To wish people would stop with the “grades don’t mean anything” shit

[Rapidmama]

Try getting any job without at least English and maths

Of course they don’t define you and there is always the exceptions to the rule but honestly all these people rolling out the “it doesn’t matter it’s just a piece of paper” excuses are talking shit.

Usual exemptions for SN, extenuating circumstances etc.

That's because they aren't "EVERYTHING"
You can go back and re-sit them later in life. Late 20's 30's. Getting the grades in school isn't the be all and end all. So sending the message you aren't a failure if you don't achieve the grades right now is helping children with anxieties.
I've only recently done my a-levels and achieved 39 distinctions.
So yeah YABU.

LolaSmiles there you go again with your 'people' stuff. Which people? Where?
There are posts on this thread with the Richard Branson/famous people, I did well and didn't pass maths
I've shared what I've observed about people who push this weird "it doesn't really matter" view. What would you like, a list of names and people because otherwise the observations mustn't have happened??
As I said in my first post:
Exam results aren't the be all and the end all, however in my experience the people who tend to trot out lines like "exam results don't define you / they don't mean everything" never seem to mean 'exam results aren't the only thing you need in life, there are many paths to being successful but education is one of them'. They never seem to be interested in the approach "some people have a really tough time at school and they get their qualifications later through different pathways" . They never seem to be interested in discussing vocational options, exploring a range of qualifications that can enable a young person to be successful etc because that would mean having to acknowledge that qualifications have some value (and we couldn't have that).

Education and qualifications matter. They open doors. They are not the be all and the end all (and some schools do make out your life will be over if you get a 7 not an 8 and that is wrong).

But I still stand by my view that teens need adults who know what they are talking about, who don't parrot stupid lines that they know are false, they don't need telling that a 3 in English is going to give them the same opportunities as a 5 so it doesn't matter. They see through that shit.

Ilaughinthefaceofdanger
Of course you can go back later in life. One of my friends was almost 30 when he got his maths and English GCSE.
Would I tell my students that when maths/English are a basic standard that not passing them they'll have the same doors open and be counted the same on job applications against people who have passed maths/English? Not a chance. There's high unemployment in my area and I'd be lying to them.

Exam results aren't the be all and the end all, however in my experience the people who tend to trot out lines like "exam results don't define you / they don't mean everything" never seem to mean 'exam results aren't the only thing you need in life, there are many paths to being successful but education is one of them'. They never seem to be interested in the approach "some people have a really tough time at school and they get their qualifications later through different pathways" . They never seem to be interested in discussing vocational options, exploring a range of qualifications that can enable a young person to be successful etc because that would mean having to acknowledge that qualifications have some value (and we couldn't have that).

This is exactly what I don't get LolaSmiles I just don't know people like this and I think you're exaggerating. Of course people need to learn along the way. This thread is about GCSEs and 16-year-olds.

There is high unemployment regardless of whether you got a 3 or a 5 in English!

A former friend (who is not a teacher so doesn't understand how boundaries are calculated) told me that results 'aren't worth the paper they are written on' and would 'not be impressed by anyone or their parents who had top grades.' As this was a side swipe at my son who did well despite 2 huge bereavements and subsequent MH issues, I ended the friendship (which was one sided anyway, another story). Even if you do believe that there's more to life than qualifications, there's a time to be tactful and keep it to yourself, unless you are trying to make someone who did less well feel better.

But they aren't the be all and end all. I congratulate everyone who has done well....but there are other options and routes.
FWIW I failed all but one of my GCSE's.....I now have a phd. I was accepted to uni with no exam grades but vocational experience and passion.

Girasole02 doesn’t sound like you lost much of a friend there! 🙁

I got 2 O Levels (yes, that old!) and didn’t go onto any further education until I was 19. Then I did loads and have a PhD. But my job still actually has nothing to do with my PhD as I did it part time whilst working.

So I don’t see exam results as everything, certainly not at this age. Oh and I don’t admire Richard Branson either.

This is exactly what I don't get LolaSmiles I just don't know people like this and I think you're exaggerating. Of course people need to learn along the way. This thread is about GCSEs and 16-year-olds.*
Ok, so because you've never encountered n attitude then anyone who has must be exaggerating. The world only exists through your eyes and any alternative experiences couldn't possibly be valid at all.

I know it's about 16 year olds and GCSEs. The bottom line is that what they get at GCSE does make a difference to what they can do next, and it matters regardless of what they want to do next.

Someone who's weak at maths/English in secondary is much, much better off being told it matters and given loads of support to get them a grade 4 at GCSE which allows progression to a range of level 3 vocational courses in area they are good at than being told "aww don't worry, you can always resit later... Grades don't matter that much etc".

The student who gets their 4 gets into a level 3 course, avoids another year doing level 2 (which some FE colleges push to get 3years of funding and not 2) and then has to do their resits on 2 hours a week in a class with others who didn't get it and have mixed interest in achieving it. Pass rates at FE resit are low so the chance of them getting the piece of paper to open doors decreases over time.

Sure, there's unemployment affecting a range of people, but why would any adult mislead teens by pretending having maths/English GCSE doesn't make a difference?

If I could support a child to get their maths/English with 8-10 a week per subject, in a school environment then why on earth should I lie to them and pretend resit at FE is as good an option? I have friends in FE resit teaching. The staff do their best, but many aren't specialists, colleges do very little to support and so on.

It's not about piling unreasonable pressure on kids. It's about caring enough and being well enough informed about progression routes not to bullshit them when they see through adults lying to them

My place of work takes on plenty of people who don't have any qualifications, I don't have any myself and neither does my office manager. Our company director takes on staff based on a wide range of skills.

It really does depend on what career you want imo.

But they aren't the be all and end all. I congratulate everyone who has done well....but there are other options and routes.

I agree, I think the level of pressure on 16 year olds to be defined by exam results is a nonsense. Yes, academic knowledge matters, numeracy and literacy are important but not to where I’d want my child to feel their worth is defined by a number on a page, or that their future prospects are decided at 16.

Other routes may not be as quick as a 8-10 week course, but may give the young person time to grow and develop as a person, to mature, to figure themselves out a bit. The rush to make kids grow up as quickly as possible isnt, I think, doing them any good in the long run.

School at 4, mandatory testing, SATS, 11 plus, GCSEs, A levels - it’s relentless. I live in Scotland where things are slightly less pressured but still the idea that exam results are the be all and end all - kids written off at 16 because they’ve not got the “required” results.

I don’t think it’s a pleasant platitude to say “it’s not the end of the world”, because it’s not. Nobody died, no one got injured, there are many paths to a productive, fulfilling life. Academics might make it easier, but not at the expense of my child knowing they’re of worth regardless of what the piece of paper says.

jellycatspyjamas totally agree.

In addition, GCSEs nowadays are little to do with amassing knowledge and a love of learning. The curriculum is boring since Gove - they repeat the same subjects 3 times! It’s about producing kids who can do exams - exam technique being the common expression. Load if old bollocks.

In addition, GCSEs nowadays are little to do with amassing knowledge and a love of learning. The curriculum is boring since Gove - they repeat the same subjects 3 times!
Gove was and is an utter bellend in my opinion, but if any of those things are happening in schools then that's down to the school making curriculum decisions, not Gove.

I've never taught the same subject 3 times to students and (despite being a very loud critic when the new specs came out & having some strong opinions on some sections now) I think they are a better course on the whole. I actually get to spend time teaching my subject and exploring books in a way that we didn't have the option to under previous specifications.

Like I say, I have a very low opinion of Gove but don't think he should be blamed for schools not getting their own house in order.

The new inspection framework also looks at breadth of study, range of subjects, learning over time, sequence of topics (eg where are things spiral structured to come back to topics Vs how do other topics link and build etc).

My daughter covered the same texts in English literature in Y9, Y10 and Y11. Fortunately for her she liked some of them. 😂

That's a poor school curriculum decision then, not Gove. Believe me, I dislike the man, but it's not fair to hold him responsible for school leader decisions.

Usually in literature the procedure is to teach the text once in y10 and then come back to it in y11 for revision.

The new oftsted framework was changed, in part, to pull schools up who do as you've described because they're limiting the curriculum.

I’m in London and all dd’s friends in other schools have said the same. In RS they’ve covered the same topics 3 times too with the addition of some ethics in the final year. And history has been also dominated by the same topic. One of dd’s friends used to love history but ended up hating it.

That's awful, ane exactly the sort of thing that the new framework has been written to penalise. A few schools in our area also did it too, along with 3 year GCSEs etc.

There's some merit in a spiral curriculum where topics are revisited in differing depths over time (e.g. we teach approaching unseen poetry in KS3/4 but the poems get more complex and the depth of analysis is more challenging / teaching a Dickens novel or Victorian literature in KS3 and then A Christmas Carol for GCSE). In RE it might mean looking at one religion in y7,9,10 but with each coverage the content deepens and there's higher level debate. The new framework is fine with that, but schools will now have to be very careful about teaching the same content millions of times (excluding obvious revision & exam prep in y11)

Regardless of how or what should be taught and who is responsible for it, I think the amount of pressure on young people to prove they can regurgitate facts and to perform for the exam gets in the way of their learning rather than enhancing it. While we need to be able to measure learning and ensure children have a good grasp of key concepts, the idea that failure at 16 is the end of the world is a nonsense.

How much of that pressure is about achieving a good Ofsted rating, rather than actually educating and fostering a love of learning, I’d hate to guess.

It depends how it's done jelly. That's my point.

Equally, I've heard and seen staff who dig their heels in because they've decided that the new specs are awful so rather than consider adapting their teaching, or exploring the possibilities that have emerged, they've decided they don't like it on ideological grounds, decided it must be damaging and then seek confirmation bias.

These are the same staff who would spend hours and hours a week game playing on controlled assessment to get it to the right grade (against the rules). But that's not damaging apparently.

I was a really vocal critic of the new specification when it came out. I thought it would lead to non stop rote learning and would kill a love of subject. On reflection a few years I was wrong. Do I still think that some teachers and schools have gone down that route? Absolutely. Do I think that the current system of accountability has gone too far with some unintended consequences? Yes. I'd go as far as to say I've had more freedom and flexibility as a teacher teaching the new literature course than I've ever had. I've had more time for debate and discussion and meaningfully exploring texts than I ever had under the old spec. Meanwhile some people I know who claim the new spec is evil and damaging on ideological grounds are still trying to teach the new spec using their preferred approach of key scenes and films that they used for controlled assessments. To me it's no wonder their classes are stressed out because they don't have a rounded understanding of the text. They've had it reduced to summaries and rote learning quotations for an exam. I don't love every element of the new course and dislike parts of English Language, but the specs themselves don't inevitably lead to cramming for exams and killing love of learning. That's on schools and teachers.

But do I think it's wrong to tell kids that their qualifications matter? No. Do I think it's wrong to help them make informed choices about where they want to go next and what that will look like for them? No. Organisational culture (in any organisation, not just schools) is complex.

I think when course work was taken into consideration rather than everything hanging on a final exam it was much fairer. Some kids don't thrive in exam situations no matter how hard they've worked throughout the year which is another reason why I wouldn't go on about the exam results mattering that much. I was glad that my daughter did a GCSE in art because that subject still uses course work for a high percentage of the final mark as well as an exam. It seems fair if children have to be graded that they are graded on their all year round performance rather than just one day.

I didn't mind coursework so much where it fits the subject.
Controlled assessments were a joke in many subjects and really stressful for staff and students because year on year you'd have controlled assessments being done from week 6 of y10 being marked on GCSE objectives and standards due the end of GCSE. A significant chunk of students didn't prepare properly for them (notes and planning sheet allowed but many didn't bother and more teachers ended up giving students full crib sheets) or didn't put the effort in so they came in under target grade, then there was always the push to redo them in y11 and staff would be told they needed all controlled assessments to be at target grade. Year 11 was meant to be exam prep so much of this redoing was done after school with staff essentially cheating and walking students through the whole process. Under controlled assessments students never had to study the full texts. One old spec board I taught, students could answer a question in the exam based on a given extract and never make any reference to the whole book because they gained no marks for it.

Even now, I don't know a single school in coursework based subjects who don't seem to have y11 students off timetable in the spring term redoing coursework for various subjects to get it to a set standard (regardless of all the missed curriculum time for every other subject who either have no coursework or have actually used their own lesson time effectively).

Isn't that more a problem though with the way coursework was given and the process in place rather than the idea in principle? I don't think I've spoken to anyone - teacher or parent who thinks that a single exam aged 16 is a good way of assessing kids. All those years and hours and the pain of education and you come out of it with one mark from one exam. It can't be right.

I don’t understand why you’d keep redoing assessments to get the target result, surely the assessment is done, the result stands and everyone moves forward to the next piece of coursework. To keep redoing coursework is wholly gaming the system which is a problem with the current Ofsted environment rather than continuous assessment itself.

jellycatspyjamas I agree.

@jellycatspyjamas why not keep redoing coursework? 'If at first you do not succeed, try and try again'. That's my motto anyway!

I do agree with you OP that English and Maths are essential and it's reckless to say otherwise

Literacy and numeracy are essential but I am unconvinced that GCSEs in either subjects are evidence of those.

Anyway, in my experience it is not those with stellar academic qualifications who necessarily do best in the workplace, but they do open the doors.

As for coursework versus exam I think kids should be able to choose the mode of assessment that suits them best. Lets say you have to do at least 20% of each. So if you are better at exams you choose 80% exams and 20% coursework. Or vice versa, or 50% of each. It can't be that difficult. You'd just have longer and shorter exams so eg if you have 3 2 hour exams you'd perhaps have 3 1 hour exams for those doing coursework.