although I don't like getting personal I have said it before on other posts. I have a child in Y6, so in the second wave for math/english EBC and the first wave for the MFL/humanities etc and I am so pleased the system is being reformed to something better. I would have put him in for the iGCSE or waited until 18 for the IBacc rather than waste his time on the GCSE.

I don't have a problem with constantly goalposts. That's life. If you get a good education then you wont have a problem (in life) no matter what the exact exam specifications are. And for me its the good education that is most important not the grades at the end.

The teachers at the school I am hoping he will go to don't seem to have a problem with the new changes. Also I have spoken to teachers on both sides of the debate and it seems to affect exam orientated schools significantly more than those that just focus on an outstanding education. I know many teachers on here will disagree with me on that point but there you go, that's my 2 cents.

cricketballs ? I think I have addressed all your points already, so forgive me if I am repeating myself.

Many posters have said they did not know the full extent of the changes, so you just cant say yet if they will cater for all abilities and in one exam. The ?limited curriculum?? I am not sure what you mean, a core of academic subjects that all children could learn still allows for several other options to be taken. Isn?t that almost identical to what we have now? The speed of implementation, well the longer you drag out this the more disruption it will bring and for exams that will be taken in 5 years it is hardly breakneck speed. The private sector wouldn?t have a problem with that time scale, the public sector always needs three times longer, which is part of the problem. Consultation with experts is always tricky, how many, which ones, are you sure you don't mean keeping everyone happy? You just cant do that all the time. I am confident the Education department has plenty of experts working on this. Contempt to expert misgivings? again when you don't agree with an ?expert? it is not contempt.

I don't know whether you have children at school or have had Chloe, but one of the problems which has bedevilled education has been the constantly shifting goalposts. It's almost impossible to say in year 7 what the situation will be in year 10.

Fridge - signed. As I said I am not wholly against the proposals, I just don't want them rushed in in a half-cock manner.

once again Chloe you have chosen to ignore my points that I asked you to raise an articulate argument to but why should I be surprised when these are the issues that all in education are putting forward to which Gove just states he will ignore

In terms of the 20% (though it will be more as not all 80% of students will achieve a grade in this one exam fits all proposal) a sheet of paper saying they studied maths is not good enough! It is difficult to keep a 16 year old enthused about learning something that they will not gain a qualification in (been there and done that) when even the lowest of lowest ability are aware of the importance that qualifications have to their future, no matter what the grade - why study something that is not going to give them a future? A grade G is better than nothing

This has probably been linked to already but it can't hurt. If you agree that the proposals need a longer consultation time, sign the petition here.

Jux - surely you were aware the school had 8 compulsory subjects before she started there or did they just become mandatory last year? Would you prefer her to drop down to double science? Can she not do extra music just not as a GCSE. Is art not something she can study else where or at another time?

Seems the issue of fitting everything in exists already.

@chloe74 - do I think pupils should be taking 13+ subjects? Er no, why do you think I said that? I just pointed out that there were timetabling constraints which stopped you taking some subjects. I believe that it is subjects like Art and Music which get pushed out of the timetable because they are perceived as soft subjects.The fact that Gove hasn't even considered them is not likely to enhance their status. Anyone who does do music or art knows how much work is needed for them, so the perception is erroneous.

I do despair because the Arts are one area in which this country has excelled.

Chloe, because the school have chosen 8 for them already, and then she has a choice of history or geography (she's a natural historian, so that's one) and so she's only got one left which will then be 10 subjects. There are others she wants to do, but even I can see that more than 10 is likely to be a bit much!

Anyway, there's one slot left and 3 subjects to fit into it. If she could drop to double science that'd let her do art and music, but so far it's not a possibility.

One in five is hardly a few students!

You do understand that a grade G in maths means something? And an F, and an E. You can distinguish between students' maths ability on the basis of their GCSE maths grade. Under the proposals, they would not even be allowed to sit the exam to demonstrate their knowledge.

LaVolcan - do you think a pupil should be taking 13+ subjects and just spending less time on each one then. Surely its not possible to fit so many in and teach them all to a decent level.

Doesn't that mean its an 'issue' within the GCSE system and not just a complaint about the EBC system.

Sorry noble that is just spin. Just because the few aren't able to get a grade in that subject does not mean that they get nothing. They get the best education in that area that was possible and 'a piece of paper listing what they've been up to in that subject'. You cant lie to people and tell them they have passed a subject when they haven't just to make everyone feel special. That's whats wrong with the system currently. Children will do better in life if you are honest with them about their abilities and expectations.

A g grade in maths is a level 1. This allows you to apply for level 2 college courses and apprenticeships.

A desire to do two foreign languages or a desire to do geography, history and RE would end up knocking something else out, for example. Which is in part how my daughter ended up not being able to take Art.

And I also cant see how designing an exam that is aimed at 80% of children means there is nothing for the rest.

Because that was in the proposal. For the students who don't sit the new EBC they will simply get a piece of paper listing what they've been up to in that subject.

You really should read the proposal, btw.

LaVolcan/Jux - Maths, Science *2/3, Eng lan/lit, Geog, MFL, Art, Music
maybe I am missing something but what other subjects are compulsory and stops you doing Art/Music? This doesn't seem to be an abnormal combination in my area, do other schools make it impossible to do this combination? I understand timetabling problems but usually they are in the less common subjects. I must be missing something.

If these reforms go ahead then state school children are going to have a very narrow experience and miss out on so many opportunities.

I hope Gove listens to those telling him its a terrible idea.

LaVolcan - not all children are able to do exams in all subjects. However their is still plenty of value in learning the subject (to the best of your ability), its certainly not a waste of time. So I don't understand how that makes a child unemployable or not allowed to attend college?

I see no evidence yet that the EBacc is being rushed in without proper thought, its still three years before children have to start studying it. Also can't see how studying Maths and science etc stops anyone from studying art & music to a high level. And I also cant see how designing an exam that is aimed at 80% of children means there is nothing for the rest. The consultation only just ended!

I don't imagine a statement of achievement is of much use to most children, however it would only be for those at the lowest level of expectations and it might very well be relevant to them. Surely a lot more relevant than a pile of grade G's.

She's in Y9 and is choosing subjects now, but there seem to be some set subjects which she simply has to do, at the expense of all-roundedness. Jux - exactly the same happened to my DD, who couldn't do Art. If one is to ask, why can't additional subjects be taken, there are such things as timetabling constraints.