Gove to announce scrapping of GCSEs

[Itchyandscratchy]

But before anyone is taken in by the leak announcement in the Daily Hate Mail here, take the time to then read this for a more informed version.

With any luck they'll be out of a job in 2015 when this is sposed to be brought in, but there's no doubt GCSEs will be scrapped. What I woud hope is that Labour will get is finger out and propose a system that has had full consultation with schools, teachers, employment agencies, industry chiefs and unions.

It will change how every child is currently taught at secondary school. And I hope that doesn't mean some children's futures are determined by the age of 11.

Your DD's years at school are not intended to train her to become a chocolatier. They were intended to introduce her to Shakespeare and French and history and art and maths. It doesn't matter if she never uses any of them again. I learnt Latin and have never used it again. But these subjects are all part of our common cultural heritage and may lead us on to expand our sharedheritage in the future. Learning Shakespeare makes her educated, so that she shares the same heritage as children at Eton. Learning to become a chocolatier should be done outside of school.

It is teh right of every citizen to get the same education as all other children. It doesn't matter if they get lower grades; they have been exposed to the same common core that our society deems important.

There needs to be better vocational training after school and there should be more collaborative apprenticeships, but school should not become a feeder of teh local plumbing company.

Oh, FGS Claig, you really can talk rubbish sometimes.

So changing the system for something that ignores those who are not in the top 25% is fine in your eyes?

Not providing meaningful vocational routes into employment AND PAYING TAXES for the 75% is sensible, is it?

Ignoring the combined effect of an educational system offering them NOTHING, no prospects AND the changes to the Welfare system meaning that they will be put to work for their benefits is hunky dory is it?

Ignoring the fact that they are spending time at school just to become fodder for 'workfare' or slave labour, as I prefer to call it, is ok then?

Do you have a way out of your ivory fucking tower, Claig?

I can't think of a worse insult than be called Gove undercover.

Copthallresident, do you really think that all the brilliant minds who passed O levels, when standards were higher, couldn't think creatively. Do you think that all of thoise people who went on to become professors were any less capable than the products of a New Labour education system, a system which even some New Labour ministers have admitted suffered from some mickey mouse courses and some dumbing down and grade inflation.

Gove has got a job to do. He has teh responsibility for teh whole education system. He hasn't drawn these ideas up on teh back of a fag packet. He wants to reverse teh decline - not for himself, but teh children of teh country.

I feel that giving DC's a well rounded education is important until 14. If Society didn't agree, then DC's the country over wouldn't be dropping some subjects in favour of others when they choose their options at 14.

I don't WANT my DD to be further educated in Shakespeare, I WANT her to have a chance of gaining employment appropriate to her skills, and paying taxes.

Shakespeare will NOT help her to do this.

Gove is trying to fit square pegs into a round hole.

What possible use will English Lit be to her career? An education isn't THERE to impart every person with exactly the sane knowledge, it is there to enable people to become employed.

If EVERYONE was able to learn exactly the same skills, then EVERYONE would be capable of going to Uni and passing a Medical Degree. They aren't.

Because somewhere on the ground, in the REAL WORLD, rather than Gove's fucking utopia, PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT SKILLS.

And yet, Claig, you apparently passed O-Levels despite being unable to type the word 'the' correctly consistently.

Would that be because typing isn't one of your major skills? Well English Lit isn't one of my DD's skills. But she could bake you under the table...

No, Claig. He is doing this for the top 25% of children in the country.

But never let a little thing like facts get in the way of a blinkered argument, eh.

But the 'Mickey Mouse' courses that people keep spouting about WEREN'T. They were just higher level vocational qualifications that you had to pay tuition fees for...

employers, most especially these days, want employees at all levels with thinking skills

Many would settle for employees with a good work ethic (Another topic in itself) and the ability to spell & perform basic arithmetic. From this point of view we seem to have failed abysmally. We see employers complaining all the time that we're churning out school leavers who cannot do the basics.

And in the modern world we do need employees with thinking skills. Our economy, now more than ever is a knowledge based economy. One of our most successful and profitable companies in the UK makes absolutely nothing. Not one widget comes out of their doors. What they do is design computer processors which other companies must license and make. Do you think they are interested in the poorly qualified? They want the creme de la creme.

And what about our competitors we keep talking about like Germany & Japan? What has made them so successful? Well they have good high tech manufacturing industries. Think Bosch, BMW, Toyota, Sony etc. Do you think their engineers stopped at GCSE level?

We do need thinkers but highly qualified thinkers.

We do still need those who are less able to work in other industries but even there we're failing them. How the heck can we have lowered the bar so much that GCSE grades are practically meaningless yet have 40% of kids leave without 5 good grades?

How is it that at my partner's company, they have people coming in for interviews who cannot answer a simple question like "How much change would you get from £20 if you buy something for £18.42"....even with a calculator!

We do need to raise standards. To say we don't is simply sticking your head in the sand.

But raising standards cannot be done simply by making exams harder. It can only work if other steps are put into place to ensure our kids get a better education all round. That means better teachers, better resources, better discipline in school. More parental involvement etc. etc.

I support the changes as long as it's part of a bigger plan. Otherwise we're just pissing in the wind and we may as well just not bother to start with.

Calling them degrees didn't change the fact that they are higher level vocational qualifications.

Doesn't make them 'Mickey Mouse' courses. Just makes them a sensible route into certain trades...

NiceGuy - Someone with severe dyslexia or other LD's may NEVER be able to spell. But they might have a very good work ethic, honed on attempting to pass GCSE's which is considerably harder for them than your average pupil, where they have had to put in four times the effort that an A* pupil has had to, just to achieve a 'G' grade.

Doesn't mean that they can't cut your hair, or decorate your 3-tier wedding cake beautifully.

'Oh, FGS Claig, you really can talk rubbish sometimes.'

I defy you to find a single example of that.

'So changing the system for something that ignores those who are not in the top 25% is fine in your eyes?'

He is not ignoring 75%. He is demanding that they take more rigorous exams, that they are stretched more to achieve their potential.

'Not providing meaningful vocational routes into employment AND PAYING TAXES for the 75% is sensible, is it?'

I don't think school is about 'vocational routes into employment'. If employment was what it was all about, then they could go back to a school leaving age of 14.

'Ignoring the combined effect of an educational system offering them NOTHING'

An education is not NOTHING. There are children all over the world who would be very grateful to receive th eeducation that we receive. Education is not about employment.

'Ignoring the fact that they are spending time at school just to become fodder for 'workfare' or slave labour'

School is not a waste of time where children just hang around before becoming fodder. It is about learning and thinking and developing a lifelong love of learning so that children can develop in all sorts of directions that interest them. If it was just a waste of time before they become fodder, then there would be no point being at school at all, and it would make sense to get any employment earlier. But school is valuable and that is why there is a law about school leaving age.

'Do you have a way out of your ivory fucking tower, Claig?'
I guess I could always jump.

claig Some of those people who passed O levels may have been able to think creatively but they certainly didn't need to do so to pass them!! I can say this authoritatively having got Grade 1s in 8 in 1973. My DDs both worked harder, had to have a deeper understanding of their subjects and a better grasp of the skills required than I ever did at 16, or even 18. History was a soul destroying vomiting of facts and dates, and I did not get to really think and develop skills in research, critical thinking and developing arguments until university. They already had started to do all this at 16. Gove hasn't put this together on the back of a fag packet, it is the product of is own subjective attitudes, tory and daily hate mail dogma, politics and stereotypes. I do not want my DDs education dictated by politics, I want it to be determined by those who best understand what skills they will need to have happy and fulfilling lives and really make a difference in future. On that I am right there with CouthyMowwearingOrange

'claig Some of those people who passed O levels may have been able to think creatively but they certainly didn't need to do so to pass them'

I had to do some quick thinking to answer essay questions that summed up 2 years of knowledge. A one sentence question could spell pass or fail.

' History was a soul destroying vomiting of facts and dates'
I don't remember that at all. Has anybody got an example of an essay question from O level days. I don't think it was as simple as 1066 and all that.
Gove is not an idiot, he went to Oxford, he doesn't want children to remember dates. He wanst mnore rigorous exams with fewer A grades. If it was about 1066 and all that, then there would be lots more A grades.

And the issues with basic literacy and numeracy are not a Secondary school issue.

By the time a DC gets to Secondary school, the damage is already done. Which is what Labour realised when they implemented the literacy and numeracy hours in Primary school.

If they would just write clearer policies and provide more funding for LSA's and TA's and early intervention and SEN help at Primary school, then there wouldn't be so many illiterate and innumerate Secondary school leavers. By 11yo, the damage is done.

What the education system needs is an early screening test (that'd be the new Y1 phonics test then), FOLLOWED BY good quality interventions.

As it stands, your DC can fail the Y1 phonics test, not achieve a level in the Y2 SATS, and STILL get no help to stop them from falling further behind and to catch up to their peers.

Putting all your eggs in the basket of a new Secondary qualification is a doomed experiment unless there is more readily available help and funding at Primary level.

My DD, had she been given the level of help in Primary that she has had for her first 3 years of Secondary, would not be leaving school with a handful of 'U' grade GCSE's, and she would have had a far better chance of catching up with her peers.

Starting this help at 11yo rather than 6yo meant that the attainment gap had widened too far for her to bridge in just 3 years. At 6yo, she was just 18 months behind her peers. By 11yo, she was 4 years behind her peers.

That gap widened because not enough was done by the education system wrt SEN help between the ages of 6yo and 11yo, despite me doing everything bar taking my illegally acting LA to court. Which frankly, had I been able to financially, I would have done.

But what if their potential is such that they won't achieve a grade at all in an academic based qualification.

Life isn't one size fits all.

Sits on hands and tries to resist the impetus to type "well go on then".

niceguy2" I absolutely agree we needed change and to raise standards. I am not against rigour but setting a 3 hour exam at the end of two years is not the only route to rigour, in fact it may mean less rigour since you can test less than in a series of modular exams and CA (and DDs being at a selective did do all their modules at the end of two years so I know how much more was tested in those exams than the linear IGCSEs, indeed how little was tested in the English lit / lang IGCSE). There was a lot wrong with the current exams but Gove is throwing the baby out with the bathwater purely in the service of politics and dogma.

And you rather contradict yourself, do we need people who can just spell and add up or do we need thinkers? And you know we can teach people a work ethic, a service culture etc. within an education system, and society, that actually recognises and values that some people will contribute to society as waiters, chocolatiers etc. I personally like to be served by someone who thinks and gets personal satisfaction from going that extra mile in whatever they do.

An irrelevant education that is unintelligible to them and bears no meaning on their future IS NOTHING.

I assume all of that lack of help happened under New Labour. It is not Gove's fault. He has a budget and he can't change everything overnight. He is concentrating on reversing dumbing down at GCSE level. But Gibbs did introduce teh phonics test as well. If Gove remains in charge of education and does not become Prime Minister, then I expect that he will sort out other areas of education.

'But what if their potential is such that they won't achieve a grade at all in an academic based qualification.'

I don't think it is about achieving grades, it's about learning something. What is the alternative? A two tier system where they don't study academic subjects?

Couthy i share your suspicions on this. I think they are rubbing their hands in glee and thinking "more fodder for workfare"
Im appalled at how its going to affect your DD.
I also thought that the whole point of school was to prepare young people for future employment too. In fact i was actually TOLD that at school.

And who is going to work in the service industries that the money from the 'thinking skills' occupations wages are spent on?

Workfarers? Or people who actively choose those service industry jobs, and have trained to know their jobs?

Education can be there to attempt to impart a good, well rounded knowledge of different subjects, but at some point, we have to accept that not many people are equally skilled in each area, and say that it is time for people to specialise.

The issue is, really, whether that is to be at 14, 16, or 18 years of age.

IMO, starting to specialise more at 14 has been happening for generations - first with the school leaving age being at 14, and people going on to either take an apprenticeship in a trade or going on to further training, choosing which O-Levels or CSE's to sit and which to drop, or choosing your GCSE options.

Why is it suddenly not acceptable to start the specialisation process at 14?

If there were more vocational options available at 14yo, I would think that there would be far fewer NEETS aged between 16 and 24.

If that two tier system offered employer accepted vocational qualifications like NVQ's or C&G qualifications, then I for one wouldn't have an issue with it.

What I DO take issue with is a two-tier system that makes no provision for the pupils with vocational skills rather than academic ones.

Having DC's at either end of the scale, and one in the middle, as a parent, I want an education system that works effectively for ALL my DC's, and gives them all their best chance of both 'achieving their potential', AND gives them employer accepted qualifications that are relevant to their chosen career paths.

Neither the current system nor Gove's tinkering offers that.

What I want is for all of my DC's to be able to live independently, work and pay taxes, be contributing members of Society.

The modular system of GCSE's offered that to a point. The linear system doesn't. And going back to O-level style qualifications without a sensible, meaningful vocational alternative won't either.