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 am really undecided about this.

I took O levels. My DD has just finished her GCSEs. I have observations about both.

As others have said - we already have a two-tier system with GCSEs as there are Higher papers and Foundation papers. At least with GCSEs the two tiers appear to fit together more coherently than CSE and GCE did. As I recall from my schooldays the CSE could often be a different board to the O level in so people were streamed quite early on for that. I also remember spending ages doing a project for CSE Biology before the teacher decided to enter me only for the O level which was entirely assessed by exam. So all that wasted effort!

I don't think it is necessarily true to say the standard of all GCSEs is lower. I think some are but some I think are at least as high. From what I have seen of my DDs Maths she is doing work of a similar standard to me at that age and I was pretty good at Maths (As for O- and A-level). She has done three separate sciences and they seem pretty rigorous. Also her History seems to involve a lot more understanding things than memorising facts as mine did. However, there are undoubtedly some easier subjects. E.g. her IT is a waste of time - why the hell didn't schools teach proper Computer Science instead of going down the IT route. And I do think Eng Lit is a bit easier than it was - does "Of Mice and men" get chosen so much because it is short?

I do actually favour the idea of one centrally controlled examining board. I don't think it necessarily narrows the curriculum. For some subjects where there is currently a wide choice e.g. History, then surely that could be replicated so that schoold could choose the modules they wish to teach.

Course work - again I am undecided. DD has worked really hard at some of hers but I realise it would be easy for this to be abused.

TalkingPeace: "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."

Yes, agreed.

I'm completely for this.

GCSEs no longer mean anything.

Employers complain that those with GCSE engish and maths can't write or add up.
Sixth form colleges complain that the jump is too big and mnay pupils can't cope.
Universities complain that students can't self motivate and their literacy skills are poor.

As a parent of a year 11, I'm actually quite offended by other posters saying that GCSEs are a 'piece of piss' and 'not worth the paper they're written on'. My DS has had 25 exams this May/June and has worked his bloody socks off to hopefully achieve Bs, As and hopefully a couple of A*. I'm saddened that his hard work will be dismissed by people who think that this was only achieved because he studied easier exams. I suggest some posters take a look online at available past papers and see how they do themselves before making comments about the difficultly of GCSEs.

Not only do they have poor literacy skills but they don't know how to learn - they seem to expect to have their hand held throughout and told what they need to learn, how they need to do their coursework, etc. etc. And Universities are supposed to provide this information because the students are actually consumers paying for a service.

It doesn't do anyone any real favours to show them every step of the way how to achieve their marks. The real world doesn't function like that and they need to learn how to learn themselves.

I don't think there is any need at all for examinations at 16. Just scrap them and focus on educating pupils instead.

I was in a system where we did no exams at 16 and, frankly, I think I got a great and broad education that focused on learning stuff, not being tested!

If they are going to make exams harder then they do need to change the names of them so that it is clear that they are not equivalent. So we don't have a case of students from one year getting an A in the GCSE but students with a similar ability only getting a C the following year. I don't think going back to the old O levels and CSEs is a particularly good idea though, why not come up with a completely new system if you want to change it so badly?

It would be a good idea to let the latest changes go ahead and have time to go through the system before announcing more changes though. In the past 5 years the Maths GCSE (I only mention Maths because that's what I teach, other subjects have changed too) has changed in so many ways. From coursework to no coursework (thank God, I hated having to make the kids do it), from modular exams to linear exams (linear has always been an option but why do that if modular is shown to get better results as they can resit if they need to), introducing more 'functional maths' into the exams. This year's exam did seem challenging for the top pupils as the questions are expecting more understanding of the topics than they have before.

I took GCSEs in 1995 though and they didn't seem particularly challenging for me then so it is entirely possible that the top pupils aren't being challenged in a lot of schools.

LeQueen, virtually everyone does not pass GCSEs with the basic standard to go on to most post 16 training. In fact only half of the population do.

BringBack1996 - it is (very sadly) perfectly possible for your DS to have worked fantastically hard to do exams and achieve great marks without those exams being fit for purpose.

That's true BringBack. I know the year 11s that have just left my class will not have Cs in many subjects. That's not through lack of teaching, or effort, it is because they are finding the exams difficult. My group were not academic, but they didn't have masses of special needs either.

Reallytired. I only had a psychologist assessment a few years ago whilst doing my PGCE. We had to do a diagnostic test to experience what our students would be given. I always knew I had problems but not the severity as I had switched off a lot of the abuse I had experienced as a child. I know this would never happen today, but it was awful and left me severley scarred emotionally. I am dyslexic dispraxic and my report states that my skills in maths are down to a sheer tenacity, or something like that. I can remember being smacked for not being able to add 2 columns to 100, at 7. By the time I'd done one and carried it over I had forgotten what I was doing. My reading speed is half that of a normal adult and the tests for the shapes fitting together my score was a 7 year old. The teachers bullied me throughout my education, threw board rubbers at me and called me all the names that are now considered unacceptable. Sorry to dump everybody, but after a lot of therapy it helps to talk about it. There weren't many options open to me on leaving school but I ended up with a job many of my peers would have wanted. Had I had greater choices I may not have taken the same route and it would have been a shame. I went to college and then uni, yet my level 2 maths stays my biggest achievement, I cried so much when I passed.

I agree, LeQueen, but everyone is so bothered about hurting the feelings of the less academically able that it is felt that all DCs need to be offered the chance to sit the same school leaving examinations.

I agree there are two separate issues here - GCSEs are not at all challenging for the brighter children and don't give them a chance to push themselves and show off their abilities.

And for those who are failing, despite the easy exams, modular courses, resits and coursework...clearly something is wrong. Either they're just not academic, and would be better off doing something else instead of being forced to do exams they have no interest in or aptitude for. Or maybe in some cases there are learning difficulties and inadequate support.

Or (and I think this is very often the case, sadly) it's a question of poor attitudes, lack of aspirations, unsupportive homes, and chaotic schools with no discipline where it's almost impossible for anyone to learn. For those in this category, it doesn't matter much whether the exams are hard or easy, many won't even bother turning up, or even still be attending school by this stage. But this is a separate problem really.

Many students that are likely to gets Es, Fs, Gs etc do often spend one day a week doing vocational training. There are also Btechs which, whilst they're sneered at by Gove, are great at getting some kids qualifications which they wouldn't otherwise get. By that I don't mean these qualifications like pony care which don't count, but thinks like sport or art and design which can help the students who study them get onto a college course and eventually a job.

What I object to about this proposed change is the sense that it's a 'one size fits all' which is not the case.

I'm astonished that so many kids are getting to Uni and they cannot cope with the course work. Could it be that too many A are handed out? I'm 50 now and I did Oxford Board o' levels back in the day. I worked really hard for the 2 A's I achieved. The rest were B's and one C grade. Now, the exam results are published and these young people are getting 9 and 10 A's and A's.

We're we a bit thick back then or have the school kids now made such massive advances?

I like the idea of a Singapore system when children sit O-levels when they are ready.

Ofcourse we need to consider the feelings of the low achievers. There is different in telling someone that they will never achieve and saying to someone they will get there but it will take a little longer.

"I am all for everyone getting a very solid, basic education. But, then at 14 there are thousands of children who should just follow vocational/apprenticeships routes, and not struggle and despair with exams and grades, which aren't going to be well regarded by anyone."

I think that everyone needs Maths and English whether they like it or not. I agree that more vocational learning would be good for some children. However care needs to be not to shut the door on academic learning forever at 14 years old.

LeQueen I wholeheartedly agree with you. I just hope that if a child is good at one or two particular subjects they are allowed to take these at the higher level, instead of everything at the lower because the child isn't a good all rounder.

I think BTechs are fine so long as they are not being dressed up as GCSE equivalent, as they are now.

If one takes a BTech in food technology, it shuld be of a high enough standard that kitchen recognise it as being a very good grounding indeed.
But telling the DC that it is the same as three GCSEs in Latin, chemistry and Music is ridiculous.

The exam should be fit for purpose. It does not have to be, nor should it be, equivalent to anyhting else.

I took O levels myself and teach GCSE now. The core issue for me is what as a nation are we after when we get children to sit exams?

If it's because we want them to know a particular chunk of facts by the end of 2 years, then letting them resit over and over and take their exams in a modular fashion until they have that knowledge, is not a problem.

If on the other hand the main aim is to get them to prove their academic skills in a competitive situation so that employers can gauge their intellectual capacity, then the greater challenge of remembering and retaining 2 years of education is the better tool.

If both those aims are more or less appropriate for different children who need different outcomes for their future careers then possibly we do need 2 routes through the system.

From a teaching perspective I hate coursework- it is getting the kids to jump through hoops for the sake of it, and is hugely open to abuse. You can, within the rules, just keep handing it back until it is half decent and that seems to me to hugely miss the point. The modular system can mean that you are constantly running for a deadline and the resits are expensive and time consuming. In some cases modular deadlines and timetable restraints means the work is being presented in a very awkward order- our triple science kids are having to learnt part 3 of a chemistry topic before they have done parts 1 and 2 for instance.

On the other hand, I taught an year 11 flexible learning group this year - who were also doing 2 days a week at college on vocational courses like mechanics. Some of them had a target of an F at GCSE and there is no way they would have coped without a modular system.

Most of all I wish the government would pick a method and stick with it. I started teaching in 1999, and I am about to start my 3rd version of the GCSE. If this goes through I will be on my 4th.

The national average of A-C including English and Maths, is about 58%. That is not 'virtually everyone'. Sudents from a disadvantaged background stand at about 33% A-C.

We therefore have a majority of the student population who can't achieve 5A*-C now - so what will happen to them under a new 'tougher' system?

My DD2 has global learning difficulties. She will not achieve 5 A*-C. No way. She has just finished her GCSE's - she took exams in foundation maths (she will not do well), an applied science exam and foundation English (also not going to do well). She also took Textiles. She has very good fine motor skills and enjoys making clothes - she got high marks on all the clothing she made. I am very proud of her managing that. BUT there is so much paperwork for it plus the exam. She isn't going to get a good mark overall in that either. I really would appreciate a new kind of qualification for subjects like Textiles whch are more centred on practical skill

I am worried that these plans and the discussion is centered around the O-Level - when actually the majority of the student population will not take them. We need detailed discussion about the other qualifications that will be on offer. What kind of standards are the new CSE's then? Are they going to be of benefit to the majority of students? Because I don't frankly get the impression that Gove cares much about children like my DD2

i agree Lequeen. I did O-level but my DS sat the first year GCSE

What was so wrong with getting a CSE grade 1 which was the equivalent of an o-level C. I think we have focussed far too much on the less academic and their hurt feelings etc.

Also I got 3 D's in o levels which were fails. Nowdays the GCSE D would be a pass.

Agree LeQueenand and Bonsoir.