Friend wants DS to do GCSEs not iGCEs. Surely different syllabus?

[erebus]

My friend has 2 x DSs at private secondary. It used to be considered 'highly academic' and admission was via entrance exam only. They apparently do iGCEs (I say 'apparently' because my friend, somewhat surprisingly appears not to have researched this, assuming that she throws money at the school, they turn out her DSs 'correctly' qualified, but that's perhaps another thread?!).

Anyway, things are definitely changing at the school in these economically straitened times. All of DS1's attached prep-school year passed the Entrance Exam, 'sold' to the parents as evidence of the prep's excellence, rather than a need to hang on to fee paying parents! The school is now becoming co-ed, and they've abolished the Entrance Exam for internal candidates. My friend was told by the Head, at the time of his secondary transfer that DS2 would not have passed the Entrance Exam, but obviously was going up anyway, along with the rest of his year. Whilst the parents realise why these measures are being taken, my friend has raised the issue of whether the DSs will have the option of taking GCSEs instead of the apparently more boy-friendly and rigorous iGCEs as evidently the school is accepting less academic DCs. The school have said 'they will look into it should it be necessary' but this (at last!) is my question: Surely the two aren't interchangeable? You need to be studying the correct syllabus for 2 years at least, don't you?

I think the difference is no course work for the IGCSE and a child needs to answer the question in a more indepth manner, no multiple choice questions etc. The syllabus remains the same but the subject is taught in a way that a child absorbs it, rather than tit bits of info that the GCSE requires.

But the Head of the secondary has said the reason they have gone down the iGCE route is that it suits boys better- they appear to be like the old 'O' levels where 2-3 years learning was examined, make or break, in 2 two hour exams; boys seem to do better at 'cram it all in at the end, spew it all out in the day'. There's no evidence that this method helps retention of stuff learned, it's just that they're better suited to many boys learning style.

Personally I'm glad that my exams were O levels and we had the same style in my professional exams. For example:

Old style:Describe the liver and its functions. 20% of the available marks. Go.

New style: Read these 10 facts about the liver-
a)- it's the largest organ in the body
b)- it excretes urea
c)- it's main blood supply is the portal vein
d) it's main blood supply is the hepatic artery
e)- etc
f)- etc

Only tick the right box-
Statements a,b,f & g are correct
Statements b,f,g,h, i and j are correct
Statements a,c,d and i are correct
And so on.

So in the first example, if you knew 8 facts about the liver, but you got a couple of others wrong or omitted them altogether you'd still get 80% for the correct answers. In the second example, you'd get no credit for knowing 8 facts if you got the others wrong. Big fat zero.

So let's not assume multiple choice is always easier!

How does the IGCSE not retain information?

A topic learnt at the start of the two years is remembered come the exam which proves it was retained. Of course a little revision is required before the exam, but then that would be the case with a GCSE too. Do not assume that boys will have forgotten all that was taught if it is taught in the correct manner and that they have to cram - there is not cramming done at DS's school. I can remember most of my O'level maths which was eons ago and my nephew can barely remember any of his GCSE maths that he studied four years ago on the modular system.

NO, the whole point is that boys' typical learning style isn't to carefully learn and retain information over 2 years, it's to cram the lot in at the end. This is why the GCSE syllabus was introduced- because girls' learning style was so disadvantaged.

I believe one's retention is innate, tbh.

Of course one can 'anecdote' anything to prove a point. One might question the validity of comparing the knowledge you know you have against that of your nephew who you presumably don't live with?

FWIW, my DS's school is fairly unique in not having an appreciable difference in GCSE results between boys and girls, and the reason? They set hundreds of mini-targets, constantly, so the 4 week project cannot be done 'the night before' it's due in as the DC (boy?!) will have had to have met the mini-targets at the end of each preceding week. It was the simple introduction of this that closed the attainment gap. To my mind there's my proof!

Anyway, this has all gone a bit off OP and risks turning (yawn) into the state:private debate.

The OP is if one needs to study a different syllabus for iGCSE or GCSE, and to what degree they're interchangeable. My friend feels her DS2 will cope better without the screaming hot-house pressure of make or break iGCSEs, but can he take and pass a GCSE instead?

I have to totally disagree with you. IMO the GCSE is for those with a lower IQ who cannot retain information. It is good there are exams for all types of abilities but the GCSE should not be given the same academic value as the IGCSE.

erebus, they're definitely not interchangeable - you cant follow the one syllabus and then sit the exam for the other.

What I know is frpm my DCs' schools where neither do the GCSE in Maths but do the IGCSE instead (no choice, it just is). The topcis covered are way different from anything you see on the GCSE syallabus covered on say the BBC revision website (I know becuase I though it might have been useful when DD was revising)

And the other exmaple I can give is that for my girls they had an option of dual or triple science, and within the triple science Chemistry was only offered at IGCSE. For the Biology and Physics elements the syallabus was covering the same topics in slightly different ways, but for the Chemistry it was way different.

So I dont think the school could offer both IGCSE and IGCSE in the same subjects unless they wqere taught separately from the start.

Assuming that the maths classes were split by ability then it would be possible to teach both GCSE and IGCSE Maths. The lower ability classes do GCSE maths and the other classes the IGCSE. This is what happens at my DC school and it seems to work well.

The syllabbus in each subject is different between GCSE and IGCSE, but not completely different. There's a fair bit of overlap.

But the need for marked coursework at various dates in the GCSE means you wouldn't be able to just switch to it, even if you had covered the same topics, so if she wants him to do the GCSE she needs the school to start doing that from the start of the course, not try to change partway through.

Just to add, if it is some time until the DS 2 sits his exams, there maybe less difference between iGCSE and GCSE style of exams. Already it is moving that 40% of the marks have to come from the final set of exams when "certificating" is happening; and coursework is now in school assessment instead. The government is talking about reducing/scrapping all coursework. But then again AQA is introducing its own iGCSE to test the more academic pupils.

(BTW BBC Bitesize does tend to concentrate more on the lower levels, eg. foundation level and doesn't cover the hardest papers of triple science.)

I tutored pupils for both GCSE and iGCSE maths, and the work done by the girl in the iGCSE school was light years beyond the others, from Year 7 onwards.

AMuminScotland is right. GCSE coursework is spread over years 10 and 11 so if you try to change to GCSE halfway through you will not have enough coursework marks to add up to a final mark. On the other hand, if you tried to move from GCSE to IGCSE the coursework problem would not arise but the standard of work would be much tougher. How many schools are doing IGCSE in ALL SUBJECTS? Somebody must know. I'm just curious to know where we are heading with IGCSE.

Just because most schools spread coursework over 2 years does not mean they have to, you could take all the modules for a GCSE at the end of the course, there is nothing that specifies when coursework has to be done.

You can't do iGCSEs in all subjects - mainly because they don't exist for all of them. Some private schools are mainly doing iGCSEs for core subjects, English, Maths and Science.

The specifications (syllabuses) for GCSEs and iGCSEs can be very different and there is no independent research yet on the relative difficulty (though uni of durham are carrying some out I believe) which is why only accredited iGCSEs count towards eBacc.

"I tutored pupils for both GCSE and iGCSE maths, and the work done by the girl in the iGCSE school was light years beyond the others, from Year 7 onwards."

That's interesting Clouds. I know of schools in which the top sets do iGCSE maths and the lower sets GCSE.

In these schools GCSE pupils can't go on to do AS/A level maths (at the school's 6th form)- even if they get A* GCSE.

I wonder if that's because iGCSE is a better preparation for A level maths?

DS1 took some IGCSEs 3 years ago in Eng lang, eng lit, Biology and chemistry. His school now do MFL GCSE and I think history/geog. This was/is a very academic school I would not want a group of average ability kids doing these, it will bring their grades down. A friends son got Bs in biology and chemistry IGCSE and she was not happy cos the gcse would have resulted in As as it is easier in its samll chunks.

DS1s english IGCSE papers were DIFFICULT. A teaher at another independent school said they were not going to do them as they were almost AS level standard.

I think you could cover the IGCSE syllabuses in year 11 as there is no coursework, but decision shoould be made before yr 10.

I teach English igcse and there is coursework. Quite a substantial amount of it, in fact. (No controlled assessment though.)You are right: it's definitely not interchangeable with gcse.

Correction: there is the option of coursework. The head of department will make that decision, not individual pupils.

I expect iGCSE maths is likely to be better preparation for A-level, though I don't know the A-level syllabus well enough to know. But the algebra they do is far more rigorous, and they've done a decent start into calculus as well, both which must give those pupils an advantage when they meet those topics again at A level. How much of this is just because they are taught those topics at a very competitive school, and how much is because it is actually on the iGCSE syllabus, I don't know, however.

I do know that, although it is a competitive, selective entry school, not all the girls are necessarily likely to be top-notch mathematicians, and yet all of them are taught with high expectations from the start, and most of them seem to live up to it. The curriculum was far more fast-paced than other independent schools, and the homework more intense, from the start of Year 7, and yet all of them seem to have lived up to it, and pretty much all of them will expect A*s in the end, or whatever the top grade on the iGCSE is. (Although I tutor a girl from the school, it is more in general dyslexia/study support, rather than because she is particularly struggling in the maths). It is slightly sad, however, that she sees herself as being fairly poor at maths, simply because she is somewhere in the lower middle of a rather lower middlish set, when actually compared to her contemporaries across the country doing ordinary GCSE, she is really doing very well. She would have been a good candidate for carrying on to AS level maths, but has been put off by the relative difficulty of the iGCSE - not because she can't handle it (she is actually fine) but because compared to all her other subjects (many of which she is only doing ordinary GCSEs in), she thinks she is struggling.