The return of the O Level.

[hermionestranger]

Leaked reports suggest that the government is to scrap the GCSE from 2015, 2013 option takers will be the last year to take them.

I'm sorry it's the mail bug they were first on my twitter feed. I 'm on my phone so can't link properly.

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

I think that the opportunity to do the tougher qualificiation in later years would be good. For example an adult who does level 2 qualification in English doesn't get a GCSE although supposely its the equivalent.

People learn at different speeds. Certainly a plumber doesn't need a degree, but everyone needs a good standard of literacy and numeracy.

The big problem with a two tier system is that it is hugely de-moralizing to the students branded failures at 14 when they are put on the path of the lesser qualification.

It is perfectly possible t design an exam which can rigorously test students across the entire spectrum of ability. The reason why exam boards fail to do so is that they are idiotically put in competition against each other. The vie for business from schools and so there is a race to the bottom.

But surely under the current system of GCSE's children are already in a 2 tier system. They are either put in the top streams for Higher level papers or lower streams where they work towards the Foundation papers. They do not cover the same level of work and the grading system is exactly as it was when it was O levels and CSE's ie you can earn a C grade by sitting the Foundation paper just like you used to be able to get a grade 1 in a CSE and it being the equivalent of an O level. Presumably the certificate will say whether you sat the higher paper or foundation.

I agree that the systems needs an overhauls. It is fragmented and confusing for parents DS in Yr 10 currently is following the syllabus of 4 different exam boards across 10 subjects . I am gobsmacked at the poor level of learning/knowledge required - especially in French - which is way below what I was expected to do at O level. No wonder children come out of school not able to speak a 2nd language.

ReallyTired. I did both the literacy and numeracy level 2. I have a degree and a PGCE (Post compulsory). Firstly, it is not equivalent no matter what they say. I wanted to do Primary but was not allowed as I hadn't got the GCSE although they were acceptable for P.C.
I could never do a maths GCSE as I have learning difficulties. I am so glad they weren't equivalent as I wouldn't want someone like me teaching my kids.
I am glad of the two tier system because this along with the most awful education I received made me determined to succeed in life whilst accepting my limits. Lesser qualifications are fine, we aren't all bright and clever. It is people not the system that demoralise students achieving less, people brand others as failures, not a system. I was so glad I didn't have to stress and worry for 2 years knowing I wouldn't pass Maths and Science. I was upset I couldn't do Music or History as I know I'd have done very well here.

What happened to the International Bal that seemed to make the most sense I'd heard in years, I am keen to find a school that will offer it even if I have to pay.

i thought GCSEs liberalised the education system and made the same education available to all (at least in theory) - an end to the children being sent off in different directions from 11....

the problem is that they have become too easy, not a good prep for a level, therefore a levels have also been made easier, with knock on effects to degree level.

i think stepping back is not the right answer. stop buggering about with the system, let teachers and head teachers get to grips with teaching the current one (in those areas which are struggling) , improve it from there...

Not sure it will be a good thing.
While schools are still assessed on their pupils' performance in league tables, introducing harder qualifications will just sideline more pupils who aren't likely to achieve good enough results, surely?

Still don't understand why they can't have more practical-based qualifications, like the apprenticeships etc. that don't require huge amounts of paper-based exams.

I had a lodger a few years ago who was definitely on the lower tier of academic achievement - he hated school, had hardly any GCSEs but had got into a motor mechanics course. First year = 80% practical, 20% (i.e. one day) in college. Perfect! Second year - ratios reversed. Why?? Just no need for it and he dropped out, no qualifications, because he couldn't handle that amount of academic work (pretty sure he was undiagnosed dyslexic as well but still). He would have been a good mechanic but he got nothing because of the emphasis on paper learning.

I just LOVE the way Gove slags off GCSE Exam boards as if removing "competition" will make it like O levels again.
Does he know so little about education to not know that there were exam boards in the 60's 70's and 80's
I did Cambridge Board at School and then a mix of London and Oxford boards at my retakes
really bright people did Nuffield Sciences and languages were AEB which I think was Anglia

If the only thing it does is get rid of the ludicrous need for A*s, it will be an improvement.

Frankly, about time something was done to bring back rigour to secondary education. A shame 2 of my children have to miss out.

As somebody else pointed out the problem with all this is that the teachers won't be educated to O'Level standard themselves. I know serval with EE's at A'level and third class degree's teaching in a school near you, they'll never cope. Might not be a bad thing either.

Mosman- my sisters kids go to an independent school in the Lake district (Windermere St Annes) which offers the IB. they take boarders and day pupils.

I'm pretty sure it's available where we are heading to live, just hope I've got the $200,000 to fund it.

I did a mix of O levels and CSEs. A grade 1 CSE was the equivalent of an O level in my day and employers understood that. Being in my 40s I find it hard to view D, E, F, G as passes at GCSE. Grade 1, 2 and 3 at CSE much clearer to me.

The main thing I do like about this (as a Physicist) is that they're going back to studying the 3 sciences separately. However what I'd like to see us. Physics graduate teaching Physics, a Chemistry graduate teaching Chemistry and a Biology graduate teaching Biology. But I doubt they have enough teachers and resources to do this.

An I have to say I've never been a fan of continuous assessment and multiple resits, but that is just my opinion.

I think what's being forgotten is that some kids learn better with the Btech style of work and achieve highly because of it! These are the same children that will be sidelined in this proposed new scheme despite being perfectly capable.

So, we have so little money that we're taking benefits from the disabled and cutting state funding for domestic violence shelters ... but we have enough to rework the secondary education system based on political ideology?

I am a parent, and so my viewpoint is that as a customer of education.

I mentioned this in the Secondary Education thread "thank god for the return of O'Levels, CSEs (hopefully) and new and improved A'levels. Just hope that teachers will be given the requisite resources to deal with the changes.

RIP current standard of GCSEs and A' Levels - and good riddance!!!!

PS, my DS has done maths and english topics in primary that I only covererd in secondary. If that is the case - what is actually taught in Y7, 8 and 9. Is it re-taught gain? Just wondering,

Talkingpeace: "I just LOVE the way Gove slags off GCSE Exam boards as if removing "competition" will make it like O levels again.
Does he know so little about education to not know that there were exam boards in the 60's 70's and 80's
I did Cambridge Board at School and then a mix of London and Oxford boards at my retakes
really bright people did Nuffield Sciences and languages were AEB which I think was Anglia"

I think a couple of things have changed. Back in the 60s and 70s, we didn't have a system of league tables and parental choice, so schools didn't publish their exam results, and therefore there wasn't a huge pressure on school to get fantastic O-level results. Therefore they weren't scrabbling around to find the easiest exam board.

Also, I may be wrong about this, but were the London, Cambridge boards etc private companies? Or were they run by some other body such as the universities? I'm ashamed to say I don't know the answer to this, but certainly the modern boards like EdExcel are all about making a profit.

hackmum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_boards_in_the_United_Kingdom
the exam boards were always money making.
When I did my retakes my parents were horrified to discover that the crammer fees did not include the exam fees - they had to write the cheques to the exam boards and it was a couple of hundred pounds for three A levels in the early 1980's.

The exam boards were devalued because they succumbed to political pressure to "improve" grades.
Remember that GCE grades were allocated according to the normal distribution so it was not possible to get more A grades by writing an easier paper.

Bringing back the normal distribution would remove competition between boards, remove the need for A start and make the job of employers and Universities much easier in knowing where candidates REALLY stand.

What has always struck me is, although the grammar/ secondary modern education system was abolished in most areas of the country in 60 s and 70s the selective exam system of Olevels and CSEs continued way into the late 80s. In our school you couldn't do Alevels if you had done CSEs and even then you had to get at least a C grade in your Olevel to take the subject at Alevels. Bear in mind that only 30% of pupils ( ie the top stream)were taught and took Olevels. I have a theory the retention of a selective exam system despite the abolition of grammar schools meant the education system still mainly benefited the top 30% but the move to a universal exam sysytem of GCSEs

and the subsequent dumbing down hugely disadvantaged this top 30%. Imo the bunfight for the few remaining grammar school places reflects parental concern that comps do not get the most out of their brightest pupils as the majority of the attention is given to pulling up Dgrades to C grades. Maybe the reintroduction of O levels will lessen the clammer for the grammars but it will also be interesting to see if they start introducing % allocations for certain grades. I secretly pleased as I am my dc are not great at doing course work and would much prefer a final death exam at the end of 2 years. Also i wonder whether this change would also benefit boys more as I remember on the whole they always did better at the old style O and A levels than girls By the way if Mr Gove wants any old Olevel exam question exams my parents have got a pile of them in them in a cupboard.

I don't necessarily have a problem with a 2-tier system. As already pointed out, we already have that in some form, because of the foundation/higher papers. And no one is fooled that an F-grade and an A are in any way comparable, just because they both have the name 'GCSE'. Employers and colleges routinely ask for, say, 5 A-C GCSEs rather than just '5 GCSEs', which is not much different surely than asking for '5 O-Levels'.

Interesting about exams vs coursework, everyone always says what about the poor kids who aren't good at exams and need coursework to get their grades up. But some (I was one of these) much prefer to do an exam, and find that suits them better than endless dull plodding coursework.

No problems with the exams being made harder, either. I did mine 15 years ago and found them a bit of a joke, and got 'A's without even doing any revision (no wonder I liked exams!). And I'm not some genius with a photographic memory either. I doubt they've got dramatically harder since then, as the trend tends to be the opposite, so dread to think how much they must be dumbed down now.

I think in principle it's a good idea - something needs to be done. I myself have two O levels which I got abroad where they were still doing A levels - and they are rigorous exams.

A levels and GCSEs have got easier; there is no doubt about it. At school my Geman and French teachers used to give us old exam papers from the late 1970s to practise and they'd be university standard today.

I live in NI where the education standard is higher - we have one exam board and it is rigorous (I know - I mark papers) - and we get better results than the rest of the UK. We have grammar schools here - but hardly any private schools so schooling is free.

I also agree that coursework is a bad idea and I chose my university because my subject had very little continuous assessment. My lecturer used to say that a doctor can't consult his books if there's an emergency. I disagree with the poster who said you 'just need a good memory' to be good at exams. N0 - you need to have learned the subject and understood it and be in a position to answer an unseen question on it. This is not the case with coursework.

morethanpotatoprints
I feel saddened by your posts that you describe your self as having learning difficulties even though you have a degree and a PGCE. I don't know what your learning difficulties are, but you must be intelligent to a have achieved a degree and PGCE. Dyslexia is a specific learning difficulty and very different to having global learning difficulties.

I think the important thing is to acknowlegde children's achievement. I hope the new CSE qualification can be a stepping stone to a higher qualification. Some people need a little longer to learn, but they get there in the end. I don't want any child to feel that they cannot have dreams or ambitions. Obviously if there are learning difficulties then it might take that bit longer to get there.

I just hope there is a way of changing direction either the academic or the vocational route in later years.

A lot of children have attitude difficulties rather than learning difficulties causing their under achievement. When people grow up they can then learn to focus and achieve what they want to.

It is undoubtedly the case that GcSes have not served the brightest children well. They provide no stretching at all and no way to distinguish among the top 25%. There has also been an enormous increase in "teaching to the test" over the period of their existence, rather than teaching the subject - I wonder whether altering the exams will affect this.