To think that this is terrible news for my children's education?

[ICameOnTheJitney]

Axeing of Soft GCSEs to hit Drama and PE

Exam board insiders confirmed this weekend that subjects such as law, media studies, drama and PE were at risk of being culled from the list of about 58 GCSEs. One source said that as many as 20 subjects were under scrutiny

Why the arts? And surely PE is a VALID subject...not all children are academic and we NEED PE teachers and drama teachers and actors ffs!

Please tell me why, if this happens it's a good thing?

So on that basis, music should not be a GCSE since it is performance-based? Back in my day Music 'O' Level was pretty much analysing scores. It was dire. Music theory and harmony is very important, but there are high-level skills involved in composition and performance, and that's what the GCSE/A Levels test. It's putting what you've learned in theory into practice.

And what about art? Is art a craft? Are crafts precluded from being examined at GCSE? Where does this leave fundamentally important subjects for commerce and industry like design and technology? If you want to be an engineer or an architect at a leading university then teaming maths/physics and design at A Level is ideal. I know three pupils who have done exactly that and are now studying at RG universities in highly-rated departments.

I see no difference between drama/theatre studies and music and art in terms of the balance of practical, creative and academic. You can bet if the drama syllabus involved Seneca Gove would change his mind. (In my ideal world every student doing English Lang and Lit GCSEs should also do drama, but obviously that's not terribly practical from a timetabling point of view..)

I have relatives in France. Their school system is something Gove would love; great on academics, zero creativity. That is one of the reasons why London is now crammed with young French people who are itching to get involved in the design/creative industries here.

Gove seems absolutely obsessed in demarcating the academic from the non-academic subjects without really articulating what makes an academic subject to start with.

clay most (all) arts subjects have theorietical elements.

I'm a writer and there is currently so much discussion about creative writing as an academic subject. And its worth as a masters degree.

My view is that it can be highly academic. There is so much literary theory to consider/analyze.

However, the reality is that many MAs offered barely dip their toes into the academic waters. They have seminars on inspiration and what have you.

I suppose what I'm saying is that any subject would IMVHO make a good GCSE, but it would have to introduce some of these theoretical elements to be considered academic.

Currently there's insufficient to justify being an academic pursuit.

At my school, English, English literature, French, maths, double science were compulsory. Plus either geography or history and one of the technologies (food, textiles, resistant materials etc). So you could only choose 2 options, unless you did separate sciences for a triple award, then you only had one. At the time the options were an additional language (Italian, Spanish, Latin or German), RE or music. We didn't really have any 'soft' subjects. I went to a grammar school and they had little regard for media/business studies, drama, PE etc.

I have to say the link to the PE paper looked very easy! I think we could all pass that paper with no study whatsoever! the grade we get is another thing

But according to mn ALL GCSEs are easy! And have you seen some of the science multiple choice papers? Just as 'easy'. Especially for adults on a parenting forum....

These references to compulsory technology GCSEs are a real surprise to me - is this usual?

I did my GCSEs in the mid-2000s, and we had to do English Literature, English Language, Mathematics, Double Science (or Triple as an extra, if we were prepared to stay after hours), Religious Studies (religious school), and one MFL, but the only other limitations were class sizes and timetabling.

I'm very glad it wasn't compulsory at my school, which suggests that the syllabi and teaching was amiss, as I was known for being very creative, practical and academically gifted outside of those classes (and have loved learning to cook, sew, knit, make things etc as an adult)! I'm a great cook but did appallingly in Food Tech, and I was top of the class for Fine Art but couldn't bear Graphics (despite the excellent teacher). The other classes were just badly taught: nobody learned a thing from our ICT lessons, and I was banned from using a sewing machine in week 1 of Textiles because the teacher had an anger management problem couldn't be arsed to figure out why I kept jamming up the machine despite doing my very best to follow her instructions. Resistant Materials, Electronics, and Systems (pneumatics and hydraulics) were even worse - soooooo dull!

I really do think that most of our courses were in desperate need of an expert overhaul, rather than a political rebranding exercise. Particularly MFL...

And have you seen some of the science multiple choice papers? Just as 'easy'

Exams you can do are easy. Many adults, especially in a middle-class enclave like MN will have science degrees which cover most of the current school syllabus, and would be able to do (say) GCSE triple science to a high standard without any serious effort.

Exams you can't do are hard. Those same adults who can waltz through GCSE sciences might not have quite enough knowledge of the provisional government's failure in post-revolutionary Russian to trouble the scorers in a GCSE History exam.

Actually assessing their objective demand for a sixteen year old who has done the requisite two years' study at two hours a week (or whatever the load is: isn't a GCSE meant to be 180 hours or something?) is a complex task.

Do science GCSEs have multile choice?

I have one doing a normal GCSE and one an iGCSE both in triple science and the syllabi look fairly challenging. Lots of different thoeries to cover in all three disciplines.

Do science GCSEs have multile choice?

I believe they did up until recently, but don't for the current cohort. This may vary from board to board, but is definitely true for my kids. I think the cohort taking science this coming June will be the first to do a non-multi-choice, linear exam in some years.

"I have to say the link to the PE paper looked very easy! I think we could all pass that paper with no study whatsoever"

But it's not aimed at us, it's aimed at 16 year olds and pass isn't the same as get a good grade, which is what those who take it are presumably aiming for as it is one of their options.

Science multiple choice papers? There are a few "select the correct answer from" questions, if that's what is meant? But not papers.

They aren't doing linear. They are still doing modular, and will sit the same modules as the previous year 11 (the first to take the 2011 Science specs). However all the modules are taken at the end. Terminal modular, rather than linear.

I agree that there is no reason why drama or media or PE or law has to be an 'easy option'. Taught properly, there is just as much theory to be learned in drama or media as English literature. My friend did standard grade drama back in the day, and it involved a lot of essay writing that was similar to what we did in English. We studied some film and TV as part of my higher English and it was just as rigorous as what we did with books and poetry and plays. Media studies doesn't have to be of the 'oh, I like doctor who, I do' variety; it can be about really analysing the complex relationships between society and media. In fact, I'd argue that it is absolutely vital that we teach children to be able to be critical media users and consumers.

Wordfactory: I think masters level study at university is a whole other nightmare. And not just in creative writing. In far too many cases, it's essentially a lower your standards or dumb down the curriculum so much that my pet hamster would pass (so long as they can come up with the fees!). Even not being able to speak or read enough English isn't a problem (so long as you've bribed someone for the right bit of paper claiming you can speak English).

I have had several complaints this year that I insist on using words like 'discourse', 'agency' and 'structure' in my MSc module. Apparently it's not enough to give a brief explanation and then actually teach because all that matters if that the students are happy. And also complaints that the reading was too hard. It was an OU textbook (undergrad at that) that I set precisely because the students complained that the real reading was too hard last year. It's very frustrating, not least because there are also students in the class who want to be pushed and want to have real debates about the issues covered in the course. I feel bad for the students who come to see me and don't have enough English to have a simple non-academic conversation, but mostly because the university is not being fair to them (or anyone else) by letting them in.

I prob will get flamed for this but as as music teacher I noticed a change in Key Stage 4 to numbers opting for arts subjects when Business Studies, Psychology, Media and Law all became GCSE subjects and not A level or degree subjects. In the school I work in (selective state) there are 4 Business teachers and not quite two music teachers, despite music being a foundation NC subject.

On multiple choice: I took 100% multiple choice exams in some subjects at university. They were not an easy option. Several of my colleagues (particularly in the sciences) set multiple choice exams for their courses. It doesn't necessarily mean that the students pass those exams. (Unless they actually learned what was in the course).

See, I think languages are 'easy', but then that's what I did at university. I would probably not pass any science GCSEs and certainly not maths if I were to take them now, and they look impossible to me.

The MFL syllabus is just plain weird, though. Too unsystematic to allow students to understand anything in a grammatical way. The idea that you might look for patterns in a language and decode meaning from those patterns (ie, grammar) doesn't seem to form part of the deal. But that's probably for a whole different thread!

You say it isn't set for us but 16 year olds, 16 year olds who've studied for two years! One question was what is anxiety? Surely every 16 year old knows this and it's not specialist knowledge?

DD1 did GCSE Drama last year, outside her school.

It was anything but soft, I thought. There was lots of work on dramatisation of both scripted and devised pieces, including all the stage management stuff.

Then there was a load of written work, analysing the play they had seen, and the pieces they had performed. the written test was worth 40% of the mark.

The course certainly wasn't just based on raw dramatic ability.

I really like the way GCSEs (currently) give gravitas to subjects like Drama and Art and PE. It shows children that all abilities are useful, and should be taken seriously, and that everything needs to be worked at.

Clayhanger music GCSE is at most 30% performance based. Edexcel GCSE is much more like the old O level. Have recently started teaching it after years of OCR (not much theory, loads of contextual stuff and even GCSE musicians have to be able to describe the dance moves (!!) to about 8 different dance music genres). Edexcel GCSE has made me feel like I am teaching real music again However which other subject relies heavily on one to one tuition (performance work) other than music? Even to read music, thats another language (not to mention all the Italian terms). Music is as academic as MFL, of that there is no doubt in my mind.

One question does not a GCSE make.

sanity sounds like your DD did the AQA course, and I agree with your thoughts on it. Especially the bit about gravitas.

This is true. A typical GCSE 1 mark question for music would be "what is the tonality of this piece of music?".

I wonder if that is a more general knowledge based question than the PE one. Obviously I don't think it is.

I am v defensive (as its prob coming across) about music. I get sick of it being treated as 'just an art' subject or as a subject of mystery for only a small minority. It's an academic subject for all imo

I'm afraid I do agree with some of these less academic subjects being taken of the GCSE list. But I'm old fashioned so probably don't count. People need to be fully informed what implications their choice of subjects have. Like General Studies not being acceptable for some universities at A level on some courses.

But drama is acceptable to RG universities, is not a barrier to Oxbridge entry and looked favourably on by some medical course.

And I'm so busy banging my head my ability to construct a sentence has deserted me.