New GSCEs too difficult?

[Trishtrash]

"In GCSE English it's all exams – there is no coursework – and pupils are not allowed to bring in any of the texts. They effectively have to memorise three texts and 18 poems. The expectation is killing them.'

The above is a quote from today's Daily Mail - sorry!

Am I being unreasonable to think that that is not an unreasonable thing to require of an A-Level Student? I did my A-Levels over 30 years ago in a bog-standard comprehensive and we couldn't do any coursework ahead of the game and we certainly couldn't take any of the texts into the exam (that would have made it so much easier!!).

I remember having to memorise vast swathes of poetry (Keats, Wordsworth, Somerset Maugham etc...) and chunks of text (Doris Lessing, Return of the Native, A Winter's Tale are ones that I vaguely remember) in the expectation that we would need to quote from the poetry/texts to support a variety of themes/ideas that we might be asked questions on.

I have no idea about the rest of the curriculum as I did Art, English and History. I definitely had to memorise tons for the History element (I did modern History so stuff about Russian Revolution, WW1 & 2 and the EEC). I know that kids are under enormous pressure now and I got an A for my English Literature but there was no A* around then from what I remember (it WAS a long time ago!)

Is the problem that the teachers haven't been adequately prepared or supported to teach for this style of exam? If the kids are going in after two years of expecting another style of exam then I really feel for them but is this the case?

Of course you have to revise everything you have covered in a content based subject like History but you can make good use of past papers to see where, and if, there are patterns. There always are.

This happens at university too. The problem is that school students in the 21st century - certainly in the UK - are used to spoon feeding. They think there are shortcuts. There aren’t.

peng I agree with identifying the top most. Or to be precise I'm in favour of an education that doesn't hit the glass ceiling at such a low level. I just don't think this really accomplishes it in the present form.

The difference between an 8 and a 9 in English should be about ability in English, not something you can achieve with grade 8 ability and a cracking memory. If it isn't really separating the two then there is no point awarding it.

Plus there is no way of establishing which dc could have got a 9 but have not been given the opportunity because the measured attainment at ks2 has a low glass ceiling. Even in something like maths, it isn't really separating just the a* and the a, it's also separating those at schools who cater to the needs of their most able and those that don't.

And as ever there is still no recourse to insist a school teach to the most able so even the more demanding curriculum isn't benefiting the whole top group.

The new system is great for dc like mine. Highly able, at an excellent school, and even in her weakest area she can use her memory to achieve higher than her combined ability and low effort deserve.

But I can see university admissions resulting in greater detriment to those able dc at schools that cba to meet their needs. The a* was still easily achievable with a textbook and an unqualified teacher for the potential 9 grade stem child, so they could be level with peers from good schools. Whereas a grade 9 in the same conditions is far less likely, and they won't be level with equal ability peers.

Obviously everyone agrees the problems for the other end of the scale, but if it isn't even improving things for all the top few it seems a bit pointless.

I agree moussemoose. I did GCEs in the 1970s and got A grades in all of them which was unusual. A level offers from good quality universities commonly only required Bs and Cs whereas they seem to all be As and Bs now.

I've got a DS doing GCSEs currently. I think the exams are harder than the old ones for the following reasons:

• more subjects. I did 9, 1 a year early. He is doing 10 at once
• very little choice of questions - e.g. in History we only had to do 5 questions out of 25. DS only has a choice on one or two questions comprising 10% of the marks
• very specific questions focusing on small parts of the syllabus
• more time pressure
• no multiple choice papers
• certainly in Maths the content is harder and much fewer marks for more knowledge.

As far as memorising is concerned - I don't think you needed to learn all 15 poems, a few quotes from about 8 or 9 of them would probably have been just about enough. But you also needed to have about 10 or so quotes from the other texts at a minimum.

Compare this to my GCEs where I learnt about 4 poems and knew about 4 or 5 quotes from each of my texts.

Also as mousse says - you could just not bother to learn whole topics of the syllabus because it was easy enough to avoid questions you didn't like.

I hope that schools will cut back on the number of subjects if this is to continue and that expectations of students getting straight 7s,8s and 9s will also reduce.

When I say "old ones" I mean 1970s GCEs, not the old GCSEs.

I wrote this about a year ago after the first cohort had just sat the new 9-1 maths GCSE.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/2954286-Rant-about-the-new-maths-GCSEs-Michael-Gove-you-tosser

I went for ‘tosser’ instead of ‘bellend’, but either will do.

The grade boundaries for maths were on the floor last year, absolutely ridiculously low. To get a 9 and be in the top 3-4% in the country you needed 79% overall. Edexcel have since admitted that the papers needed to be made more accessible and this year have made them easier. It’s a rushed system, poorly implemented and the students are the ones having to suffer. Gove in the meantime has fucked off to his new job in Justice, then Environment and Education is on its second Secretary of State since. Absolute madness that politicians can be allowed to make such huge and lasting changes and not even expect to be around to see them through and take the fallout. This is not how to run a successful education system.

Sorry my post is a bit garbled - laptop is a bit dodgy and crashed half way through my previous posting attempt.

Basically my point is - yes these exams are hard, yes they require a lot of memorising of facts.

When posters call politicians abusive names noble giraffe it always makes the poster look like a "bellend" and "tosser" first and foremost. They rarely offer any actual insight into anything, nothing at all. An earlier poster brought Trump into it . Its just cheap political point-scoring, and posters who do this, instead of virtue-signalling, should be ashamed of themselves, probably a feeling that is alien to them mind. If you have a criticism why don't you voice it, instead of calling people schoolyard names noblegiraffe?

No offence taken

If you have a criticism why don't you voice it, instead of calling people schoolyard names noblegiraffe?

I think you’ll find I did both. In depth criticism, in fact. You need to hang around the education sections if you think I’m reluctant to voice criticism of our political masters

Also: Gove is a tosser and a bellend and I don’t give a shit that you don’t like me saying that.

The difference between an 8 and a 9 in English should be about ability in English, not something you can achieve with grade 8 ability and a cracking memory. If it isn't really separating the two then there is no point awarding it.

Unless memory is something you want to test, in which case it is part of 'ability', and there is no such thing as 'grade 8 ability plus a cracking memory'.

Anyway, you don't get a grade 8 without a very decent memory.

Rafals No they were not. Even if exams got easier, there was no grade inflation in the past. Because only a certain percentage of students each year got an A, B, C etc.

FashionVictimFour I think to claim that noblegiraffe offers no actual insight can only mean you do not read the education boards regularly. I may not always agree but her posts offer genuine, from the chalkface, experienced comments.

I also think that discussing Gove, the semantics of bellend vs tossed is polite. Personally, I go for fuckwit, although wankbadger could be used. The total and utter mess that is the implementation of these GCSEs beggars belief.

Even by Tory standards the total arse that is trying to teach a new syllabus with few materials and no grade boundaries is beyond ludicrous. And yes it is a political point, because it is a political issue, policy is made by political parties.

fashions

We obviously haven't met

Im not deep or clever enough to make political points

Ive hated trump since American apprentice

I was just saying the only two people ive ever hated.

Its certainly not trumps fault that Gove was allowed anywhere near education

Sorry that should have said fashion

Bellend and tosser aren't merely insults in the context used. More an accurate statement of fact.

Peng But given there are already huge areas in other subjects to test memory, why include it in English when the more logical aspect to test is English ability?

I sort of think that if you don't 'know' stuff you can't be very efficient in its use.

If I had to look up speed = distance/time every time I wanted to work out how long a journey might take, that would be inefficient. If I had to look up the 'formula' for percentages that would be crazy.

I can still quote the Shakespeare play I did for O level. I can still quote some small bits from some of the set poems I did. I don't see that you can efficiently discuss stuff in any subject if you can't both understand and recall accurately the information.

I have quite a lot of issues with the English GCSEs, but with the Language GCSE much more than the Literature. A pass for English language should be obtainable by someone who can understand reasonably complex passages, and who can write coherently for audience. Pupils shouldn't be prevented from accessing L3 course because they can't shoehorn imagery into their writing or identify literary devices in a text.

I called Gove a bellend. Stand by it. Not schoolyard insults, he’s a (fucking) bellend. As an English teacher of many years experience I’ve seen firsthand the absolute chaos he’s caused in our schools.

Thehogfather

Well, why is memory more important in History or Geography or Ethics than it is in English?

In my view, mastery of a subject - not just at GCSE but at the A-level, undergraduate, Masters, PhD, post-doc, professorial levels - requires you to be knowledgeable about it, including about the source texts. That's just my opinion.

It just seems to me that A level style questions are filtering down. I took the higher old style maths GCSE and it covered far more than my previous o level did. Now poor foundation level students are expected to do the a and a* questions on the legacy paper. The whole thing stinks for lower ability pupils.

The focus is all on the higher end to the detriment of our economy and society as a whole.

Just because you are a 4/5 student or lower does not mean you serve no purpose. Mid to lower level students need to be challenged and supported in their learning so they feel valued. As teacher, after teacher says on these threads many students are disengaged and depressed by these GCSEs.

We are letting down large swathes of the population but no none is interested the focus is all on the 8/9 students. Worldwide studies show, our universities show, that we educate bright children well in the this country. What we don't do is nurture and support the mid to lower end of the population.

DC is in middle of GCSEs, he did NOT have to memorise 18 poems and 3 texts for English, so that is tosh. He only had to memorise quotes from around half a dozen of them, NOT the whole poem/text.

He has done on average a 90 minute exam once a day for 5 weeks, it has hardly been onerous.

The problem is that parents/children have become addicted to their children getting the highest grade for every subject, no matter how clever they are.

Iirc Gove wanted to bring in an easier exam for less able children but was blocked by the Lib Dems from doing so. With one week to go I would say none of the exams have been particularly hard, they seem aimed at an average ability student. I think more able students will be distinguished by what silly mistakes they made on easy questions rather than their ability on harder material.

We need an new education secretary who will finish the reforms and make the exams harder for the bright children and a separate easier exam for others to show what they have learnt.

Walking so, as a parent with no direct knowledge of the specifications or papers you declare the exams not difficult, and aimed at the average despite experienced teachers telling you otherwise. Ok then. When I did O levels the national average was an E. These exams are not aimed there. Good for your DC if they found them easy. They aren’t for most.
As regards English, no you don’t have to learn all the poems by heart. Say 3 quotations for each. That’s 45. Then one for each main character in Shakespeare. Say another 6. And 1 for each theme 6 more. And the same for two other texts. That’s 81 and a bare minimum. Seems quite a lot of stuff to know to me...

We are letting down large swathes of the population but no none is interested the focus is all on the 8/9 students. Worldwide studies show, our universities show, that we educate bright children well in the this country. What we don't do is nurture and support the mid to lower end of the population

Absolutely Mousemousse I have seen this since my children started primary school, especially so as we live in a grammar school area. At primary the concentration IME is on catering to the top end for SATS results/eleven plus passes (which is what most of the parents are focussed on when choosing a primary) which adds massive pressure for primary year 4 onwards and is to the detriment of pupils at the lower end of the scale and now it has followed through to GCSEs, catering to the top end and not having any provision for the lower end. I could go on but it would turn into a massive rant.

LARLARLAND*
which is the fault of their teachers.

Good to know that there are people still wanting to blame the teachers.

FashionVictimFour
When posters call politicians abusive names

Why shouldn't people call the politicians names when they have caused the issues that we are dealing with?

Especially when the arsehole you are defending was quite happy to call teachers and the education establishment names?