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

claig I don't know the figures but would hazard a guess at about 50% taking higher in maths if the pass is about 58%. This was confused by modular as you could take one or two modules at higher and the other at foundation if you wanted.

I don't believe in everyone running separate races. I believe everybody should be in the same race, follow the same rules and learn the same stuff. If some are like Usain Bolt, then they can do extra on their own outside of school.

claig wanting everyone to be able to do simultaneous equations and demanding that everyone sit a test in simultaneous equations will not result in everyone being able to do simultaneous equations, trust me.

That's OK, at least they will have had teh chance to be taught it with their peers. Not everyone is good at everything, but at least they weren't excluded from a core syllabus that is necessary at that age. Not everyone can pass, some will fail. We have to accept that, or we create a mickey mouse dumbed down system. Those who are failing and falling behind should be given extra help and 1-to-1 etc.

claig is it worthwhile to try to teach a student to solve simultaneous equations when they have yet to master basic equations? Maths is a hierarchical curriculum, you can't advance onto more complicated concepts and hope to succeed if you don't have the previous level under your belt.

But then what do you do? Suppose they never get basic equations, do you never move on to trigonometry? You have to move on, but I think something must be going wrong if they don't get basic equations? Maybe the syllabus should cover less and give more time to grasp the fundamentals.

claig

I did simultaneous equations at GCSE. Everyone in every set at school did. We used a quadratic formula which most were taught to plug numbers in to. Sometimes we did word problems with two unknown quantities. None of those problems was of any use to me.

After 16 we learned about multiplying and dividing using matrices, and then simultaneous equations became really useful, because you could use them in real world ways without having to have numbers that were contrived to fit the programmed way of solving the problem.

I've never understood why the GCSE teaching was of any use, either mathematically or otherwise. Just seems a touchstone, along with calculus and knowledge of kings and queens, that is trotted out in discussions of dumbing down. Who finds this useful, and why?

claig

"Maybe the syllabus should cover less and give more time to grasp the fundamentals."

You mean, like, a syllabus with reduced content, checking that basic level stuff is thoroughly understood?

Isn't that dumbing down?

What do we do? We set them so the ones who don't get basic equations keep working at that level while the more able students carry on up the grades. A top set will have mastered all the topics and be able to do all the questions on the paper and get an A, set 4 will have done simultaneous equations, trig etc but probably not cosine rule or algebraic fractions and other A stuff so will sit the same paper as the top set but not be able to attempt the harder questions and get a B.
The C grade student who sits the higher paper will be faced with an exam that they can't answer most of. It's not great for them.

'Isn't that dumbing down?'

It's getting awfully close. Not a good idea.

I'm sorry, but you suggested it?

Maths doesn't have to have direct applications in the real world to be useful. It teaches a way of logical thinking, of arguing your solution is correct by showing your working out. Logical problem solving is a great skill to acquire.

'I've never understood why the GCSE teaching was of any use'

They are all building blocks and develop thinking.

I couldn't stand geography and did it for 3 years. I've never used it since. I did Latin, I've never read Virgil since. But it focused my mind, taught me how to apply myself and if geography would have fired me up, then it might have set me on that path.

Virgil, I like. One day I'll read it in English, I couldn't do it in Latin now.

I think that one universal paper with no tiers would be even worse. If you're a D/C borderline candidate, you're more likely to achieve that grade C if you're doing a paper which you can answer the majority of, whilst on a higher paper you're less likely to achieve that C as you will be demoralised from not being able to answer most questions so won't attempt questions you could do.

As it stands, the end of a foundation paper is the same as the beginning of the higher paper. The only difference is that the foundation has more easy questions and the higher more harder ones. Everyone is taught the same basic maths, except those who are capable of expanding on that can.

Yes, but the paper has less worth since it is foundation (they daren't call it lower), whereas the other paper they do call higher. Everyone knows what's what and they know they are not the same. At least if they were the same, then there is no less worth, and children can have private tutors to push them up a level rather than being stuck at the foundation level.

I haven't read all of the thread because it is SO long now! However, I just wanted to add a few things.

First of all, GCSE, I can understand you being upset by some of the things being said here. I did O levels and my ds2 did GSCEs. They are certainly different and maybe not perfect but then O levels weren't either. I live in Belgium where a lot of emphasis is put on learning by rote and passing exams and I find that exasperating. I think this bypasses a lot of children who are hardworking but find the exam situation stressful. To work hard for two years and then fail because of your performance on one day is not realistic. This isn't what you'd be expected to do out in the "real world" so why should it be at school? I hope that the English/Welsh system doesn't go back to lots of learning by rote. It is not useful in a world where you have the internet at your fingertips and other skills are much more useful. Everything is different from when we left school and the skills you learn at school should reflect that. The Belgian children have no imagination and find it difficult to actually give an opinion about anything in school because they are not expected to.

On the other hand, Belgian children spend a lot more time learning their language. Far too much time to be honest and not enough time actually putting into use the grammar etc they learn. What is required here is somewhere between the two as it does shock me when I see the lack of grammar and bad spelling a lot of children leaving school in the UK seem to have.

Someone mentioned calculus in maths GSCE. This is already included in the IGSCE programme.

I'm sure there were other things but they seem to have slipped my mind at the moment!

I don't understand what you mean by less worth, Claig. A C gained on the Foundation paper is worth exactly the same as a C gained on the higher paper.

Re tutors to push up levels - the decision about whether to enter a student for the foundation or higher tier is often left till the last minute so there is plenty of opportunity to move up a level.

'Pupils scoring as low as 16 per cent could be awarded C grades in one Edexcel maths GCSE paper, and an A* grade with only 47 per cent in an AQA business studies paper. They could also achieve a C grade with 20 per cent in AQA GCSE maths, 25 per cent in classical Greek or 28 per cent in physics.

At Edexcel, C grades at GCSE were awarded for 32 per cent in a French paper, 36 per cent in German and 39 per cent in religious studies.'

If this is true, then sitting one paper doesn't sound too bad.

What about a D on foundation and a D on higher?

claig

The point is that media studies can focus the mind and teach people to apply themselves. Indeed, anything can. If that's the aim then have a test on how to memorise Eastenders scripts for the past twenty years-it would demand a great deal of application and focus. Coursework certainly provided better evidence of consistent application in 'real life' contexts than a two-week exam period did.

It's that that really gets me about O-Levels as a standard. The point is they were designed for a different world. O-Levels were more 'demanding' in that they prepared pupils better for academic life, because the expectation was most who did them would move on to university and into professional jobs. CSEs were fairly useless, because most people could move from them into training and build a skilled career that way (as many in my family did).

But in the 1980s, and especially now, this isn't the case. Upping the academic content to include some stuff that seems well hard doesn't meet the criticisms of those who think dumbing down means producing less employable people. It's an exam for a dead world.

So, why is reform needed? Who is it needed for? And which need do you prioritise?

When you achieve your final grade though, it doesn't say what tier you've sat, it just says the grade. That's the key difference between GCSE and O level/CSE - you can sit the lower paper and still have a chance of achieving a qualification that is valued.

'When you achieve your final grade though, it doesn't say what tier you've sat, it just says the grade. That's the key difference between GCSE and O level/CSE - you can sit the lower paper and still have a chance of achieving a qualification that is valued.'

I didn't realise that. That is good.

There is nothing to go with your gcse maths grade that says whether you got it on Foundation or Higher. If you got a C in maths, you got a C in maths. They are seen as the same qualification. Not 'equivalent' like CSE top grade and O-level, there is no distinction.

adelaofblois, "It's that that really gets me about O-Levels as a standard. The point is they were designed for a different world." Precisely.