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

GCSE biology question from June 2011 -

Haemolytic anaemia is a disease in which some of the red blood cells burst open.
Small amounts of haemoglobin may be found in the urine of a person suffering from haemolytic anaemia.
The diameter of a haemoglobin molecule is 5.5 nanometres.
Haemoglobin is not found in the urine of a healthy person, but can be found in the urine of a person with haemolytic anaemia.
Explain why.

Not something we're directly taught but we have to apply our knowledge to answer the question, just like in the examples of O level questions posted.

Compare and contrast table? It was okay if you just made a table? No "whereas birds have adapted to the demands of flight by"?

As regards the second post, I think I probably did a kidney question like that at GCSE! I'm sure I remember wittering on about anti-diuretic hormone, and

It's all a question of what examiners were actually looking for, but the above don't sound outlandish for GCSE.

I would personally term the O Level questions tests of "did you attend the lesson on this or bother to read through the textbook on it?"

The second question isn't as straightforward as it sounds. Iif you read it carefully you being tested on your knowledge of excretion and osmoregulation in both plant and mammal systems. You will Also need to an appreciation of photosynthesis to be able to answer the question fully in order to gain top marks. Olevels were always full of questions like which tested how broad your knowledge actually was and your understanding of what was being asked. My teachers always said Olevels were designed to fail you so beware and read the questions properly.

Er. Yes. I know that. It still doesn't seem incredibly more formidable (provided your exam specification covered plant excretion, instead of new-fangled stuff like DNA, RNA, and keyhole surgery!) than what I remember of GCSEs. I suppose it is possible that I am mixing up memories of GCSE papers with the A-level Biology exams...

It does sound just like it is asking you to regurgitate the chapter on excretion doesn't it? I suppose this is what they mean by an emphasis on rote learning.

Any question which asks you to demonstrate factual knowledge could be described as "regurgitation". This is not a bad thing. You need to show (in any exam) that you have both factual knowledge and that you can use that knowledge in an appropriate way. So a warm up question might be just along the lines of "list X, Y, Z" but a longer answer would require you to relate facts to the actual question (manipulate knowledge to a specific end).

Well-written exam papers should give plenty of scope to display both knowledge and apply it.

As it happens, when I was in my late teens, I had a practically-photographic memory for anything I was interested in. And biology was my favourite subject.

I loved questions like that! It was an opportunity to show off without having to do any work whatsoever. The hardest part was squashing Everything I Know into the lines on the page.

I was no more pleasant a person, then I am now, and unsurprisingly, I had few friends.

Just going through the threat quickly and I do worry! There only seems to be talk about the top grades of GCSE/O-level and A-level. So, I assume that would concern the top 10% of students.

The 20% after that wouldn't be the top groups but they would still be fine.

But, what about the remaining 70% or so? Nobody seems to bother about them much - however, we will need most of those to be well educated and trained to keep the country going, e.g. we all want a good plumber, hairdresser, electrician, gasman ... these people are bloody important and although they many not need or want and A-level in English or Maths, but I think its imperative that they are well educated and trained!

I was also good at memorising, so O-level would have suited me brilliantly. In comparison, the GCSE question on haemolytic anaemia seems to get you to actually think about what you're writing and how fits together in a new situation.

I love Maths when it is taught with insight, relevance and enthusiasm. I have been taught well - my GCSE teacher was brilliant (I got an 'A' with her) and I've been taught by a lack-lustre teacher who mumbled a lot for my A'Level (and scraped a 'C'). Back then, GCSE's were not much different from the old O'Level and the A'Levels were devilishly hard. Fortunately, I had a lot better time at university on my modular degree and my Maths grades kept on getting better until I decided to major in Maths and got a First Class Hons.

I appreciate that the quality of teaching is a major issue with this subject rather than just the syllabus. It's no good if people qualified in Geography, say, teach Maths at Secondary Level. However, the current GCSE in Maths really will not stretch the keenest pupils enough who want to do Maths or Science A'Levels. For starters, there is no calculus, which nobody seems to appreciate the relevance of these days: Many believe it's just useful for working out mechanical accelerations. In fact, calculus is used by actuaries to predict retirement incomes; by medics to understand the build up of toxins in the body; by enviromentalists and fisheries to monitor and manage fish stocks; by civil engineers to predict the stresses on the environment due to flooding - and so on.

I'm not suggesting 16 year olds should be doing mathematical models of air flow for a fighter jet, or other such advanced applications, but it would be nice if they could be exposed to some of the basics and awaken an appreciation for the usefulness of the subject.

In summary, are we bringing up our kids to work in call centres or shouldn't we have a few engineers as well?

Bellbird sounds like a recurrent problem for maths. In my more recent days, we had Foundation, Intermediate, and Higher tiers. Thus hardly anyone seemed to sit for higher, in case they had a bad day, and got a U. Which is why the local college was quite happy with my B, and kicked me out of a GCSE maths retake class, after informing me they didn't teach GCSE higher maths anyway, and put me onto an A level maths course. Which was what I'd wanted all along, so I was incredibly happy.

Glad you got there in the end .. perseverance paid off for me too. However, so many 15 and 16 year olds are put off by the present system where it is better to aim low rather than risk getting a bad grade. If the teachers are not up to teaching at a higher level with knowledge and experience then no-one is going to risk bothering taking those exams.

it's hard to get a job with GCSEs because of the decline of manufacturing, the outsourcing of jobs overseas, the mechanisation of the workforce and the profit-obsessed nature of our economic system which encourages redundancies and lack of job security.

It has been claimed on the internet by aggrieved parents and teachers that some schools now put year 10s through the exams, in order to get the holy C. Then, they receive no further maths teaching through year 11, and no opportunity to retake. If true, then I can see that this frees up time for other subjects. I can see the advantages, but... It does rather close down maths as an A level option, too. Though the extra space in the year 11 schedule makes it easier to pass the other 12 thousand subjects they have.

It's essential that everyone is well educated. Less important that they are well qualified. I interviewed six shortlisted candidates for an entry level job a couple of weeks ago. They all had degress, two had masters and one a phd. One of the tasks was to compose a simple letter, incorporating some basic information. Only one candidate produced a grammatically correct, well worded letter that conveyed all that needed to be conveyed. Six candidates were well qualified but only one was well educated. It beggars belief and is testament to a very sick system.

Wouldn't parents and students have to agree to go for just a C in maths in Y10? I wouldn't!

I haven't interviewed anyone, but I would expect 16 year old with a good GCSE (A or B) in English to compose a simple letter that conveyed a bit of basic information.

If the education system can't achieve that until age 16 then there is something wrong.

gabsid I'm not sure how much imput parents have. It works both ways, of course. My mother was insistent to my school that I should be only entered for Foundation Maths, which at that time, if you got full marks, granted a D. I, and the staff, were insistent that I was bloody doing Intermediate, which went up to grade B. I did Intermediate Tier. Of course, I was 16 at that point, which probably makes a big difference.

I've had emails from graduates with good degrees looking for work. Most of the emails have been shocking in respect of their grammar.

They are really easy though. Like, let's be honest. It's not hard unless you've got learning difficulties. I mean, I took some GCSEs in 1998 and I passed them all and I never went to lessons or read any books. I got an A* in English Lit and I did the coursework at the table on the day it had to go in with the teacher sitting tapping her foot.

This would be explained in my fantasyland by me being an absolute genius but sadly, no! They're just a piece of piss. English lit was just: read poem, respond to poem. Or: read article, summarise article. I do recall getting the sense that in general they just wanted you to have an opinion, god, please, any opinion.

On general literacy, throughout my education (nineties) grammar was never taught nor tested.

Hm, grammar and spelling is important though. Its a first impression for a start, and if you are running a business you are quickly loosing the trust of customers.

I went to school in Germany and they bored me to death with grammar, over and over, until secondary school. Should't there be some middle way?

Is grammar taught again now? DS is in Y2 and has heard of 'doing words' - that's all I know.

Does anyone have any opinions on foreign language O Levels, and whether the fluency required was greater than today's GCSEs? One Old Fogey I Know in Real Life claims they were more difficult, but that they didn't produce actual conversational fluency.

My memories of GCSEs/A levels are dim now (I can't even be properly sure whether I had to make my mother sign permission slips for GCSE maths), but I did do a mfl GCSE for fun recently. I thought it was somewhat hard work, but that doesn't mean the course was hard, for obvious reasons.

GCSE MFL doesn't produce fluency - too much prepared and learned.

More or less fluency, or equal fluency to O levels, though? They're not intended to produce absolute fluency, but the Foundation and Higher tiers are supposed to match up with A1 and A2 on the Common European Framework for Languages. Do they? Did CSEs and O levels do so?