Now it's going to be ilevels??

[Verycold]

Replacing GCSE's? So it says in the Times today... Does anybody anywhere actually have a plan?

Gove is absolutely determined to drive a wedge through society and education is the perfect place to do this.

I got 98.5% for one of my exams in 1989, should I have got one * or two ?

The article says that the new grading system will allow for the addition of more levels which seems to imply that they might not get the grade boundaries right the first time around. How can we have confidence in this new system if the grade boundaries might move.

I am inclined to think that Gove isn't really in it to improve standards but to ensure that state school pupils get poor grades.

Gove just can't win with some people.

If he proposed that grade 1 will be the top grade no doubt someone will turn up, roll their eyes and suggest that it's ill thought out and that in a few years time they will have to introduce a 1*.

If he does nothing then he gets accused of treading water until the next election.

If he does it sensibly, like the A-level system, there won't be any need for an A**. It's only elite unis that complain about not being able to distinguish between the top candidates at A-level, and that is unlikely to be a problem at entry to sixth form, which takes from a much smaller, local pool of candidates.

If new grades are introduced those taking the new exams the year before will still be left with an 8 rather than a 9, even if they got 100%.
Rather than introducing higher and higher levels, why not have 100 levels to start with and grade the exams on %?

I wonder whether this whole issue could be sorted by alloweing students and universities access to their actual marks as a matter of course?

I'd rather Gove were treading water. Or even, I'd rather he took what we had and found better ways of implementing it, better ways of teaching teachers to teach, better ways to assess, better ways to support. Rather than insisting on proposing sweeping reforms and massive restructuring. The less goalpost moving the better. Was it always thus with governments, they can't leave well enough alone?

He can't tread water, he has less than two years left in which to destroy the life chances of millions of state school pupils. He can't afford to sit on his hands.

richmal, I agree with you, far better to use the percentages.

My Dd has done IGCSE'S in most subjects, no coursework or modular exams. 2 years then 2 or 3 papers dependent on subject. What is wrong with IGCSE'S for all?

I think having '1' as the lowest grade is awful when the numbers are reversed in another part of the UK (Scotland) and have been for years and years. Having grown up in Scotland then moved down south, I've found that nobody knows about Standard Grades, even that they are equivalent to GCSEs, let alone how you get a number rather than a letter for a grade. I don't think my qualifications at that level will be an issue any more, but for people in my position who still want them on their CV, it'll be a nightmare as people will think they did so much worse than they really did. Or better

I don't see the problem with just giving the % as a score either. The Dutch system (graded 1 through 10) is geared that way - in the vast, vast majority of subjects a 10 = 100% score. 95% would net you a mark of (drum roll) 9.5.

The exception is in things like literature where there is not necessarily a right answer, just a well-argued interpretation of the topic. As in, you can disagree 100% with what your pupil is saying, but their argument is so good and so underpinned with quotes/supplemental reading that you can't find fault with it.

The rest of the time, it's pretty easy and definitely sorts the absolutely outstanding from the merely brilliant.

And I don't want Gove to tread water, I want him to sink.

Percentages aren't good because the exams differ in difficulty each year, which is why grade boundaries shift for each exam. 65% one year might not represent the same level of achievement as 65% the next year, but if it nets you a B one year and an A the next, it should be clear who did better, because their paper was more difficult.

Students have access to their marks. They get raw score, UMS and grade. Grade boundaries are published for UMS and raw scores.

And you can tell from those that the raw score to UMS conversion varies quite a lot, as papers vary in difficulty.

We are supposed to have criterion referenced grading. So you get a grade if you meet a certain level of performance in assessment objectives. We don't really, as was made explicit with the "too many people getting a C" fiasco last year. Perhaps they should go for completely norm referenced, and just give a centile.

Some subjects need a form of coursework/controlled assessments in my opinion e.g. Art - I think my daughter's was 60% coursework; and Music of which there are performances and compositions done as controlled assessments over years 10 and 11, with an exam at the end. All subjects are different. I know science teachers as the 2 local private schools near me and those schools purely switched to iGCSE sciences to get out of doing the ISAs (practicals) which are usually 25% of the GCSE - the ISA's take up a lot of time and often bring the marks down .....obviously it was sold to parents that iGCSEs are a lot more prestigious!

Michael Rosen said on twitter the other day, something along the lines of ' I-levels now available for sponsorship from Apple' probably better worded but made me chuckle.

Surely it cant be plural.

I Level
I Pod
I Shuffle
I Sing
I Shrug
I Pad

Not I Levels

pointythings

Let's face it, we're going to see a massive outcry against the 'new' all linear GCSEs that are just starting once girls' results start to fall. Which, after all, is why the modular system was introduced.

IMO, I think we should have moved on a bit from the idea that all subjects should be, as near as dammit, examined identically. Some need to demonstrate absolute recall, some need to demonstrate how to use given information.

I was only talking to DH this morning about how, when we sat down to O level maths circa 1978, the very first thing you did when you were allowed was quickly, frantically write down all the formulae you had rote learned. Today, the DC are supplied with a formula sheet and I say good! I think it's more useful in the modern world for someone to be able to know how to access information (including checks on the veracity of information), and how to use it. We had question after question of 'straight' maths. Today's maths papers ask the DC to use their maths skills to solve problems.

In some subjects I think learning and using a set of skills, then testing that ability at the end of that module is just as valid as throwing a small cross section of the lot at a DC after 2 or 3 years. Yes, limit resits, allow all but no 'homework' (ie mum doing it), increase the 'formal exam' content, but don't get rid of modular learning!

Finally, tho I am not a suspicious or 'conspiracy- minded' person, I genuinely do wonder if Gove really is trying to feck up the life chances of state educated DC. It won't be the first time a ruling elite have done so. I'd like to think his -ahem- 'policies' are just misguided and ill-judged but I do wonder.

Why not just have O-levels again? Genuine question.
For the millionth time I like the American system so much better than this chaos constant reorganisation.

Because o-levels were only sat by 20% of the population, leaving the question of what the other 80% would do.

And to add to what noblegiraffe said, back then there were jobs for those 80% to go to. Now there aren't - you need qualifications to get on in life these days.

What if Gove renamed GCSEs as "O-levels" and spun it as "For everyone but with the rigor of the old O-Level". But didn't actually change it very much from present GCSE.

I dunno, anything but this constant bloody tinkering.

I sort of agree about qualifications for everything, but then again, NVQs are the big way that the less academic go.

I think we should just rename Gove. And then shove him in a cupboard somewhere for the duration of this parliament.