Do any teachers on here support Michael Gove's education policies?

[SummerExhibition]

Just wondering. Everything related to curriculum changes, academies, free schools etc gets a bashing on here and just wondering if there's another side to the argument really.

Yes and even fewer for RG universities.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have an input but it's wrong to assume they know what's best for ALL students when in fact they take so few of them on (and are so selective). Their input should not be prioritised over the input of non RG universities and employers who are MORE likely to end up with responsibility for these kids.

And why are their views prioritised over the poor teachers who will end up delivering the curriculum? Why isn't it a dialogue rather than an imposition? And I would argue that RG universities have just as much to learn from the teachers.

Five candles from what you're saying it seems we now have at least a 2 tier university system: the Russell group and everyone else but A levels have to accomodate both. fWIW when I did my A levels in the '80s those who needed additional maths post Olevels but not to Alevel standards did a 1 year couse which we affectionately named 'Maths for cabbages'

Yes. A Levels have to accommodate all the students who are qualified to do them (5 GCSEs at grades A-C is usually the minimum requirement). If RG universities want to cream off only those who get A, that's up to them but the exams also have to accommodate those who will get grade E and go on to employment or vocational courses. Maybe RG universities should be doing more extra workshops for the gifted who need stretching but I think the students who are achieving A in all or most of their GCSEs and A* in their A Levels probably cope fine at RG universities.

If you have a class of only 5 Biology students the needs of the boy who is struggling to get a D to get on his nursing course are as important as the needs of the student who is aiming for A in order to do Medicine. They may both need 1 to 1 support but you can only do what you can do. It's not fair to make the syllabus so full and challenging that you have to spend even more time trying to get your would-be nurse his D and that may well be at the expense of getting your would be GP her A.

V interesting to read all these views!

There are twelve speeches linked from Michael Gove's website.

There is a summary of the Government's education policy here which contains a link to their White Paper on education.

Am going to go away and find out a bit more...

Just to add something: both my DCs have gained degrees and masters from Rusell Group unis. The did popular, academic BScs and MScs. They were offered places on the strength of their GCSEs ( not one of them had an A* for any subject) and their AS maths. In our experience, A2 was preferable, but the unis took a broader perspective and as long as their AS grade was reasonable- C and above- they accepted it.

I think this is how it should be.

Set the bar high for A level maths syllabus - and from what I gather most of the modules are covered with AS anyway- and let the unis decide what grade they will accept for their subjects, along with other A level subjects and grades, and interviews.

it seems crazy to set the bar lower so that more people can say they have maths A level- surely the answer is to set the bar high- high enough for uni courses with a high maths element- and take into account the grades awarded.

If everyone understands that even a grade D or E had some value, there would be no need for what some of you are suggesting- a 2-tier maths qualification with Further Maths replacing what should be a high grade in maths A level.

If that boy is struggling to get his D the question really is- is he not really bright enough?

Or- are some courses asking for grades which are unrealistic for the occupation?

Alice writes:

"If everyone understands that even a grade D or E had some value, there would be no need for what some of you are suggesting- a 2-tier maths qualification with Further Maths replacing what should be a high grade in maths A level."

Absolutely! But they don't. A level league tables used to include % pass (A-E) and % A-B grades. Increasingly, now, the figure quoted is % A* to A grades. Every year there is pressure on teachers to get this percentage higher. (Please note: on teachers, not pupils.)

Pupils (and their parents) don't want a D or E grade. We've been conditioned that an A* to C is an acceptable grade at GCSE; I believe that this has spilled over into AS and A level. And this problem is only going to get worse, as the school leaving age is raised, so more pupils stay on...

'If that boy is struggling to get his D the question really is- is he not really bright enough?'

My point is that if you teach that boy, it's your job to help him to achieve his potential and ambitions.

The people who make demands on teachers don't really understand what it's like to be a teacher with a mixed-ability class. And the focus seems to be entirely on the top end with the potential to go to RG universities when this is not who most teachers are dealing with most of the time.

YY to what fivecandles has said above - A levels were initially for a very bright few and this group has gradually been extended, to the point where you now have mixed ability classes.

and from what I gather most of the modules are covered with AS anyway

No, that's complete nonsense. A2 has the same number of modules as AS and it is harder.

a 2-tier maths qualification with Further Maths replacing what should be a high grade in maths A level."

What's wrong with two tiers of maths qualification given that so many university degrees require varying amounts of maths? Why would it be unreasonable to expect that someone who wants to study maths at university should take Further Maths? With the possibilities offered by AS and A level Maths, then AS and A-level Further Maths, maths requirements can be fine tuned. Getting a grade E in A-level maths doesn't really tell you what a prospective university candidate can do. Saying that they need a B in AS Maths gives you a good idea of what they're capable of.

Noble I am not a maths teacher but I do have friends who are and my DCs took AS maths. I was told that most of the work is done at AS level. Maybe this has changed as that was 5 years ago. But I am simply telling you what v experienced teachers told me.

Fivecandles When I was a student at school, very few people did A levels. Even allowing for this, there was a huge range of ability in groups for A level. Even when I was teaching A level this was the case. That's just how it is.

Noble- the potential problem with adding Further maths is that eventually I can see the whole thing spiralling just as it has with GCSEs- content is dumbed down as a means of getting more pupils to take the exam. Then there is no "room at the top grades" for bright students, so they have to have A*, then that's not good enough, so there has to be another exam- Further maths.

That exam should cater for students who can achieve an E or an A. If the exam has value, even a low grade will tell a uni or employer something.

Alice, I am a maths teacher, I teach A-level (which hasn't changed in 5 years btw) and to say that most of the work is done at AS level is nonsense. If you think about it, that would be stupid as students usually take more AS levels than they continue to A-level. AS level contains the modules C1 (which is pretty much A* GCSE level), C2 and an applied module. A2 contains the modules C3 and C4 which build on and contain harder material than C1 and C2 (so harder calculus techniques, more complicated trigonometric identities) and another applied module. The modules are all equally weighted and contain about the same amount of teaching material, but C3 and C4 are definitely harder.

No one is arguing to dumb down A-level further. I don't think anyone wants that. Most people seem to be arguing to improve uptake at A-level by sorting out the GCSE. The reason A-level was dumbed down in the first place was a good one. Following the Curriculum 2000 review, uptake plummeted by about 15% which was a disaster. A-level was amended in 2004 to remove some content to Further maths and over the next 6 years, uptake recovered to its previous level. As uptake is still increasing and should do further, I think people (RG unis excluded, who seem to have ignored the changes) are generally satisfied that it's pitched about right. It currently does cater for students who can achieve an E or an A, although in my school the Es stop at AS as you need a D to progress.

Well, it's a whole hour later and I believe that Mr Gove has had another Idea.

Hate to link DM, but looks like he's planning a 3 tier system - 'top' (do 'O' level type exam), 'middle' (do CSE type exam) and 'bottom' (do basic skills and learn to work in a factory so that the UK can compete with China in the international market).

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162369/Return-O-Level-Gove-shake-biggest-revolution-education-30-years.html

Great.

It has been very interesting reading the arguments regarding A Level Maths, the Russell group etc but what about those kids that can not ever access these standards?

Gove is throwing away any chance of kids who are not able to aspire to these academic grades by the disregard of other qualifications.

I'm sorry Alice but your defence of this man is only in favour of the most academic able and not the majority of students we see everyday....what is your argument in favour for those who are deemed as failures because they don't have the ability to gain the particular levels for a KS/GCSE?

Thanks for that link Rosebud05 (despite it being DM).

So you are either doing calculus or counting change in a shop???

People like Gove see no middle ground.

They believe people are like them (top tier intelligence) or they are members of the underclass.

As far as he is concerned there is nothing in between and social mobility isn't useful to him.

Fwiw I think he is also deluded about where his intelligence sits in the tree...

Scrap GCSEs, without being clear of the alternative?

Classic Gove.

A return to O level now?? This really is decision making by nostalgia. Poor teachers. They work so hard doing what they're told only to be told that actually they were doing the right thing 30 years ago despite being told it was wrong. What a nightmare to decide who does o level and who does Cse only for those doing Cse to give up. Hang on a minute that would be why the Tory govt scrapped that structure in the 80s

It's not a return to O-level if 75% of kids take it, is it? Only a minority of kids sat O-levels. Is he honestly expecting students who currently get a D at GCSE to study calculus? (which, by the way at that level is easy, but a bit pointless).

The good thing about GCSE is that students can move up grades/tiers even at the last minute. The poor student who is studying for an exam in bus timetables and making change who has a late spurt and gets maths is unlikely to be allowed to change to the O-level once his path is set.

But that's the whole poit, noblegiraffe. Gove wants the proles to fail at school, to know their place, to tug their forelocks and be grateful for the jobs that pay only benefits. He wants cheap domestic staff etc. He doesn't want these uppity working class pupils to move up the ladder, go to university, compete with his children for jobs...

This is about removing social mobility.

Not a teacher but think fivecandles has hit the nail on the head with all my misgivings about Gove.

Instead of researching the problems in education and allowing debate he seems to be intent on changing everything so it's like when he was at school.

Maybe I should invest in a book of logarithmic tables for DD.

In our three tier system in the 70s only 30% of children - at grammar school - sat O levels. The tech school children had a choice and the sec moderns had no choice but to take CSEs. The CSEs (i.e. the exams taken by about 60% of the population meant nothing, unless you got an A grade which was 'seen' as equivalent to an O level (what grade O level, I don' know).

At 11, a child's fate was sealed by the type of exam they were to take at 16.

In the 70s, unlike now, many jobs required neither qualifications nor fancy application forms. You turned up at a shoe shop willing to work, you got the job. No mock sales, to test your selling technique; no need to list your GCSE grades.

Life is different now, and, even though I live in a grammar school area, many children from the sec modern schools can aspire to go to university. When I was doing my 11+ that door was already slamming in most children's faces.

Yes, Gove is a total idiot. (Or is this just fluff to please the DM readers - ex-journo that he is?)

I'd say there is a lot of selecting listening and thinking going on here.....amongst MNters.

If you had listened to the new ideas re. GCSEs etc carefully, then you would have heard that there are going to be many moe vocational exams in place of GCSEs for the less academic.

They have this system in Germany- 3 different types of education/training/exams.

It's nonsense to have 1 exam and curriculum for pupils of all abilities.

And saying they are failures is a nonsense. The current system ensures the less able are failures if you judge by low GCSE grades.

At least vocational training and exams will give some kids the training they need.