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

yes possibly just seems daft

reason we calling it the bacc-cynical me reckons its rigeour through association people may be confuse it with the i bac which is world recognised, respected be so much easier for pupils.

but reading about welsh bac dident enthuse me.

I do think we need a change from gcses.

i think an independant body of paremts, unis, employers, teachers to consult be best i wouldent want the nut a left wing political organisation dictating every detail of new qualification as i im not mistaking genuine concern with self interest.

did they already consult? what was outcome,

its also possibly my understanding that kids could take on additional subjects arts maybe.

Mam, I suspect the reason why the ibac is not being proposed (which would save a hell of a lot of money rather than creating a new system from scratch - might be useful in times of recession, eh, GoveyBoy?) is that Michael Gove is hoping for personal glory.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/international-baccalaureate-are-we-ready-for-the-toughest-exams-in-the-world-8180728.html

after reading this article think ould like my kids to do middle years ib.
no fiddling from either political party
no grade inflation
highly respected accross the world and by unis.

just shame only private sectors able to take advantage of it.

the i includes arts where as ebac does not

interesting as outlines what welsh bac is outcomes and and reveiws on its success are mixed with some unis not accepting it.wonder if the ebac be very similar

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Baccalaureate_Qualification

intrigued why if ib exists as purpose built system why we just dont adopt that.

my local academy does ib but 6th form not at gcse level..

hats diffrence between gcses and i gcses?

does every european country have its own exam qualification or do many do the same . how does system work in france?

I thourght ebac as going to be balanced beteen humanities, arts and languages.

Dont scotland have different system to us and works well.

I belive the welsh have a welsh bac.

badmiss I think you must be getting confused between the EBCs (also confusingly referred to as Ebacc) which are to be the new qualification which will replace GCSEs and be Ebacc which is a name given to a certain selection of academic GCSEs. The new qualification couldn't possibly be piloted yet because they don't even know what it will be yet. The current Ebacc is simply a measure for the league tables which Gove hopes will force more students to take his favoured subjects at GCSE.

My daughter's school is piloting the EBacc. We've had so little information about it, and it limits the number of subjects she can take. So far, it appears to offer even less options than I had at school...

Consultation HAS to happen, surely.

Bringing in a new system without discussing it with the people doing the job day in, day out is lunacy.
Teachers WANT their students to do well, to become well-rounded, balanced, open-minded, inquisitive people equipped to enter the world of work and adapt to whatever it throws at them. Everything schools do is to this end.
Why Gove thinks he knows better is completely beyond me but then I find the man loathesome and not just regarding his views on education.
With regard to a replacement for GCSEs - any new qualification needs to reflect the talents of each student. It should allow students to show what they can do, reflecting both their inate ability and the sheer hard work they have put in to their studies. How best to do this I'm not sure about, but I'm puzzled why Gove thinks that excluding certain subjects is a positive move forward. Surely the ECM policy should also apply to qualifications? The Ebacc seems to suggest that some students are more worthy than others. And clearly that's worrying.

I think that both Muminwestlondon in her post at 08:40 and gelo in her post at 11:11 sum up a lot of my feelings on the subject so I won't repeat it here.

However, one point that doesn't really get spoken about much - or maybe I've just missed it - is what are these exams actually for?

I think, basically, you want two very different things from these exams:-

1 - To show what ''objective'' standard or criteria have been reached

2 - To differentiate between students when they are applying for higher or further education.

One, above, is essentially a school leaving certificate. I am rather ambivalent about a leaving certificate, however, as I would undoubtedly never have got one - I was rubbish at French at school. As others have said, I really don't see the benefit of it; employers are quite capable of looking at individual GCSE results.

Number two, above, is where I feel the current system has problems, especially with a grading system that has to cover the entire range of performance at 16, not just grade those that are looking to go into further or higher education.

I presume that this may well annoy a lot people, but I would suggest that an exam that is designed to cover the entire range of abilities at 16 does not, currently, do a good job of discriminating solely amongst the group of children that are considering further or higher education.

As long as further and higher education is not universal then there is always going to be selection and differentiation required. This is where I believe that a normative assessment dimension is required as well as the ''objective'' criteria.

Whether this is done by giving the percentile achieved, or some other means, I certainly don't have the perfect answer. However, this would give the finer levels of discrimination required for FE and HE entry without having the problem of having two different levels of exam or relegating those with lower levels of achievement to being ''failures'' if they still manage to meet the set criteria.

To the people that say that normative assessment cannot be used as you cannot compare one year to another, I would suggest that this is ludicrous.

You are attempting to say that there are statistically significant differences in the intelligence and amount of work done in their school career between children currently in Year 11 and those that were in Year 11 say two years ago. While this may possibly be true in individual schools, to try and say it is true across the whole country is clearly ridiculous.

Finally, to the person who said they had an easy time at university and then just crammed in the last month and still got a 2.1, well, I'm happy for you. But, I had to work damn hard for my degree.

Personally, I feel that people like this are as bad as those that say that GCSEs are dumbed down now compared to O levels. To imply that we were all like this is as much a disservice to any debate as talking of dumbed down GCSEs

Chloe, you write like someone who understands very little about the arts and rarely, if ever, engages with them. I say this as an observation, not a criticism. I strongly suspect that Gove et al are coming from the same perspective.

Art (in all its forms) serves to enrich, reflect on, critique, challenge, inspire, humour and entertain society. It can and at times it does level harsh, direct criticism at politicians and those in power in a way that factual presentation cannot - it's the difference between South Park criticising Scientology and a public speaker doing the same. Which would you rather watch? Which would you most likely subsequently remember? Can you imagine the paucity of a life without the functions I listed at the start of this paragraph - enrichment, reflection, etc? Socrates himself said that the unexamined life is a life not worth living.

Why do we think totalitarian regimes typically lock up artists of all genres? Not because they dislike their painting style or vocal timbre, but because their work has the power to level direct challenges at the status quo. Fela Kuti was repeatedly beaten and his mother killed by the Nigerian government of the time because he threw continual challenges against the evil of corruption in his homeland. Incidentally he was sent to London as a medical student, then skipped over to Trinity College of Music because he knew he was 'meant' to be not a doctor, but an artist. Some people are meant to be city traders, some scientists, some artists. We cannot force square pegs into round holes, and should not force them out of square holes.

Remember the protest songs of the 1970s? The way that songwriting and community singing become an automatic and essential mode of creating social glue during civil rights demonstrations across the world? I am listing just a few examples of the way that art has the power to act as a catalyst for societal and individual transformation.

As well as that, the arts are playful, and it is this ability to play, reflect and seek inspiration which gives humans the ability to advance society and technology. Without the lengthy playful childhoods we enjoy, we would struggle to develop computers, brick-laying techniques and new methods of weaving cloth. Let alone all the other things humans have invented.

It is naive and ignorant to claim that the arts have less value than other subjects or career options. Society is like a human body - we may dislike our toes or regard our earlobes as less important than our fingers. But the whole body works at its best and is its most healthy and balanced when we care for it all.

By sidelining the arts, our beloved Coalition is once again, as in so many other aspects of policy, betraying its naivety and ignorance. Rash decisions frequently lead to impoverished decision-making - is that what we want for our children's future? I seriously, seriously doubt this government's competence to improve life in this country.

GCSEs.

Leafmould, I don't think there are any GCSE papers that restrict pupils to a maximum of a D grade any more, the one in maths was scrapped 5 or 6 years ago, and certainly which paper will be sat isn't decided in Y7. Kids may be set in Y7 but they can usually move up and down sets throughout school, depending on how they're getting on. Borderline pupils who look like they have a shot at a higher grade can still change tier of entry very close to the exam. It is fairly common to have classes where some pupils will sit the higher paper and some the foundation paper depending on which will best suit the pupil.

And while their are grammar pedants online, is it gcse's or gcses?

Going back to what titchy said:

Schools do not decide the day before the exam what level of gcse a child will sit. This is decided by streaming from year 7. Many children are only taught the syllabus for the basic papers which will get them the maximum of a d result.

So I agree with the previous poster that gcse's have got their problems, and the system of streaming, examinations and gcse's does not promote mobility for the late developer.

There are so many ways to teach. I am not convinced that ebacc will change anything for lower achieving pupils who do not concentrate easily, and struggle with basic skills and learning skills. While I do believe it is important to have a system which gives opportunities to high achieving kids, surely any major changes need to improve education for the kids who get very little out of it currently.

I don't object to the philosophical aspects of RS/RE at all - as other posters have pointed out, they are good for the intellect, transferable, teach about culture etc. They are also excellent for vocabulary, spelling and debating skills.

What I object to is the 'Christians believe this, Muslims believe that' aspect of the RS course where it's not permitted (let's be honest), to discuss the down side of religious belief - the sexism, the patriarchy, the justification for customs and practices that have no place in C21st Britain - and that the course is compulsory.

Also just wanted to say that all these 'Bacc' terms currently being floated around by the coalition are not the same as the International Baccalaureate (IB) which is a rigorous sixth form level qualification that has been available in the UK since the 70s as an alternative to A level. It includes a compulsory Philosophy option, Theory of Knowledge, in which religious beliefs can be discussed (but do not have to be).

Good point Gelo. Or perhaps controlled assessments could be marked externally, if they're so worried about teachers "cheating".

Solopower, I know - totally lost the moral high ground. Especially as my phone auto corrected set to sett!

I think it all seems rather rushed and ill thought through and I feel that tightening up the existing system would probably be a better way to go.

I've had two dc go through GCSE reasonably recently and haven't thought there that bad - certainly not bad enough to need scrapping. The current model of either 0%, 25% or 60% controlled assessment seems OK at least for the 0% and 25% subjects - some subjects (geography, science) really do need a bit of assessed practical work for which CAs work well, but maybe some tightening up of how they are managed would be good. The subjects that have 60% CA (languages, english language) are the ones where it doesn't seem to work so well - perhaps the way forward is to reduce these to 25% (spoken language would seem to need school involvement at least, but doing the written test as a CA hasn't worked at all well imo). Having higher and foundation level differentiated on many exams seems wise too.

Rather than scrap GCSEs they should be revised a little where needed. Remove some CAs, but keep them where useful. Reduce substantially the number of specifications/boards per subject (this seems much better for levelling, though there are issues of expertise that Ofqual has raised, so maybe a single board per subject is too few). Keep the current foundation/higher tier in most exams - I share Ofqual's concerns that a single paper to test the whole ability range will be insufficient, especially in some subjects. With the move away from modular already happening it should be possible to reduce the number of exams in some subjects too.

I am happy for there to be changes, but am deeply unhappy with the nature that Gove is rushing them through without proper thought.

I find it interesting that OFQUAL oppose the speed of changes and have grave concerns, the exam board I work for express concerns, I see the voice for businesses in this country have expressed their concerns. I've recently read a letter from 22 university lecturers (in education) expressing their concerns, my teaching union have concerns as do most teachers I know.

To press ahead in the face of these concerns (and to refuse to share these concerns in parliamentary select committee) and then to say that he will overrule OFQUAL's concerns is pure madness. I cannot see how anyone can defend this.

but we have to have constantly changing goalposts to "raise standards"; it's a mantra for our age. (sigh).

the BTEC approach sounds great to me, for teaching many things.

Great posts, Violetstar, Newferry and AView - but your last sentence was unnecessary imo.

I disagree with Chloe too, but would rather challenge her views than her grammar.

I'm an English teacher. This is my fifth year, and in that time I've had to learn and teach six different specifications (Lang and Lit, so three lots of changes). Absolutely agree that it devalues what has gone before.

Also, when change is pushed through too quickly, there are so many things that suffer. When the new spec came out in 2010, we were floundering in the dark. Text books were full of errors, people and reports from the exam board contradicted each other at every turn, and no one had any idea what each grade looked like, particularly at the top end. And we were a pilot school, so had a couple of years on everyone else. Results this summer were crazy - I had sett 3 of 8, target grades mainly B with a few As. About half of them got As in Lit, many with full marks on one paper. Now, this sounds great for them (and looks great for me), but never in a month of Sundays were some of them A kids.

You may use this as "proof" that the system needs changing, but the same thing will happen again if reform is poorly consulted and implemented too quickly.

The vast majority of the children I teach work so hard and care so much about their future; any reform that is implemented for the political gain of an individual is doing them a disservice. The thing that makes me rage the most is that Gove's rhetoric about falling standards has at its centre a study that has been discredited - here.

I love my job. I love being in the classroom, I love it when children finally "get" stuff, I love it when we argue about what a poem means or why characters behave in a certain way, I love it when a lesson about a persuasive leaflet becomes a whole-class debate about smoking or animal cruelty or derogatory terms that are peculiarly feminine.

What I do not love is changing goalposts. As someone has already said, how children will be terminally assessed completely changes the way in which we teach them, from Year 7 onwards. This is not dumbing down, or teaching to the test, but it would be nice to be confident about how my lovely, hard-working Year 7s will ultimately be assessed.

With regard to the arts, of course they're rigorous. I have no idea why Gove appears to be so opposed to them. A comparison to hair extensions is puerile and ignorant, in the truest sense. We often compare our results to those of RE, as many of the skills are the same. If we were to lose these subjects, we would be cheating our children of an appreciation of culture - you only need to look at the opening ceremony of the Olympics to see how much talent there is in this country. And of course state schools would be the ones to suffer the most, as the cultural subjects will lose time in order to concentrate on the ones which "count", league table wise.

Finally, chloe74, clearly you and I are ideologically opposed in our views on education. That is fine. However, if you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you learn the difference between your and you're. This might help!

Oh enough already with all these exams - GCSE at 16, AS level at 17 and A level at 18. Which other country does this? Embrace the IB (or a version of) and put an end to all of this exam madness. If the school leaving age is 18, surely this makes GCSE and AS level redundant - or would do, if children followed a broader curriculum until age 18. My two are in the IB system and will stay there - no "grade inflation", a qualification that is recognised world wide, no nonsense of specialising in 3 or 4 subjects at 16. My A level choices were just plain wrong - hindsight is a marvellous thing to have, but who knows, really, what they want to do at age 16?

in relation to the GCSE v BTEC argument I teach both so feel that I can give an opinion based on fact surrounding this.

The reason that BTECs are thought to be easier is that they are based 100% on coursework which can be continuously improved until it reaches the required standard which allows for students who 'don't get it' the first time to work and work with feedback on their every step until they do 'get it'. This does not mean it is easier just different from a memory test.

For example, BTEC Level 2 Business requires students to create a profit and loss account, cash flow forecast, break even chart and balance sheet to gain a pass in one unit. In order to achieve a merit criterion they then have to analyse the importance of these financial tools for a manager. The Distinction then pushes them to evaluate fully (with references and using 'real accounts') these. This means that if the accounts are incorrect, they can then go back and correct them. If they have missed an area in their analysis I can feedback that this is the case and they can then re-write this. This is not easier infact it is harder then the GCSE; just different.

The GCSE only requires them to be able to complete a very simple profit/loss account if they are tested on it at the end of year 11.

Which skills are going to be used within the workplace - a memory test or the ability to go back and improve, the ability to research, the ability to analyse using tools and guidance

sashh, all nursing students need to be able to wash their hands, but they also need a good grasp of maths (for drug calculations, drip rates, etc.) and not just whole numbers, but decimals. That sounds silly, but a misplaced decimal can have tragic consequences. Don't forget, also, that we aren't talking about exam conditions, but a busy ward with buzzers going off, patients calling out, telephones ringing, possibly in the early hours of the morning after 8 hours on duty.

Nurses need a grasp of biological concepts, so that they can assess their patient's condition. They need to understand, for example, how hydration will affect blood pressure, which will in turn impact on heart rate.

Nurses need a good grasp of English and must be able to record notes succinctly and clearly, in such a way that they may be referred to in court up to 21 years later (the clock for medical negligence starts ticking at 18 years old for children).

Knowing how to wash your hands is not going to get you far, and most prospective nursing students will (should) have got some experience before applying.

To answer the opening post..

I am a parent with two teenage girls. One at a superselective, one at a leading comprehensive school. I do think the changes are being rushed through but I really don't think that a petition is going to make a jot of difference. Industrial action by teachers might, but that will probably only delay matters and wrest minor concessions.

I think the EB stinks. If schools want to teach the IB, fine it is up to them. I think schools should have a choice.

I think the make up of subjects is ridiculous. E.g. Are you really going to force a severely dyslexic child to spend a few miserable years attempting to learn a foreign language and failing badly? Though I personally am an atheist, I think RE is a robust enough subject to qualify as an humanity. I think music should also qualify quite frankly.

I think that children do too many subjects and GCSEs should be restricted to 8 or 9. If that leads to a child dropping humanities or two sciences at 14 to specialise in say art or music, it should be up to them. That happened in my day.

I do not want to return to the nasty divisive pre GCSE system we had of O' levels and CSEs. I went to grammar school and did O' levels. You are kidding yourself if you think they are superior to GCSE. Having a daughter who did 11 GCSEs last summer gaining A*/A in all, I think GCSEs are more rigourous. The reason children get top grades is because they are extremely well taught. Don't bleat on about dumbing down and teaching to the exam. What is wrong with teaching to the exam, it is designed to test the knowledge accrued over the course after all. In DD's school which is a super-selective they go above and beyond the National Curriculum. I also have a child at a comprehensive, children there can also achieve top grades if they are able enough, the teaching is superb.

My personal preference is for terminal exams in subjects, however I can see why some people prefer modular exams and controlled assessments and I think schools should be free to decide what is best for them based on their intake.

I think all public exams should be sat in year 11, though there is nothing wrong with able children sitting one or two (i.e. maths or English language) in year 10.

I can say with absolute certainty that there is no cheating in controlled assessments at DD's school based on what she has told me. Now she is doing A' levels the teachers have made it blatantly clear, they are not going to be spoon fed or given much help with course work and they have to work it out for themselves. It is a fucking insult to the majority of teachers to call them cheats.