Education Reforms - Is is me??

[bayleaf]

There are two things I just don't get at the moment ...
Firstly - will someone explain to me why it is a good thing to let students drop everything except English Maths and Science at 14 but at the same time talk of replacing A levels with a Baccalaureat style exam - ie one that requires students to also study languages, humanites etc - which half of them will have dropped two years ealier! If it's good to keep your options wide and have a broad education at 16-18 why wasn't at 14??????
And another thing. Why oh why do they imagine than continually increasing the amount of people that go to uni is going to increase the proportion of lower socio-ecomonc groups who go? It has simply meant that practically the whole of the middle classes go - however dim they are- but made little or no difference to the bright kids from council estates who OUGHT to go- and now to finance it all they're bringing in this madcap £3,000 extra payment - which you pay back on just £15,000 a year - well I'm all for those who have ''done good'' out of uni putting back into the system but since when was £15,000 a 'good' wage?
Why on earth don't they take higher education back to the sort of numbers it had 10 years ago ( so it'd be a lot cheaper!) and put LOTS of money into SERIOUSLY getting bright but socially deprived kids there - from what I've read there are all sorts of scheme in the States that whilst not perfect are working a whole lots better than anything we have here.
OK rant over.
Back to watching daytime TV.

I agree - the policy makes no sense !! Essentially it seems to me that they are dumbing down yet again - so that the less academic kids can do hairdressing or woodwork instead of Biology or French - and the effect must be that fewer and fewer kids get through to A'level or Baccaleureate - it's a funnel system ! What bothers me is that the reasonably bright but lazy ones will opt for the non-academic options as an easy ride and rule themselves out of higher education !

I'm all for vocational training - but is it's place really in mainstream schools ?

I agree that the dropping of a language at 14 makes no sense but the Baccalaureat system doesn'y necessarily require students to study a language. Rather, it requires them to study a group of subjects within their chosen "stream" (at least I think that's what they're called in Spanish schools). So for example the science stream includes maths, chemistry, biology etc. plus presumably English. I think they're a good idea. The targets for university numbers are also silly. The target should be that whoever wants to go to university can do so fairly easily (and nobody should be pressured into going) but of course the accountants can't measure that.

But Scatterbrain I totally disagree that teaching vocational qualifications in schools is "dumbing down". The problem with vocational qualifications at the moment is that everyone thinks you only do them if you're not good enough for A levels - the only way to get rid of that idea is to put them in schools alongside academic subjects. As it is people who are good at academic subjects feel they therefore somehow have to choose those even if they are also very practical and would rather be a mechanic, and those whose forte is not academic subjects feel that they are "dumb".

I agree that this continual push for higher education has caused major problems. Its not that we should be sending more and more and more kids to uni - rather that they should have the chance to go if they want to. In the past getting a degree was a significant thing and meant you'd get a better job. It was something to aspire to. Now it feels like so many people are doing it that it deosn't really make much difference to your job prospects. Now you have to get a post graduate qualification too to make the difference and most of those are self-funding. At a risk of excluding people I'd rather fewer people went to uni, bringing costs down so we don't have to dump it all on the students and making the degree more meanigful.

I want my kids to go to uni (if they want to) but I worry that the basic degree will cost an arm and a leg and mean nothing.

As for vocational subjects. These used to be taken at further education colleges but these all seem to have disappeared now. I really don't think you can supply all sorts of education in one place. Different people have different needs and its better to cater to these than cram everyone together. Or people used to take apprenticeships. Then they knew what they would be doing at the end. Seems to me they would have had a much clearer career plan than most graduates do now!

Agree completely Katherine. My brother - who is not particularly academically bright- is doing a degree in business management. For his placement year, he wanted a job "where I'm not just a data entry person or something, I need to be in a management position" - this from a guy whose current qualifications are an E and N at A-level! He started off in a factory working in logistics. He left because "it was boring" and he is now working as a trainee manager in a pub for the rest of the year. Now no offence to bar-people, I've been one myself, but it never struck me as a degree level career. My db admits that he went to Uni because he didn't know what he wanted to do. IMO this just completely devalues a degree level education, and doesn't do any more to encourage poorer students to go to Uni, as they don't tend to be able to be funded to waste 3 years drinking!

prufrock - we have the same brother!

and me!

personally I think the whole of the education system has gone made. When will the government reaslise that testing does not equal education (and this applies from KS1 SATS right up to mickey mouse degrees). A levels now are a series of checklists that the student's have to learn. I teach/taught A level Biology and the student's panic when they have three mark questions as they may have to write three sentences (and these were aiming for A grades). The Bac is a much better qualification- and more interesting.

I haven't seen all that much about the new proposals but there do seem to be some flaws in the system. As I understand it, 14yr olds on the vocational courses will be able to spend up to two days a week in the workplace. But where will these 'jobs' come from? The Work Experience Scheme where I used to live has been abandoned because employers can't/don't want to provide places. There are Health & Safety issues with having untrained children (for that is what they are) in possibly dangerous situations. OTOH, it's a waste of time if they go somewhere just to make the tea and empty the bins. Maybe it would be better to go back to the old apprenticeship scheme, when you could leave school at 16 and get a decent vocational training as an electrician or a car mechanic or whatever.

The govt's ideas for a Bacc qualification apparently hasn't been welcomed totally by the universities as they feel undergraduates may not have the necessary depth of knowledge to embark on, say, a Chemistry degree. Having had two children go through the Scottish system, I feel that that is quite a good one. Post-16, pupils can do up to five 'Highers', over one year, followed the next year by more Highers, giving you a broad experience, or by taking three 'Sixth Year Studies'. SYS allows you to further your studies in your 'Higher' subjects or take completely new subjects, or you can mix-and-match with SYS and Highers.

As for languages, I've been astonished to recently discover that here in Indonesia most people speak at least two languages even though educationally they are severely disadvantaged compared to the West. (Many children never get the chance to go to school and schooling is highly prized.) Our driver speaks five languages, Javanese, Indonesian, Sundanese and Betawi (all of which come from a base source but are mutually unintellible to each other) and some English, yet he left school at 14. It would be interesting to what mechanisms allow a relatively ill-educated population to be almost 100% bilingual, something that is just a pipe dream in Britain.

jimjams -

and spare a thought for us poor buggers who have to keep writing and implementing these new syllabi : I gave up secondary teaching a year ago when I had my dd having taught English language ,English literature and Media studies Gcses and English lit A level for 10 years; in that time I taught 4 different language, 4 different lit GCSE syllabi,3 media and 4 A level, all of which were foisted upon us by successive Education departments. Then came the change from A level to AS / A2 which was a killer and now I read it's to be replaced by a bac system. When I think of the thousands - and I mean that literally - of hours my colleagues and I spent over the years having to decipher, write and plan these new courses ( all in our own time and unpaid, naturally ) my abiding thought truly is - what was the fucking point ?? to be honest I would rather be on the till at Waitrose than teach any more, shame cos I love being in the classroom and it really is my 'calling' but how much more rubbish can teachers take ??? anyway guys, sorry to moan. Rant over......for now !

I teach up to A-level ICT/Computing and I really don't think they have been 'dumbed' down. There seems to be just as much to learn as ever. There are certainly more exams too now and the system we currently have is far too stressful - 4 or 5 AS subjects in Year 12, which have mocks and then exams in the summer. Students then choose three to do as A2's, again with mocks and final exams. I wish I had a checklist to give my students! Yes, as has been the case for ever I have a syllabus which tells be what to cover and it some subjects you can question spot a little bit (as you have always been able to). I see exam papers regularly and they questiosn still seem pretty difficult to me and these kids often have to work really hard. GCSE's aren't really easy either just different to O -level. They require a lot more coursework and, hence, you can't get away with just cramming in revision at the end. You have to work continously to get a top grade.

Let's give these kids a break and just say well done, you did good, for a change!

I do think that uni should be for the bright and not just the rich too. Let's have degrees that have reasonable entry levels (not just a couple of N's(!!!) and not charge a fortune. I disagree that students should have so much debt when they leave uni. Yes, any will have good jobs and salaries later in life BUT this benefits the whole of society surely so we should all pay towards it. What would the country be like if we didn't have lawyers, doctors, vets, teachers, etc?

Donnie - I agree!!! It's not just A-level either. I teach ICT at Key Stage 3, 4 and 5. All of these syllabi change so often that I feel like I am re-writing lesson plans/materials all the time.

Mmmmm Claireandrich - a country without lawyers....

I didn't mean that the system had been dumbed down as such. I just think the current A level biology exams are a series of checklists. By which I mean when answering the question you have to give exactly the answer needed on the syllabus. You could write something correct (and which answers the question asked) and not get a mark becuase it's not on the syllabus. Also because the papers are much shorter the kids really can't afford to mess up any one question. I also think that the student's are under far too much exam pressure all the way through the system (both from constant testing and the constant pressure of coursework). I also don;t like the way the kids know theire module scores. I never thought I'd see the day someone was crying when they got an A for a module (but only a low A). I've now seen that several times.

Don't ask me though I'm opting my 2 out of the system.

janh- Biology papers really have changed (see my message below about not meaning dumbing down). Almost all the students I taught were doing Science A level retakes and they really struggled with basic English. This would probably not be the case for those taking arts A levels.

In the board I taught they had 10 mark questions that could be answered as a series of bullet points. They had one essay question and generally really really struggled. Quite a few had absolutely no idea how to structure an essay.

Been pondering on this overnight- and what I'm trying to say. I actually think that today the kids are under far far more pressure than we were, and that could be reduced with a change in the exam system. Also I think it's wrong that the homework chat room I work on is full of 11 and 13 year olds totalaly stressed out about SATS and school work. They should be out enjoying themselves not stressing about exams and the future.

Well GCSE language papers are definitely 'dummed down'.
Even 5 or six years ago it was much harder to get a C. Yes the exams are very different to 15/20 years ago - so much more communication is expected which yes is a good thing - but they are ALSO much much easier.
With a bit of motivation pretty much anyone can get a C - or certainly a D at GCSE ( and when I say anyone I mean kids with Statements of educational needs who REALLY struggle academically) whereas before you needed to be far 'brighter' academically - mainly because you did at least need a basic grasp of grammar to get a C.
Overall I think this is probably a good thing - but I do wish politicians etc whould stop pretending that it isn't the case!

I also have my dad's 'o' level paper French from 1948 and it is so hard and full of the sort of things ( honestly!) that you would now find on undergraduate prose papers that it just took our breaths away!)

These things are relative though Bayleaf.

Old exam papers always look difficult to those taking a current course because the course has changed. You would probably find that those who studied the old course would not do exceptionally well on the new one because, although they have fantastic grammar, they were not taught to communicate very well.

Admittedly I do not know much about the current GCSE syllabus for languages, but I am a language teacher and have taught many students who had previously been taught with the old "grammar-is-the-most-important-thing" methods. Newer language teaching methods result in students who can actually communicate and it is not really possible to compare exams based on the two methods.

Teachers really can't win - you teach so well that even strugglers pass the exams and everyone says the exams must be easier!

bayleaf, I think from what I've seen of my kids' exams/syllabi (??) it would be fairer to say that what they are taught now is shallower, but broader - does that make sense?

They are not just filled full of facts to regurgitate in June - they are actually taught to think, consider, research and discuss. The Y7 history book starts out teaching them about sources, primary and secondary, which bits can you trust and which bits are unreliable, which a lot of British adults would benefit from knowing now.

In language lessons I can remember starting off with long lists of vocabulary (clothes, days of the weeks etc), irregular verbs etc but being completely inarticulate in the language for years; they now have lessons conducted in the language from day one. This can be confusing, as at my kids' school they start French and German in Y7 and words from one often pop up by mistake in the other , but they can speak the languages with a reasonable accent fairly early on, albeit with pretty primitive grammar - but they have the confidence to communicate which is much more useful than having been able to write an essay about Le Cid!

lucy - snap!

Today's Sunday Times (the News section) has an article about testing in schools.

jimjams, when I first read that I could have sworn it said Funday Times!

I take your point about the non-English speakers struggling with essay questions but surely the school/college should be aware of that and arrange for extra lessons in both English and exam technique to help them cope? It was very noticeable in this week's league tables that the schools round here which did worst in the English SATs were the ones with a high proportion of non-English students. (Maths and Science weren't nearly as bad.)

Agree with you completely about far too much testing being done now - they hardly get a year without.

Are you going to home-teach yours?

oh no these were English speakers janh!! I feel for the schools who do take chidren who are unlikely to do well in Sats and then suffer for it by getting low league table positions.

We'll probably home ed DS1- he has pretty complex special needs and I just can't see him in a mainstrema school. Hopefully he will progress to the stage where he wouldn't need a statement in which case he could then go onto school maybe. I'm hoping that DS2 will be able to go to the local Steiner school.

WEll yes and no Lucy.
Firstly I completely agree that they way languages is taught now is 'better' than the way it was taught and yes it is difficult to compare competences between cohorts that have been prepared for different exams - BUT there is no way on this earth that I could have got the sort of academically weak students thru the old style exams - not in a month of Sundays and with the patience of a saint ( it takes that to get them through the new one!)- they are different - yes but the new ones are academically easier ( ie you can do well just thru hard work you don't need to be bright)AND in recent years it has got easier to pass even the new style exams - the year languages for all ( briefly!) came on stream and a whole new load of not so bright kids who traditionally wouldn't have done languages were taking it the exam boards couldn't afford to have the percentages passing be catastrophically low - so those of us who had been LFA ahead of time found we suddenly had results WAY better than in previous years - and the rise has stayed.

bayleaf I take it you are a language teacher (which languages?) Maybe you're not giving yourself the credit you deserve

Anyway I take your point, and I agree that all GCSEs have shifted from being attainable only if you already had a particular ability to being acheivable by dint of hard work.

But I would call the new style exams "harder" purely because you have to work for them (if you see what I mean). I am speaking as one who does have an incredible ability with exams and as an ex teacher of English lang and IT. Even students like me have to work for the new exams and that is a good thing (previously we sailed through GCSEs without working only to have a very rude awakening on doing A levels).