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.

Alice, I think most of us are quite well aware of the new ideas thanks, in fact, I've spent all day with one of the major exam boards. The problem is not the fact that we don't understand them, it's that we DO.

Perhaps YOU aren't aware that there are ALREADY many vocational exams but the difference is that students can combine them with more academic GCSEs. It is well recognized that numeracy and literacy are required in most jobs so even if you go on to be a hairdresser it is important for you to have a GCSE in English and Maths.

It is insane to categorise children at the age of 13 or 14 as 'academic' or 'vocational' and change their lives accordingly not to mention the sort of pressures and administrative problems that this causes for teachers and schools. That is why it was the TORIES who scrapped this system in favour of ONE system which discriminates perfectly adequately in that kids can get a Grade E (which means they're not very academic) or an A* (which means they are). Any college, university or employer worth its salt is perfectly able to interpret this data in order to select the candidates it deems most suitable.

What's foundation and highers if not a 2 tier system?

'1 exam and curriculum for pupils of all abilities'

It's quite offensive for you to patronise experts in the field when your knowledge of the system as it is, is evidently so limited. Quite honestly, I wouldn't assume that you would be selected for the selective O Levels when your powers of argument using evidence are so limited. And I wonder how far you would be in favour of such a divisive system if you yourself were on the less academic side of the divide.

With Foundation and Higher you can teach the same curriculum to all students who all end up with the same qualification even though some will achieve Grade A* and some will achieve grade D or C. You can also make judgements about which tier is appropriate quite late on (after having evidence of students' performance in mock exams and Controlled Assessments). If you get it wrong in the current system the worst that can happen is a very rare student will get a C where they could have got a B. If the exams were totally divided you could be denying a perfectly capable student the chance to go to university.

I was hoping someone would be talking about today's announcements. There is currently a 2 tier system; it's called GCSE. You sit higher tier or foundation tier depending on how confident you are just before the exam (usually judged about February). The system is not perfect and some subjects have been deemed to be insufficiently rigorous, which is why there are new grade boundaries and more difficult questions on some of this year's exams.

I teach English. The texts we read are challenging; the questions ask students to form an opinion and critically evaluate texts; it is very similar to the type of questions I answered at O level in the 1970s. At foundation level, the questions are the same, but bullet points are given to help structure answers. I'm not sure Mr Gove has ever seen an English paper, yet he has deemed the subject to lack challenge. Interesting,

So he wants to judge children at 13 and decide how academic they are, ignoring all the research that shows how hard work impacts results, and the drive to give equal opportunity to all. He wants them to recite poetry by heart at 5, but wants then to relegate them the bottom of a 2 tier system. To quote flexybex, he is a total idiot. The worst thing is, he's my boss.

It is so often the case that when people argue in favour of a divisive system that they assume that they and their kids will benefit from it and be on the right side of the divide. When you tell people that actually their own kids may end up being forced into doing vocational subjects that they don't want to do (even if this is because a teacher has failed to recognize their potential which does very occasionally happen), they often think differently.

Have a look at this paper which is sat by AS students (so after 1 year or less of study post-16). It's actually quite similar to the sorts of questions I sat at A Level 20+ years ago but it's harder because a) it's closed book and b) you have to apply critical interpretations to the texts you're considering: pdf.ocr.org.uk/download/pp_11_jun/ocr_66363_pp_11_jun_gce_uf661.pdf?

I just wonder in what world anybody could say this was easy or easier. These questions could equally be posed for a phD.

I'm completely with fivecandles here.

The problem with talking about the 'top X%' or the 'bottom X%' or the like is that its' pertaining to talk about intelligence or educational competence, but it's actually referring to the social and economic factors which are determinant.

Gove's plan is clear. The nice middle class kids get chosen to sit 'hard' exams because they're Very Clever and go to get good jobs and everything that goes with that. Kids from lower income families are told they're 'not suited' to this as early in their school career as possible and get to do vocational courses that teach them how to count change in a shop.

Someone's got to serve the commuters their lattes, and it sure as hell isn't going to be his kids.

Yes, Rosebud, and one of the problems is that it no longer even make economic sense since there are so few jobs left that need purely manual or practical skills.

There are plenty that require people to be able to read and write a bit and do basic maths and, for the privilege of the minimum wage, you can look forward to spending your life working at McProfit or McCall Centre, though?

alice interesting that you mention the German education system - it has been utterly slated by the UN for perpetuating social inequality. Not really something to aspire to emulate, I think.

I'm probably in the minority but I think it is a fab idea. Why is there an expectation that every child should leave school with loads of academic qualifications? I would rather see a mix of education for the range of children. When I was at school some left at 16 and got an apprenticeship, some left at 18 and went on to management training schemes and some went to uni. Now you have graduates doing jobs that a 16 year old school leaver would be more suited to.

I think grade inflation and the need to have loads of qualifications has made those qualifications children work so hard for to have less meaning. Anything that can reverse that is a good thing imho.

The issue is exactly how and which children get selected to leave at 16, or do 'A' levels or go to university.

It's got very little to do with 'intelligence'.

In my day anyone could choose to leave at 16. A levels required good passes in those subjects at O level plus English, Maths. Although they made exceptions and allowed some to start the 6th form even though they had to retake Maths or English. Those doing CSEs could also do A levels if they got a high pass or go to college. It is ridiculous to offer all children the same academic education when other than basic reading, writing and arithmetic they would struggle. I don't understand the snobbery these days against apprenticeships and vocational courses.

I should say that I come from a lower income family where both parents left school at 14 with no qualifications. I have never felt that I wasn't allowed to do what I wanted because of my parents although clearly they didn't have the connections and knowledge that other more educated and wealthy parents had.

'It is ridiculous to offer all children the same academic education '

Children are not offered 'the same education' as it is. It is possible to mix and match academic and vocational subjects with some kids combining a mixture of BTECs or NVQs with GCSEs in Maths and English for example. What is being proposed is a two tier system which is divisive and unnecessary.

head against wall emoticon

This is turning into a fascinating debate and I feel I finally have some understanding of both sides of the debate now.

Noble / Alice The debate around maths A Level is particularly interesting. I have a maths A Level, taken around 15 years ago, at a very academic school. At that time, all those years ago, it was made very clear to us that maths was a great A Level to do for people like me (academic, but with absolutely no intention of doing maths at university - although I did need some stats for my humanities degree) but people who wanted to do maths, engineering or some other science subjects at university were advised that they should do further maths as well. At that point, this would means adding it as a fourth A Level when everyone else only did three, i.e. it did not limit the other subjects they were studying. Given that this group were really the brightest of the bright, this extra study was not seen to be too big an ask (perhaps to the detriment of their social and mental well-being... I'm not really sure!). So I find myself agreeing with Noble on this. A levels have to cater for people who aren't going to do maths/engineering subjects at uni, as well as those who are and it seems to me that there's a long and well-documented history of people taking further maths in order to demonstrate that they are suitably equipped to go on to further mathematical study. It may be that not all schools have understood this properly and ensured their most mathematically-able students are appropriately equipped. And that might boil down to their being a lack of good communication between some universities and some schools? (Pure speculation from me).

I do struggle with the two tier model. My DB did O Levels and fell the wrong side of this divide. He went to a very academic school, but actually wasn't that academic or couldn't be arsed. Everyone was entered for Os, not CSEs because that's what the school did. He only passed 3, which has continued to affect him throughout his life. If he'd been born a couple of years later, he'd have a good handful of GCSEs which would have been much more reflective of his abilities.

Maybe it is just my limited experience and it may be unusual but there seems to be a push to do GCSEs and A levels rather than leaving school at 16 and going into training for employment.

I find it amazing that everyone seems to leave school with loads of A*s. Of course it may be that children are simply more clever than when I was at school but weirdly that additional cleverness rarely manifests itself in the work place (or again that may be just my very limited experience).

'there seems to be a push to do GCSEs and A levels rather than leaving school at 16 and going into training for employment. '

Erm, you obviously haven't looked at the figures for youth unemployment lately. There are very few jobs around for kids who leave school at 16 with no or few qualifiactions or even for those who leave school at 16 with qualifaictions.

Very few children leave school with loads of A*s.

I think it sensible to have a different system. There is something wrong with a system where no one can tell the difference between the A* pupils, there are so many, and at the same time so many fail to get any exams.
There are provisos - the pupils should get to choose, they shouldn't be forced into one or the other for the sake of league tables and we need to stop seeing academic as the 'be all and end all' - we need to celebrate the practical, technical and vocational and just as valid.

'There is something wrong with a system where no one can tell the difference between the A* pupils, '

Nonsense. At A Level A* is calculated statistically. It's less than 5%.

If universities don't think this is an adequate measure they have access to the breakdown of marks. IF they wanted to they could only accept students with 100% of marks and interview and ask for Grade 8 piano as well. And some do.

It does wind me up when people just buy into the media hype or pontificate about the state of educuation when they actually know little about it.

bisjo I think that has something to do with there being no jobs. So there's a definite desire to keep people in education for longer as otherwise they might be on benefits.

The Guardian has a piece today on whether GCSEs are easier than they used to be. The consensus seems to be that they are, however I found this bit fascinating and rings true to me:

[The first thing to consider is...] "to ask what an exam is for. Are GCSEs (and A-levels) intended to differentiate pupils to help sixth-form colleges and universities with selection? Or are they intended to mark a certain standard ? an A grade pupil has a certain set of skills, a C grade student a smaller set, and so on? The design of each system would look very different, and while grade inflation might make life harder in the former, it would be a good thing in the latter. As we've never actually set out what we want GCSEs to be, the standards debate is hard to have."

Also this, at the bottom of the article, extracted from a blog:

"The job of exams is not to be hard, it is not to be easy, it is most certainly not to provide the top five percent of students with a flashy qualification they can use to get into Oxford. The job of exams is to test learning and produce adequate differentiation across the full range of candidates. This, amongst other things, is why we need what that charming individual called "Exams for Thick People". The job of an exam is not to let clever people show off, it is to actually assess people, and that means differentiating between D and E grade candidates just as much as it means differentiating between A and B grade candidates. Complaining that exams are getting easier is just a socially acceptable way of complaining that we're no longer restricting education to a privileged elite."

FWIW I do actually think that part of the role of GCSEs and A Levels is to help 6th forms and unis select. But I don't think that's everything.

The one thing that this debate has highlighted to me (non teacher) is that the whole system is a mess and that political intervention from either side, over a long period of time, seems to have been no help at all, for teachers, pupils, universities or employers. Which is a bit depressing.

exotics, but kids are already being forced into vocational qualifications to enhance League table performance - how would you set a 'proviso' around that?

GOod post, Summer. And I think you're right that the way education is used as a political football is just awful especially for the teachers who are always criticised. Decision making in education should be basedon proper academic research and dialogue with teachers. It isn't at the moment. Policies are concoted at the whim of whichever politician is in charge and imposed on teachers. They're told that THIS is the right way only to be told a couple of years later that they've been doing it all wrong.

The worst thign about Gove's plans is that it takes us right back to the policies that were rubbished in the 80s by a different Tory government. At least usually there's a sense of moving forward or wanting too, Gove is quite open about watning to move backwards and seems driven entirely by nostalgia for his own school days. It's very worrying.