To tell you that factual recall wont get you very far in your GCSEs and ask you what you think schools should be teaching that they are not

[stripybluesocks]

I keep reading about how schools need to adapt the curriculum to modern life and stop making children simply learn facts they can look up anyway. And read posters bewailing the fact that children should be learning how to analyse and evaluate more, as it is more useful in modern society.

A lot of parents don't seem to realise that factual recall is a very low level skill that won't get you very far in GCSEs at all - probably a few 3s and 4s, maybe the odd 5 if you are very very lucky.

Higher level questions require planning, application, analysis, evaluation and all the skills parents seem to think schools are ignoring. All this is taught from primary onwards. Many exam questions contain stacks of data that students are required to manipulate in many ways.

But yes, some factual recall is also required - students need to know the basics and understand the main concepts, or they wont be able to look up anything, because they wont know where to start, or what to believe!

I keep hearing suggestions about what schools should be teaching, but really, they are not very practical or useful suggestions- still keen to hear them, but dont be offended if I disagree with you

I think schools serve children who are destined for university really well. I think gcses are a really good qualification for the people that can pass 5 of them with a grade 4 or above

Im not convinced we have education right for children who are not heading to university and pupils who are heading towards passess mainly at a 2 or 3.

They arent getting those skills you mention as they arent accessing the higher level.

Really? Because at the 'GCSE expectations' meeting at DC school this week they emphasised that DC need to know 23science equations off by heart and at least 20 literary quotations.

I was quite shocked, as when I did GCSEs a 1000 years ago it was supposedly about moving away from rote learning and exams being a test of memory. Plus ca change

I agree completely with @Spendonsend. My family has a mix of kids who will go to uni. get into a good trade and special needs who will struggle with people and learning throughout their lives.

The uni. ones are well served save that they don't learn commerciality. Those with more 3D skills who end up in trades are not so well served as education is not as practical and 3D as it could be and values more academic progress. The special needs ones really do not get the support they need to cope.

I don't disagree that higher evaluation skills are needed for the higher tier grades, 7-9 but in my Humanities subject you can certainly get a decent 6/7 with really good factual recall and to be honest, if you rote learn the "model answers" for the 12 or so standard questions that come up in the longer evaluation tasks, you will indeed score higher. The skills at GCSE are not hugely transferrable, at least in the mind of teenagers. They learn in one subject they need to do a,b,c and in another they need to do x,y,z. It's usually only at A level then realise the basic skills are similar and can be applied elsewhere. The sheer volume of what they have to learn for 9 GCSEs, it's not surprising they and the teachers focus on that primarily.

Many more life skills

• cooking healthily

-managing money

• how to fix things around the house

-much higher emphasis on trade skills (and learning business management skills and marketing with it)

• learn things like how to mediate/deep relaxation/self defense/

-much more sport/exercise not just team sport but at least an hour a day we are heading for a health crisis.

• better history that isn't so white British focused. Black history doesn't have to be all about colonialism and slave trade.

-much more open and better conversations around porn/consent/healthy relationships

How to bullet point better 😁

Yes, what you were told is acknowledged in the OP:

But yes, some factual recall is also required - students need to know the basics and understand the main concepts, or they wont be able to look up anything, because they wont know where to start, or what to believe!

They won't get very far if all they can do is regurgitate what they have learnt though.

Children need to learn both.

How to memorise, and how to use the stuff they have memorised.

Twas ever thus, and the only thing that is BU about this thread is the assumption that this is somehow a new issue that people need to be told about

OP acknowledges some memorising however,

They’d need to know more than just a quote from Macbeth for example. They would need to understand the quote I.e what does Lady Macbeth mean by “unsex me here”. How does that link to the wider play, wider societal context…how would people react then/now. Analyse different aspects of the quote. Just knowing the quote on it’s on will get you a low grade. It’s analysing the quote and meaning behind it that will her higher.

Same with science and maths, all well and good remembering equations etc it’s being able to use that equation and analyse the results of experiments, analyse graphs etc that will get the higher marks/grades

Yes i agree my son did his GCSE,s last summer he wss never academic ,but he also.had a terrible year health wise ,and missed a full.half term due to being in hospital before.Easter
This obviously had a massive impact on his grades ,and he got lower than predicted grades
But its not a one size fits all.and only really works for more academic children.

@Skyblue92 yes but they rote learn what that quote means. There is a set syllabus, there are only so many questions that can be asked so for I stance, in my subject if the question was about whether Christians should support euthanasia, they don't sit there in the exam pondering that and applying the various possible approaches. We do that in class, they learn their set piece answer which for many kids isn't necessarily the result of their own real wrestling with the ins and outs and trot it out with supporting quotes in the exam. It's still rote learning.
I 100% agree that this isn't ideal, it's a game with only one prize, of further or higher education, which actually loads of kids don't want and aren't suited too, but they are forced to compete in this game anyway, instead of being channelled into focussing on core key skills and life skills that could be assessed in a much more meaningful way.

Why do they need to memorise 20+ equations or quotations at all though? If the higher marks come from applying or analysing?

What's the difference between knowing mass=weight X volume and using that, and having 'mass=weight X volume' printed on the exam paper, and using it? The test of memory is still the gateway the higher marks, if you don't know the equation by heart you can't apply it, if you don't know the quotation you can't analyse it. Memory isn't intelligence.

Such a lot of facts to be learned for science GCSE all listed in Specification(s). Style of questions varies by exam board eg. AQA are very much on analyse and evaluate this data whereas iGCSE are much more on about recall. I love teaching science but think exams are very hard and suited to more academic students.

There’s so much more we can do, especially with practical work eg. Weigh, measure, record, estimate, safety (I never met a kid who doesn’t love a Bunsen!). I try to do as much practical work as possible in my classroom but sometimes it’s difficult with class sizes and poor behaviour.

@nothingcomestonothing I agree. One of my children is going to probably bomb at GCSE because he's overwhelmed with the volume. He's not stupid but just can't manage the vast amount of content that in many cases, like science doesn't have a narrative content to hang it off. I'm not sure what valuable life skill is learned by simply memorising stuff. If the equations or tools for the analysis were provided, they could focus on the processes instead.

I think things like DT could be mixed up. I don't know how ot is now as my kids are still primary. But we did 1 term of cooking, 1 term of textiles, one term metal and one term wood.

I think they should do a work shop of life skills. Or things like how to re wire a plug or how to bleed a radiator how to wall paper. Might sound silly but i think are still valjable lessons. And actually cook food in food tech. Not just cakes and sausage rolls! Unless it's different now.

It's decades since I left school but I am still an absolute whizz on the formation of ox-bow lakes.

My education has served me well.

In English Lang both papers are unseen. I’m an Examiner. Yes, it may help if you know the term alliteration but if you can’t apply and analyse, it’s worthless feature spotting.

You need to be able to read for inference, analyse, generate ideas and write with clarity and conviction. No rote learning necessary.

The curriculum is designed by politicians who think that rote learning is the ideal. They remember their days at Eton or whatever and think that being able to recite Shakespeare would level up state school kids and take them to university one day. The current system is for kids going onto further academic study.

Many countries have vocational schools from a younger age than 16 but I think it would be very unpopular in the UK where comprehensive is seen as the ideal. Kids mature educationally at different ages so there is a big debate what age but I think that by age 14 it's pretty clear. For the 20% or so who aren't going to pass GCSE English, they are wasting time by learning material aimed at kids who will do English at A-level and beyond. They should have English lessons as writing concisely and comprehending written material are important skills but you can do that with factual sources rather than Shakespeare and the other material on the syllabus. It is shocking that English doesn't come in foundation and higher.

Correct re politicians. Exams had moved away from the need to rote learn masses of factual stuff - and then Michael Gove got his 'If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for all children' hands on education.

I think the issue with GCSE's is the sheer volume of them. Why do you need 9 GCSES? The volume of information needed to be learnt over 2 years then regurgitated is ridiculous. Most jobs will only ask for English and maths over a grade 4, and will then start looking at your higher qualifications. I don't bother to list my GCSES. I just list my English and Maths grades. Its a depressing qualification and consigns children to the scrapheap if they cannot get the English and maths, even though they may be able to get those qualifications if they weren't having to learn a shedload of other information at the same time. They need to get qualifications for work, and to get to further education. All children have to stay on in some kind of education until 18, so as long as they have reached a decent standard in English and Maths, the teachers should be able to work out ( and in many cases can) whether children can reach the standards for A Level whether they would be more suited to vocational courses through continuous assessment over the 2 years. Pupils should be able to know what they want to do post 16- either science or humanities/ arts pathways.

Same ,I can explain all.about four field crop rotation and leaving a field fallow .

I agree that volume of info is an issue. I really think that their should be a "minimum" number of GCSEs that all students need to take, certainly not 9, and then add from there depending on the child and what they can manage.

I do remember at my school, if you were particularly good at foreign languages, you were offered to take an extra GCSE in a third language.

There was another "extra" GCSE that was offered only to children who were good at a certain other subject.

Perhaps English, Maths, Science, and one optional GCSE of their choice should be the baseline for non-academic children. Or, simply English and Maths, with the option to take a couple of vocational courses. We had 3 sets at school, so I remember Set 1 kids had to take two language GCSEs and were offered Triple Science, I don't think Set 3 had to choose a language GCSE at all if they didn't want to, and Set 2 only had to take one language. Maybe Set 3 should be taking 3-4 GCSEs, Set 2 5-6, Set 3 7-8 with a choice to take 9 if it is believed they can do so. More vocational options? Our school offered some BTECS which were taught at a local college.

I always find it interesting how much autonomy people think schools and teachers have. It's not up to schools - it's up the the government. They tell the exam boards what to put in exams. When all the GCSEs changed in 2015 (for 2017 exams) it moved away from skills and towards knowledge (fact memorising). Before then it was more coursework based and less cramming for an exam.

When Gove re-wrote the NC in 2014, the main criticism (from teachers) was that it could be taught in the 19th century - it was just so lacking in technology and modern life skills. But they went ahead and just added more Shakespeare.

If you really care about this stuff, look at education policy of the main political parties in the next general election and use it to decide your vote.

I couldn't explain anything from my schooling, bar some English stuff, but I got my 9 GCSEs! History - I lost the information only a few months after the exam despite achieving an A. I remember writing about the Jarrow March for one question, but I'd have to look it up to refresh my memory on what that is.

I think this is so true. It makes me feel so sad for all those kids (like my Y11 DD) who is struggling especially with maths and if she had less overall she might have a sniff of a chance of a maths pass.