News today: Most GCSE equivalents axed from school league tables

[LittenTree]

here

Which is what happens when you try comparing apples with oranges in the first place... or create a society which only values academic achievement and treats all else as 'dross for the stupid'.

I have to admit I was to discover that nail technology was ranked as equivalent to 2 GCSEs.

It does seem out of kilter in places, and a comment from the news "these are about the school's ranking, not the pupils' futures" did resonate with me.

But I hope it doesn't have an unintended effect of devaluing a vocational trajectory.

The solution, imo, is to decouple academic from vocational. And ban the nationwide publishing of League Tables. Trying to find parallels between them does both a disservice. Schools misuse the courses for L.T positions, DCs are duped, no one wins, really.

If trying to pretend B.Tecs come from the same stable as GCSEs, ask oneself- 'How many B.Tecs is my child's GCSEs equivalent to?' No one cares.

I'll be honest and say I am a bit surprised at the lack of comment on here- is there another thread I missed? This will MASSIVELY affect our DC, this is game changing.

Anyone?

What a way to motivate the kids currently taking the BTEC courses. For some pupils its about keeping them switched on in school and get them working towards an achievable goal.

Comparing schools using league tables just seems crazy to me anyway. Different intakes, areas, abilities, backgrounds, the list is endless.

hear hear tootles

the headlines are very misleading; yes, there are a large number of vocational qualifications being taken off the 'list' but those that are/hit the news are rarely used anyway. The vocational ones that have stayed on have had to have a major change in their specs to be considered; for example they all have to have en external test element which in part defeats the advantage of these qualifications for a large proportion of the students that undertake them

meditrina - you mean you could previously have two GCSEs in MFL - say German and Modern Greek - and that would equivalent to Nail Technology

cricketballs - yeah I have a bit of insider info as I teach in secondary. The ones still on the list will only be worth one GCSE from now on though whether the pupils do the one or two year course, currently worth 2 or 4 GCSEs respectively.

Is there an advantage to getting qualifications in things like nail technology within a school? Wouldn't the pupils be better off just leaving at 14 and learning these things at work?

Is this actually ever taught in a school? Who teaches it? Do they have a degree and a PGCE?

I must admit, until this morning, i didn't know there was so many vocational courses.

My DCs go/went to a school that doesn't offer them.

So not only will youngsters have to stay in 'education' until they are 18, they may be forced to study subjects that hold no interest for them and will not contribute to their future prospects in the job market. Comprehensive schools should provide a suitable education for ALL its pupils not just those who can perform academically. English, Maths and Science are compulsory, the rest should be up to the individual's interests. The league tables should be abolished they force schools to make the wrong decisions.

Correct bonsoir - extraordinary isn't it?

Blimey.

As a teacher, I completely agree with your opening post. well said.

Get rid of league tables and stop this nonsense!

I think it is about time TBH. I really can not see how a horse care qualification is the equivilant to GCSEs in say Maths, English,French and Biology.

I think it was wrong to label them as "equivilant to" for so long. When I was at school we had CSEs and O Levels, so I don't see why we can't have GCSEs and Vocational Qualifications running alongside each other without being equivilant to.

I teach secondary Performing Arts and have been teaching BTEC at level 2 and level 3 for the past few years. I firmly believe that for a subject such as Performing Arts, BTEC is a more appropriate qualification - it is practical, and puts a vocational context in place. The kids I teach in Yr 10 and 11 do a massive amount of work - much more so than when I taught GCSE. The work is more challenging too, in that it involves performing for real audiences (they've done other year groups at school, primary school children, invited audiences and ticketed events - it's taken very seriously) but because there is no written exam, the course is seen as a soft option.

However, I find the whole idea of "equivilances" a bit ridiculous - as the OP says, it's comparing apples to oranges.

I saw the article about this on the BBC breakfast news this morning, and agreed with the lady they were interviewing (can't remember her name) who said that the idea of asking a 14 year old to specialise (eg horse studies or whatever) is stupid - and I also agree that ditching a vast number of the level 2 vocational qualifications for schools is a good idea. There are still 175 courses to choose from.

Next year, my school will be offering all Yr 10 students one BTEC, so I'll be teaching BTEC and GCSE Performing Arts. Both the new spec BTEC and the GCSE Performing Arts spec involve considerably less work than the current BTEC spec for the students. I will be offering double award GCSE as it involves about the same level of expectation of the students as the single BTEC does. Both still expect less than the BTEC I currently teach.

It's ridiculous. Trying to say they were equivalent to loads of GCSEs was stupid because they are a different type of qualification.

Now saying they aren't equivalent to any GCSEs and thus don't appear on the league tables is basically saying that they are worthless. But they aren't worthless, they are entirely suitable qualifications for certain groups of students.

If your kid is less academic and would suit a vocational route you might want to see if a school provides a decent pathway for them, but the league tables only focus on the academics. Comprehensive schools provide an education for all not just for the ones who are going to get the Ebacc.

Rather than getting rid of them from the league tables, they should be added to the league tables, in a separate category so that you can see how well the school is catering for everyone.

Rather than getting rid of them from the league tables, they should be added to the league tables, in a separate category so that you can see how well the school is catering for everyone.

totally agree

ITA too.

Why is something so blindingly obvious not obvious to Mr Gove (and his predecessors, to be fair).

BTW - my understanding was that some of the more outre vocational courses such as 'nail tech' or 'fish husbandry' were not really offered to 11-16 year olds but were for older pupils

Noble, that is such an obvious suggestion that it will clearly NEVER happen!!

However, we do have this weird British 'vocational is inferior' snobbery, so it is sadly likely that a school showing that it provides a true variety of subjects would be vacated by the chattering classes in droves, in favour of the school which only provides conventional GCSEs, however badly those suit its intake..

And that Ofsted would judge such a school as 'failing' because it did not coerce its kids through the EBacc but instead genuinely tried to provide them with an education suitable for their interests and aptitudes..

And the public would call them something like 'secondary moderns' (or more likely 'sink schools') and spend millions on coaching their children / moving house to avoid them because God Forbid their children should ever come into contact with a child studying (faint) a vocational subject or even (double faint) consider taking one themselves...

I agree with Noble too. But also, sadly with teacherwith2kids - far too sensible for the government to take on board...

A friend of DH's is involved with an attempt to set up a new free school where she lives - having looked at the website about it, I was dismayed to read that "no vocational courses will be offered" is there as one of their selling points.

The most interesting I heard was at the very end of the Today programme when they were reading out emails
a chap's daughter had done BTEC horsecare while studying for GCSEs
as it dovetailed nicely into her plan to become a VET - for which she is not at Uni studying

NOTHING wrong with BTECs - its the artificial equivalence that is the problem
advanced maths is not treated as worth pe+general studies+cookery
so there is no way that nail care should be!

each course curriculum should be moderated to be equivalent to one "unit" and taught as such
BUT
I do think that Secondary Moderns and poor comps used the BTECs as a cover for failings in basic teaching - hence the wide disparity in their
5 A-C
5 A-C inc English & Maths
Ebacc
percentages

Not sure you can include Ebac percentages in that just yet, TalkinPeace given that it was applied retrospectively the first year.

I disagree that "poor comps used BTECs as a cover for failings in basic teaching" - given that I teach a BTEC course, it can't be done with poor teaching any more than a GCSE or A Level course can be.

If the league tables reported GCSEs and vocational qualifications separately, then there wouldn't be an issue.

We need to stop comparing apples with oranges and compare apples with apples. A separate way of measuring achievement at 16 to see what percentage of pupils have (arbitrarily required) literacy, numeracy, presentation, investigative and ict skills. Then they can takes as many GCSEs or BTECs as they like and the it's the subjects which will be important not the relative weight.

sadly, the Government will never do that because they simply do not value them