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?

Friday they may not study those authors at GCSE but they certainly look at Shakespeare and at other greats.

This is interesting because peoples' personal prejudices are at play. My objection is that national educational policy is being decided by one man's opinions. So Greek and Classical Studies will count as two GCSEs but Art and Graphic Design only count as one.

DD1 claims that her GCSE Drama and AS Graphics have helped her a lot more in her studies(Medicine) than Geography and History. Indeed her interviews at Uni all asked about why she studied Graphics at AS, and she had three offers. The feedback to school all stated what a 'well-rounded' pupil she was.

Surely the object of education is to ensure young people have a broad view of the world and academia is only one aspect.

Plus who would want a child who grew up to be a Gove clone!!!!!!

giveIt Don't worry I didn't think you were being confrontational .

Basically, bothe Oxford and Cambridge have progs to try to widen access. Folks who went there/have links there/work there are doing all sorts of work to try to increase the numbers of students from less advanataged backgrounds.

I'm involved on a small level, in that I go out to schools and community groups to try to talk about it with kids who woukldn't think of it as being their natural millieu.

Depressingly, what we see a lot of is complete misinformation/bad advice and lack of encouragement.

And one area of bad advice is in the realm of options. DC wanting to take a bunch of GCSEs and As which will only ever close doors and narrow horizons.

Now I'm not saying that a student taking drama will be unable to secure a place at Oxbridge. Not at all. But a hand of results that contains too many 'soft options' will certainly hurt. The problem of course being that there is simply too much stiff competition. The issue is possibly slightly less thorny at Cam than Ox, as the former interview more, make more offers, relying on the A* offer to weed out at the final furlong.

In many ways it is worse at the other highly selective RGs. At leasdt Oxbridge interview a good proportion so an applicant has a chance to discuss their choices. Ay oher universities whee interviews are not routine, the initial sift is a paper exercise.

If Sophocles and the rest don't get a look in in Drama GCSE they certainly do in Drama A-level. Dd's set essay topics on Sophocles and Brecht seem at least as advanced as the essays on Churchill and the General Strike in the history A-level she is also doing.

And apart from dd (who was a special case) all the other students have come to the A-level through Drama GCSE.

Drama is fabulous and useful and ought to be part and parcel of English, not a separate subject.

Word, my daughter is taking options. She always gets the highest levels on any work she does, top sets for everything and wants to study Maths at Uni. I know Cambridge wonks be perfect for Maths because it has a fantastic reputation for this subject. Whilst the thought of Oxbridge entry has occred to me even at this early stage, as she starts her GCSEs, I doubt her Secondary school even consider it. They send the odd kid there, but it's quite a rarity.

Usually there is sno reason why your DD shouldn't give Oxbridge consideration.

And though it's lovely to have the school's support, it's not necessary. You can find lots of help on the internet (especially MN).
If she's a top student and she fancies it (not everyone does, given the peculiar way of teaching, the short terms and the relative sleepy locations), then she simply needs to make sure she keeps her options open.

A nice spread of GCSEs with good grades (straight A*s are not necessary) will be perfect. .

DC wanting to take a bunch of GCSEs and As which will only ever close doors and narrow horizons.

It's not just the subjects that they study at A Level, another thing that explains the higher rate of admission from the independent sector is subject choice at university. State pupils apply disproportionately to the most oversubscribed courses, so even if they are accepted to each course at the same rate as independent sector pupils, their overall admission level will be lower.

Oxford publish the details but anecdotally the same's true elsewhere. The same applies for ethnic minority candidates although the effect is not of itself enough to explain the lower acceptance rate.

"State applicants’ success rate is affected by subject choice: UK domiciled state school students apply disproportionately for the most oversubscribed subjects. On average, 35% of UK domiciled state school applications between 2010 and 2012 were for the five most oversubscribed subjects at Oxford. This compared to just 29% of independent school applications. (The five most oversubscribed subjects, based on the course with over 70 places with the highest applicant to places ratio between 2010 and 2012, were: Economics & Management, Medicine, PPE, Maths, and Law)

State students also apply in disproportionately low numbers for the least oversubscribed subjects: 18% of UK domiciled independent school applications between 2010 and 2012 were for Oxford’s five least oversubscribed subjects, compared to just 13% of all state school applications. (The five least oversubscribed subjects, based on the courses with over 70 places with the lowest applicant to places ratio between 2010 and 2012, were: Classics, Chemistry, Modern Languages, Biological Sciences, and Biochemistry)"

friday that is absolutely true.

Though when you break down the figures between selectives state schools and non-selective state schools, there are other variations at play.

But yes, sciences and MFL aknowledge that it is difficult to offer sufficent places to state schooled applicants without diluting quality.

Yes, they come under some pressure to do that. No, they jolly well don't wnat to!

Though when you break down the figures between selectives state schools and non-selective state schools, there are other variations at play.

I suspect that for the purposes of this sort of discussion, "selective state schools" isn't a terribly useful category. At the one extreme, it covers boutique super-selectives which were historically in some cases direct grant and are now voluntary aided, often with large capital assets from historic foundations, pulling 2% off the top of the cohort and operating as, and getting similar results and outcomes to, the most academic private schools. The state schools that figure in the Telegraph Top 100 A Level Results for example. They will have dozens of Oxbridge applicants, dozens of medical school applicants, and each year a substantial proportion will get in. They will have effective Oxbridge coaching and interview practice, will know exactly what to do about A Level choices, course choices and the rest, and you will struggle to get a cigarette paper between the state and the indies in that table.

In the end their Oxbridge rate will be lower, even for equivalent A Level results, for a bunch of socio-economic reasons about aspiration, and the course choices will still be slightly biassed towards the vocational, so the fag paper will slide through that small gap. But it is a small gap.

On the other hand, there are the selective schools in the areas that still operate a general 11+ system (Buckinghamshire, Kent, Wirral) where the grammars take a much wider cohort (20% or more of the ability range), they have no more resources than the local secondary moderns, the number applying to elite universities will be proportionately lower because of the different cohort and the support they can offer will necessarily be less focussed.

The super-selectives are closer to the indies, and the old-style grammars are closer to the comps. Lumping them into one group as a statistical entity doesn't seem terribly sound.

friday I agree that the division between selective state schools and non-selective state schools is a blunt instrument. But so is state or independent, as you say.

And some departments do use a % of FSM as a tool to help collate where the holes are.

For contextualising offers for example.

Clooney love your post. A nation of humourless Goves with small man syndrome. What a horrific image. I've dealt with Gove at work and he is as weasly and uncompromising as you would imagine. My friend's husband went to school with him. "Repressed little cock" was his rather perfect description. And what he says now goes as far as education is concerned.

I hate what this says about my, and indeed my whole family's choice, of careers. We're clearly all about soft and easy. My husband is the only family adult who isn't arty and we have all made the arts our lives: an actor, a tv producer, a tv director, an animator, a motion effects designer, an artist, a chef, a writer, a video editor... We celebrate the arts - these subjects have allowed us to put roofs over our heads, food on the table and to have a working life which is enjoyable, fascinating, rarely boring, creative... I could go on.

Is is too much to ask for an education system which looks at the whole child and their learning journey opposed to what grades and in what subjects they achieve? Education should be enjoyable, it should be compelling. It should be inclusive of all subjects which contribute to our enjoyment of life as we'll as the rigours of life. Yes, let's all be able to read, write and understand the universe. But there is so much more to life and work than academics. I do feel that Gove would like education to be tougher and harder and, yes, not as much FUN as he perceives it is now.

To compete in this world today we need people who think creatively, who have an entrepreneurial spirit (even if they don't want to BE entrepreneurs). Someone mentioned the French system... My mum lives in France and most of her friends in her village who have kids or teens try to send their kids back to the uk for schooling after primary because of the lack of creative curriculum. My husband had purely academic schooling and it shows in so many ways. We ignore or devalue these subjects at our peril. They contribute so much to society, so much that is perhaps not obvious to people like Gove.

I can't actually believe we are headed this way and that we are going back to the one exam scenario. How awful for those with an inability to memorise facts (or who find it too dull - and who can blame them?) To me it's like deciding to make all TV's black and white again because TV was better in those days. Except it wasn't really, was it? Black and white minstrel anyone?

FannyDAbby
how many of the people in your family have GCSEs in their career subjects?
Just that often the best thing is to DO rather than collect certificates

Depends on the age of us all. I'm talking from mid twenties to my dad who is in his sixties! When I was at school they weren't even offered - rigorous Scottish academy where fun while learning was frowned upon. God I hated so much of it. Rote learning, single exams, learning facts instead of understanding subjects.... Yawn-almighty. But hey, we all got excellent results so that's all that mattered. There are subjects I got A's in that will forever remain a blurry mystery to me. Classical Greek. WHY?

Whereas my brother did a raft of arts gsce's. He managed to get a good degree and happily works from home making amazing special effects for film and tv. Lucky him, I think.

I probably have the unpopular opinion that too much fuss is made about the number and type of certificates poor teens have to get. Our kids have one life, one adolescence. They should be allowed to enjoy as much of it as possible and if we devalue subjects which are considered soft or pleasurable, then we devalue that part of our lives too. And for what reason? My boy is off to secondary next year. I hope he does well. I hope he chooses the subjects HE wants to do, rather than the ones that a university might deem "right." He's way above year six level now because his school encourages a love of learning in all subjects. I hope that never changes. I don't particularly care if he goes to university or not as long as he loves what he does and has a happy life. I hope the same for my daughter.

Personally Im glad. I think school should teach them only academic subjects. Reading, writing, maths, sciences. Games they can do in lunch break.

It drives me mad sending them into school for them to bugger about learning French and singing songs for silly school plays. Same goes for PSHE. Pointless IMO.

DD did drama at GCSE, she's now a Maths teacher and got a Master's level mark for her Degree dissertation , which was about using Drama in the teaching of Maths.

elskovs

I agree about PSHE, citizenship and songs for plays I think should be done after school at the drama/music club.
But if schools only taught academic subjects how would many children experience the more vocational subjects, the more practical. Also they would only have a very few options when it came to GCSE, all the none academic would end up failing as well.
Some dc have a particular talent for Drama, Music, Sport and decide at an early age this is what they want to do.

How terrible! All the lazy children out there pissing around learning French and such like... Because that's definitely not academic in any way.

French isn't academic? So my A grade for GCSE French isn't worth the paper it's written on?

PSHE done properly isn't a waste of anyone's time.

Bonsoir, I don't know about that. I am sure English teachers can criticise a dramatic text until the cows come home. But I'm equally sure that many cannot act for toffee. Surely young people deserve to be taught by accomplished dramatists?

Shakespeare is taught every year at secondary, and I think a modern play forms part of the GCSE Eng Lit syllabus. Students learn to analyse the texts and are taken to see performances. So drama is there within the English curriculum, but I am of the opinion that a GCSE which includes performance and creating your own piece is highly valuable, and distinct from the study of English.

I assume this is all about jobs where there aren't enough qualified applicants coming forward. It has nothing to do with how valuable or rigorous a subject is in itself.

It's cynical politics at its worst, reducing education to what is "useful" in terms of making money, rather than what is meaningful, joyful to learn for those with the interest or talent, bringing cultural richness and breadth to the individual and the rest of society.

eggyweggies - delivering drama as an integral part of the English curriculum does not preclude using specialist drama teachers.

I hope elskovs isn't going to set up a free school. It would be a spectacularly joyless place! I'd rather my DC do useless things like buggering about learning French.

Agree with the point up thread that studying subjects that are directly 'of use' in the workplace is bizarre. As an employer I look at the academics, sure, but in the workplace it's all about project management, deadlines, collective endeavour, lateral thinking, presentation skills, energy and a bit of imagination. On this basis art, music, PE and drama should be compulsory, not denigrated.