Son's school GCSE results

[SalaciousCrumb]

My ds's school has a drop in achievement this year for GCSE results; it was expected they say as the system changed to being more examination based, and the government sprung this on them halfway through the year.

As he's only just finished year 7 and I am really pleased that after being unhappy in year 6 he enjoys secondary school I didn't take a lot of notice of the changes as it still seemed a long way off.

I am interested in knowing more about how GCSEs have changed and just off to google. Does anybody have a link to websites that discuss pros and cons etc?

Thanks!

Many school have the same or improved results in English this year. DS was predicted a B, got an A*, along with many of his friends - hard work, but really due to outstanding teaching.
What has happened is that schools that relied on speaking and listening were knowingly playing the system - school that solidly also taught well in writing have been unaffected.
it is the schools that should be held accountable for lower results than expected - the rules have now caught up with them - a bit like tax 'avoidance'.
I was a teacher, now have another role that involves helping with MFL students, and the amount of 'help' that some schools give children on controlled assessments is truly shocking, especially with those that play fair.

especially in contrast to those who play fair.

What has happened is that schools that relied on speaking and listening were knowingly playing the system - school that solidly also taught well in writing have been unaffected
Do you have evidence for that assertion?

From what I've heard on the schools asking for cohort re-marks it is one particular exam board that stuffed up their moderation.

The biggest mess is on the A/B boundary (which affects A level choices)

All the complaints have come from schools who saw S&L as an effort-free way to gain marks. By contrast, a local school which is very disadvantaged, 56% FSM, who refused to play the S&L game, with higher aspirations for their pupils, gained record scores this year in English, bucking the trend. And their students were not on TSR bleating about the 'unfairness of Gove'.

But the S&L was discounted in November - even though its on the results sheet

S&L has little impact on the A/B boundary - which is where the problem lies in this area

Any politician who changes the goalposts mid-GCSE course does not deserve any respect at all.

What should have happened was that S&L should have been removed from the start of the '14-'15 GCSE course so that everyone knew what was expected. Changing a course once people have already started being assessed is simply unacceptable.

All the complaints have come from schools who saw S&L as an effort-free way to gain marks

You know all of the people that complained?

Most teachers complained because changing something in the middle of a course is wrong.

I visit many schools, and a lot of them do, sadly, game the system, setting a pretty appalling example to the students - basically anything to get the grades for the league tables. Does not benefit the students to get a bunch of devalued qualifications. Those schools that have taught well for the written exams have not ben disadvantaged.

I visit many schools, and a lot of them do, sadly, game the system, setting a pretty appalling example to the students
If you are an Ofsted inspector you should have reported it

if you are (like my DH) a different type of visitor : you have NO idea what they do to "game" they system other than staff room gossip

what do the results from te last 4 years say?
( DH and I routinely check them for schools he visits)

Out of interest, what do the "GOOD" schools think about the S&L being on the results sheet even though its as relevant as the colour of my socks?

Huh? How is teaching something that is (presumably - as it is examined!)on the syllabus "gaming the system and setting a poor example"?

I have no horse in this race. My kids are 4 and 1, the last time I set foot in a secondary school was to pick up my A levels.

But that makes no sense at all.

Some parts of subjects are harder than other. For example I remember people found trigononometry easier than algebra in maths GCSE. But if trig is 20% of the paper then it should be taught even if it is "easy". If you then take it out mid year then surely that benefits the schools that teach it later on so results show more about school time tabling than teaching standards?

Those schools that have taught well for the written exams have not ben disadvantaged.

I love how this is not seen as "gaming the system".

There are many ways of gaming the system, it doesn't just happen in CA, or S&L it also happens for the written test.

To me the issue with dropping the S&L after the start of the course is those schools that schedule it early would have used teaching time up for it (and the children preparation time at home). Whereas those that do it later suddenly have hours free for other work.

Also, I think it sets a terrible precedent, moving the goalposts mid match (and then saying that goals scored near the posts are now not valid).

(Though as S&L still appears on the marks sheet, my DD just entering y11 has still done CAs for it even though it sadly doesn't affect the final grade).