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

Chloe what do you think the pass rate of the new exam will be? What do you think it should be? 50%? That would make it clearly a rigorous exam - but does Gove want to be remembered as the politician responsible for 50% of 16 year olds finishing year 11 with NO qualifications? Maybe the pass rate should be 80% then? Oh whoops suddenly the EBC isn't worth the paper it's written on as it's so easy to pass! Hmmm maybe Gove wouldn't like that either.... And you TRUST this man! You genuinely think he will act in our children's best interests rather than his own? Very few politicians put their careers second to their principles IMO - very naive to believe Gove is one of these few.

Sorry if I missed this among the thread but what happens to the other subjects outside the Ebac?

My DS1 is very academic and capable of soing more than just the Ebac 5 subjects. I would like him to do 2 languages, history and geography as well as the 3 traditional sciences, art, maths and English. Will students stil take exams in thsoe subjects?

DS will be in taking his GCSE/Ebac in what will be the second year of the implementation?

Is there a website I can read more about the details?

x-posted noblegiraffe.

'Its a politicians job to distil that expertise into a policy for the whole country' - yes, agreed, & he's doing a quite spectacularly terrible job of it, which is my & other posters' cause for concern.

I don't think you've fully understood the proposals re: single tier entry, & I'd be fascinated to hear your evidence for Labour or the LDs blocking two separate tiers.

You might find this concise & informative; it's a biased source, but will address some of your more obvious factual misapprehensions re: start dates & tiering.

www.ebaccpetition.org.uk/faqs.html

Chloe, the GCSE is one exam which is suitable for (almost) everybody, tiering the papers (e.g. Foundation and Higher papers) is what makes this workable. It's not impossible at all, it's just not what Gove is proposing. Gove wants everyone who sits the new qualification to sit the exact same paper as each other, which is blatantly ridiculous in subjects like maths and science. What everyone (you mention Labour and the Lib Dems but really the oppostion was much wider than that) was utterly united against was two tiers of education, like O-levels and CSEs, which make it very difficult to switch to a different qualification once your path has been set.

You are also incorrect to say the changes come into force in 2017. That's when the new exams will first be sat, but students will start the course in 2015. When's the next election due?

Have you actually read through the proposals as you don't seem to know much about them, despite apparently being fully in favour of them?

Hmmm - giraffe - I just don't believe the arts industry will be destroyed if children aren't forced to learn art. However right now we do have businesses complaining that children cant read and write well enough.

raven - you get 10 experts in a room and you get 10 different opinions. Its a politicians job to distil that expertise into a policy for the whole country, there will always be people that complain and resist change. Its easy to get experts to defame something new but you rarely hear them all coalescing on what is the right course of action. What we can say is that the GCSE system has been discredited and we need change.

You are also not dealing with the reality that its usually impossible to get the change we want because of the differing interest groups. eg we all agree a single EBacc exam is not suitable for all levels of ability but labour/libdems have made it impossible to have two separate exams. Gove can only work with what is possible.

Its always hard to accept opinion from self proclaimed experts when they are so rude about people they haven't even met.

From what I understand the changes will only come into force in 2017 which leaves time for the next government to stop them, if they really believe they are wrong.

About the arts -

"The government, and Michael Gove in particular, are under sustained attack from arts luminaries for their policies on arts education, focussing on the proposed English Baccalaureate, the EBacc, from which arts subjects have been excluded. In hopes of the government?s better understanding of what might be at stake, the likes of Nicholas Hytner, Grayson Perry and Sir Nicholas Serota have chosen to speak in economic terms, claiming that the creative economy could even be destroyed ?within a generation? as a result.

Richard Eyre, the former National theatre artistic director, described the policy as ?incredibly short-sighted?, and David Hare at his most florid has condemned ?the most dangerous and far-reaching of the government?s reforms?. Even Tony Hall, the chief executive of the Royal Opera House and an avowed Gove fan, reports that there is already evidence that schools have cut courses in drama and performing arts because they are not in the EBacc."

www.thestage.co.uk/columns/funding-matters/2012/11/young-theatregoer/

Chloe - if you ask teachers you will find that the vast majority of them have 'worked in the real world' before going into teaching (especially secondary) it is unusual to find those who went into it straight from university.

If you actually also listen to the arguments put forward by those who are opposed to the changes that Gove is pushing through you may also learn that the opposition is not change but the manner in which these changes are taking place, i.e.

*do not cater for all abilities
*not workable to have one exam to suit 80% of ability range
*the limited curriculum it will enforce (don't believe the hype that the subjects that don't contribute to the league tables will continue when that is what a school is judged on)
*the speed in which it is being brought in
*the lack of consultation with experts
*the complete contempt to the misgivings that experts have already voiced

can you give your answers to these issues as you seem to be the only person in this country who has the details?

You find him adept but many, many people who actually know what they're talking about think this scheme is dangerous, Chloe. Why are you not listening to them?

Oh, you'd noticed? .

He's not given me a great deal of reason to love him, really.

I'm not asking him to be an expert teacher; just to make sure he gets this right. By, for example, listening to those who ARE experts & are pretty much universally sceptical at best.

My opinion is that he is more interested in rushing this through in order to ensure that the public sees as much more of his phizzog as possible before the next GE, when either the Tories will remain in power & he'll look for a rather more exciting Cabinet post, or they'll be kicked out & he can attempt a leadership coup.

Not that I care whether his political career amongst the 'lower than vermin' flourishes - if he could promote his own interests whilst simultaneously presiding over intelligent reform of education, more power to his elbow.

But I'm afraid what I see is the latter being sacrificed to serve the former.

RAVEN - I bow to your skill at teaching children but what skill do you have reforming an entire education system? Gove does not have to be an expert teacher to do his job, he will have others for informing where that is needed. It is your opinion that he has no clue but I find him to be very adept at what he does ie running an education system, as has a majority of the county voters. You just don't like him...

If there are more details, why were they held back from the consultation that finished last week? That would make no sense at all.

Because I have been demonstrating my ability to teach for the past fourteen years?

Whereas Gove has done nothing to convince me, or the majority of educational experts/professionals - again, not just teachers - that he has the slightest clue about something he has no background or experience in.

It's rather understating the case that I would 'like to have more detailed info so you can get to work on it'. It's of serious concern to me that the first cohort, at least, to be entered for the new quals. (assuming any of this ever happens of course) will be very much disadvantaged because the specification, assessment materials etc. have been hastily & shoddily prepared.

I don't oppose reform. NOR DO THE TEACHING UNIONS as has been repeatedly stated. I wrote 4 new Schemes of Learning for the new spec three years ago, & very much enjoyed doing so, I'm a GCSE examiner & regularly attend feedback sessions with the Exam Board. The very nature of teaching is that you continuously reflect on what you're doing & 'reform' it.

What I am opposed to is half-arsed, ill-informed & rushed tinkering by a career politician to fit his political ideology & personal megalomania.

raven - I don't doubt many GCSE skills exceed those of 30 years employ. What I was explaining was that they are not all needed by those who have long ago chosen their life's path. Isn't the idea that children learn skills they might not use because they haven't yet figured out which ones they will need?

You might like to have more detailed info so you can get to work on it, but that is not the same as saying they do not exist.

I don't need to know about the results of the consultation because I am not the one making the decision. How is it that I should respect your ability on the best way to teach yet you refuse to accept Gove's ability to make the right decision for the county. It just seems your opposition to reform is your political ideology.

This worries me greatly, yes I agree changes are needed, but not in haste & not some new fangled rushed idea that will probably last until the next government decides to change again - does no one else remember the fiasco with 16+ in the 70s ?? - I do, because its exactly what happened back then - Conservative government too if I remember rightly

I have 16+ passes equivalent to high grade GCEs, but would anyone bar a small few my age have a clue what they mean - no - thankfully being self employed early on I didn't need them, but not everyone has that luxury, far more thought and care needs to be taken over this than is planned or we are going to end up with another generation of adults with qualifications no employer understands, because they were binned after a few years!!!

Chloe74 - Your first paragraph is actually quite accurate. The core of a GCSE level education is far in excess of that accessed by most of those who left education 30 years ago.

Prior to teaching, I worked in the private sector for over a decade, firstly in music promotion & then owning & running a pub/restaurant. I'm quite au fait with the skills needed to be employable, honestly.

'I imagine we will get more details' - but what you 'imagine' isn't really relevant to the solid, detailed information professionals working in education actually need. Give me a draft spec, as was done well in advance with the 2010 overhaul, & I can get cracking on the huge amount of work required to make our teaching resources 'fit for purpose'.

& I think we've established that what you know about the consultation which has already taken place could be written on the back of a postage stamp, never mind an envelope. Which is fine - why would you be any better informed, when teachers aren't? - but you'll have to accept that rather a lot of educational professionals, including but certainly not restricted to serving teachers, do not share your blind faith in the slithy Gove.

ravenAK - The core skills for a schoolchild is very different to those who have been employed for 30 years. ?Learn the rules before you break them?, otherwise you will get stuck in the past.

I admit I am not an art teacher, but I am not prejudiced against it. Just because I do not understand the inner workings of an art curriculum does not mean I am not well informed on what is 'core' to business wanting to employ a sixteen year old. Business wants children who can read, write, count, think and learn, for the vast majority of employers it is not even on the radar how artistic a child is. Obviously teachers in specific subjects have rose-tinted spectacles, what this country is not short of is artists.

Perhaps it would help our country if teachers were required to work in the private sector for a few years before becoming teachers. This would give them a perspective on how hard it really is to get a real job, what skills/qualifications are actually needed to be employable and how badly our education system has let us down.

When talking about consultation I was referring to the OP, which states it wants more consultation on top of what has already taken place. Perhaps someone here works in the Education dept and can actually confirm that no consultation has/is taking place. If not then teachers here can only claim that they have not personally be consulted. Which isn't that surprising.

noblegiraffe - Just because we do not know all the detail does not mean they do not exist. More power to Gove that he doesn't have the verbal diarrhea of other politicians. I imagine we will get more details when we get them and then we can have a factual argument instead of this constant diatribe by people dismissing the concept for fictional reasons.

Why is chloe banging on as if it is only teachers who are concerned about these changes, and that their concerns are merely cosmetic piffle designed simply to make their lives easier?

Many, many people, from many professional organisations and walks of life have expressed deep concerns about the proposals, including members of Gove's own party.

As for the assertion that it has not been simply drawn up on the back of an envelope - then where are the details? Why does no one seem to know what will happen to vocational subjects and the arts? Why does no one seem to know how an exam can be designed that will be both rigorous and accessible to 80% of the population? Why was the first that anyone, including many in the government heard about these proposals through a leak to the tabloids?

How can anyone be expected to have confidence in a massive change to the education system that is being so blatantly rushed through, presumably to meet a general election deadline?

I've only got two eyes. They'd have to regenerate hourly if I spent much time on this thread. .

But yeah - I was probably quite sarky in tone to chloe74, for which I apologise if she's offended, but I do think she's spouting unmitigated piffle & needs to substantiate her assertions.

Why do you think teachers are so often disliked? Could it be that we are forever putting other people down? Why do we do it? Why oh why oh why ...

chloe74 Don't you think it's a tad inconsistent to hold forth on the necessity of 'core skills' for employability when you then don't use them, though?

Anyway, that aside, you demonstrate with every post that you have very little understanding of how arts subjects work. Indeed, none of your arguments are substantiated by much beyond prejudice as far as I can see.

But perhaps I'm wrong & you are actually better informed than the teaching profession as to precisely what consultation has taken place re: reform to KS4 curriculum - reform which is not, in fact, opposed by any of the unions & which has been constantly in place, qv. the new specification GCSEs brought in in 2010.

Perhaps you'd like to share your knowledge: who has been consulted? How? When?

If consultation was anything like this discussion thread it would achieve nothing but waste lots of time, further disrupting children's education.

Consultation has taken place already, this is about more consultation.

Consultation advice does not have to be adopted. It would be crazy to implement everything everybody 'advised', this isn't the same as not listening.
It is ignorant to suggest the EBacc is developed on the back of an envelope.
Teachers admit they are used to change.
Teachers do mostly have the best interests of children at heart but lets not be naive and pretend they don't also have their own interests in mind as well.

Many improvements suggested to make the GCSE better could easily be included in the EBacc, the Exam/Curriculum is not starting from a blank slate, again to suggest otherwise is just ignorant ideology.

Whilst from a teachers point of view, thinking of an individual child, the GCSE might be worth saving. The government has to make decisions based on the whole system for the whole of the country considering national, international and business interests. What use is a GCSE if the country goes dogs and there are no jobs/investment or future for the next 100 years.
The EBacc will not be burdened with all the negative baggage the GCSE has.

For well over a decade as our education system was being devalued teaching Unions never once called for a strike to stop the Government changes. It would be hypocritical if they now do so, we live in a democracy and in the end it is teachers job to make it work even if they don't like it.

I have heard a lot of hysterical comments about Arts, Music etc being dropped from schools, I have not heard a single factual news story suggesting this is even being considered. What is wrong with giving parents choice, if they want their children to learn art at school they will be able to. Isn't that the situation as it is now.

I remember the EBacc was being considered along side another exam for less able children. Unfortunately it was the left wing liberals that stopped that and so the proposal was a compromise to accommodate more opinions. I would suggest if people don't like something they can vote differently at the next elections.

From my point of view a lot of posters here are what you would consider 'middle class'. So perhaps when you consider the thousands of youth and long term unemployed. More time spent on Maths, English, Science, and Language would improve their chances of getting work. Being able to play the recorder, watch South Park, or admire a picture are not critical skills. Of course selfish middle class parents want their children to learn the finer skills in life but its unfair to lie to working class families that it will help many of them get a job. What will help them is a core of Maths, English and Science so they can get employment.

Its debatable whether learning the history of the country you live in is necessary and as several posters have suggested RE provides good philosophical/ethical aspects. A better option would be to ditch the harmful decisive nature of religious education and make it a useful philosophy class, which would have more benefit to children's future.

And finally those posters use lack of punctuation or rude insults instead of reasoned arguments show just how ignorant they are. If you haven't anything intelligent to say, say nothing at all. Most of us here are adults who have made their choices and decided which direction their career is going. I learnt English to a very high standard when I was at school, I am not at school anymore, in a literary role or ever will be, therefore I have made the informed decision that many comma's/apostrophes are a waste of time and those who like to point that out are usually snob's.

The changes are actually the right way round for my first two DC's, my DD with SN's who suits the Current GCSE's with the ability to choose vocational qualifications, as well as a core of more academic subjects suits the current system, and my very Academic DS1 suits a more academic based set of qualifications.

What won't be much help is the fact that my DS2 also has SN's, and is just two years behind DS1.

DS1 goes into Y7 next year, he's currently in Y6, and will do brilliantly whatever the qualification is.

DS2, not so much! He is likely to want to sit more vocational qualifications, which more than likely will not be there by the time he gets to Y10 in September 2019.

Which means I can see both sides of the system.

Having DD and DS2, I can see that the need exists for some sort of vocational qualifications. They don't need to be 'equivalent' to GCSE's, and tbh nobody takes that seriously anyway.

All the 'vocational' qualifications I have had experience of are well designed, rigorous tests of knowledge required in that subject, and are often put together with the help of people working in those industries where they would be looking for that qualification too. They are as rigorous as GCSE's, and more so in many cases.

My DD does far more research, works far harder, and produces far more in depth work in subjects like Health and Social Care BTEC than I ever had to for GCSE's, and I was in the top sets for everything.

So I feel that there is still a place in the curriculum for vocational qualifications.

However, I would ALSO like a more rigorous exam than GCSE for the top sets, as that would benefit my DS1.

I just want BOTH, rather than all academic. Which is the system we have already, barring a more rigorous exam for the highest achievers academically.

Muminwestlondon - I agree wholeheartedly with you. My DD dropped MFL at the end of Y7, and used those timetables lessons to have Learning Support for her Maths and English.

When she started Y8, she was working on NC level 1 in Maths. She is now at a stage in Y10 where she is revising hard to try to get a 'G'. It may not sound like much, but for a severely dyslexic DC, it's amazing.

She can do fractions, decimals, simple algebra. She can weigh and measure and understand temperatures (which, ultimately, will be the most relevant parts of the Maths GCSE for her intended career.) She can use percentages, though not in her head.

I would far rather she had spent extra time doing what she has done, and become functional at a basic level in Maths, rather than learning a foreign language.

However, I would not be happy with the removal of vocational qualifications and the Arts from any future qualification, as it narrows the breadth of their knowledge.

I want to know what will happen to DC's with SN's when these new qualifications come in. SA and SA+ will have disappeared by then, but those DC's SN's won't have disappeared.

Where are the vocational qualifications for them?

My DD is in Y10, and is doing Catering GCSE. She is doing very well in that subject, and the college that does the NVQ qualifications accepts that qualification as the equivalent to an NVQ level 2.

If there are no longer vocational qualifications, what do children like my DD do?

There is a place for a more rigorous qualification, for those DC's that manage it, but there should also be an alternative for those that can't.

It's not right to leave some children in a position where they are literally being made to turn up, sit in a classroom, not understanding what is being taught, knowing full well that they will be leaving without any qualifications at all.

How do these reforms benefit those DC's? How do they help them gain future employment?

Not everyone will be able to pass these new exams - my DD is working her socks off to bring her Maths GCSE grade up to a 'G'. She has dyscalculia, and it has been a long, hard slog for her to even understand the basics. And that is despite tons of extra input from LSA's. NOT everyone is academic.

The cynic in me believes this ties in with the Welfare reforms, trying to create a ready made pool of slave labour, who have no choice but to work in what are currently low-paid jobs for even less money, on Workfare.

If they have no qualifications, then they have no alternative but to claim benefits and be put on Workfare.

But I'm a cynic.