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.

BigBoobied - yes, there seem to have been too much aiming for higher maths and not enough stopping for the basics.

Makes me think of the carboot sale the other week, where a woman sold everything for 80p, I bought 2 items from her and she had to think about it for at least 10 seconds! Makes me more determined to keep pacticing those timestables and keep DS (7) away from calculators for the time being.

And I don't think that woman was so busy with her maths degree either that she forgot her adding/x tables.

Of course there are problems in Germany too gabsid. But the British system looks like a shambles in comparison and in the meantime everyone is arguing about punctuation...I know I wouldn't mind if my plumber can't spell so much as I mind when he can't do a good job because his training was not so thorough.

The British system is a shambles because every government keeps changing and modifying it, rather than leaving things alone for a while, see how they work and then making informed changes/improvements, rather than having some fuzzy, nostalgic idea and changing the whole system in a blink of a moment - its mad!

I would doubt a plumber who couldn't spell because all he is going to write is little notes, invoices and letters - this should not be beyond a qualified plumber.

WillPen Not the first. Our students are confident, engaged, motivated and very hard working. They know how to write an essay with an argument written in good English and with numerical analysis to provide evidence where necessary, and they contribute intelligently in tutorials, and they get 2.1 s and 1sts because they work incredibly hard. In my 70s classes in a Russell Group uni we were able to spend most of our time in the bar and still get a 2.1, and spent our first and most of our second years learning how to write a decent essay (when we did work) which developed an argument and everyone sat like lemons in tutorials scared to say a word to the crusty old lecturers, and baffled by Marxist theories from the younger ones. I remember one crusty old lecturer commenting to my tutor that I had ventured an opinion adding "the gals got spirit". Now our tutorials are "spirited" intellectual debates and if students aren't at first confidant to contribute original thought, then that is surely our job (and often it is those with SLDs who prove best at it)? Of course as a few have posted below all the skills that equip them to be ready for study at the higher level, a passion for learning, research skills, ability to evaluate sources and marshall and balance the facts to develop an argument are what the O levels did a poor job of examining. The GCSEs had, at least, evolved to give pupils a chance to develop these skills.

If there is a problem with basic literacy and numeracy skills these should be addressed at Key Stage 3, if not 2. Poor teaching skills need to be addressed by improving the training and status of the teaching profession.

As person after person here with a DC who has done GCSEs has highlighted, there was a need for them to evolve and change but there were also good things and what was needed was an evidence based review not a kneejerk reaction.

Surely good exam technique requires good analytical skills? You can't answer an exam question without breaking it down and working out what is relevant and what isn't.

You're exactly right BBB. Students must be able to show higher level skills to get the highest marks.

Was there ever a time when 9 year olds didn't learn tables? How do you do division without tables?

claig that will not work. Whilst I approve of a move to better emphasis on literacy and numeracy skills within primary schools, Gove is going the wrong way about it and punishing millions of children in the process.

He does not take into consideration those children who do get consistently good grades for coursework but fall apart in exam conditions.
He has dismissed the needs of children with learning difficulties.
He has downgraded teaching and wiped out creative thinking.

What will happen now is that teachers will take classes based on repetitive teaching methods for all subjects just to get them through their exams. Children will have little understanding of what they are being taught and as coursework won't matter as much, teachers will stop bothering with it.

Having so much emphasis on exams will not work. And what is worse is that there is absolutely no provision now for children who leave school with nothing. The government are failing them. Gove is failing them.

Yes we need reforms but these are not them.

Yes rote teaching has its place, as I've already said, largely in maths, as you have all said. That is already happening.

Does anyone have one other example of where rote teaching is relevant in any other subject?

In MFL - if you haven't got the time to go to a country and absorb the language and culture that way its useful to do some vocab and grammar learning. However, having said that, emphasis should still be on using the language as a means of communication as well as exploring and analysing written and spoken language.

LaQueen

"Frankly, something had to be done.

Because, despite the rise, rise, rise and rise of exam results over the past 15 years...we have fallen lower and lower in the global literacy/numeracy league tables."

There is no such thing as a global league table. The data generated from PISA is not meant to generate league tables.

Agree, LaQueen. I had a bit of a ruck on MN some time back with someone who said that learning by rote was unfair to those in her class who couldn't remember anything. Piffle, I said. Learning by rote is actually helpful imo to those of low ability. They leave the table with something. Even if they don't understand the mechanics (and really, how many do?) they can instantly recall, if not 12X11, then definitely 5X5 etc.

I think there's a place for the "creative curriculum" but frankly if you haven't had the basics drummed into you then you're accessing nowt.

Rhubarb - another example of useful rote learning apart from X tables ?

How about the song from Horrible Histories listing the names of the Kings and Queens of England ?

It would have been handy to get that info under my belt at some stage - would have a much better grasp of history if I had

Can't believe I'm actually standing up for rote learning !

THERhubarb I would argue for a lot more rote learning in MFL - you know the sort of thing, basic vocabulary, irregular verbs, the rules of grammar. The current phrasebook approach is useless and does not teach anyone to speak a foreign language properly, read a novel in a foreign language or write an essay/business letter in a foreign language. I took the equivalent of E levels in the Netherlands and right up to the end of my pre-exam year we would have a weekly test on irregular verbs, which counted towards our final report.

But having said all that, we would also be expected to write creatively and with good content as well as correct spelling, grammar and punctuation, and we would be expected to converse intelligently in the language. You can't teach those skills with a focus on rote learning to the exclusion of all else.

IMO Gove's plans tilt a long way too far in the direction of changing drones - and if what NobleGiraffe has said on another thread is right, there are no humanities in the new EBaccC. Which is frankly insane.

And I meant A-levels .

Letty and Laqueen. You are singing my song, but unfortunately not everyone sees it like us.
I wanted my dd to have a better education than I had and could see that school just does not work well for her, on many levels. So we left, voted with our feet. I now get to teach her how I want her to learn and it is great for us, although admittedly wouldn't suit everyone.

I would be interested in how rote learning could be applied to mfl, as dd is learning Italian and as not a ncc subject inexpensive resources are hard to come by.

I actually agree that there are some areas you should rote learn and vocabulary, spelling and times tables and, later, periodic tables are examples BUT when I was helping my daughter in the lead up to 11+ one of the areas that I had to quickly polish up to keep one step ahead was my times tables and newly armed with this knowledge I fired 78 at a group sat around the dinner table, including the Head of Equities on the main global board of a investment bank, a risk and operations MD for same, an accountant, and the Finance Director of FTSE 100. Not one of them except me could come back with the answer without a certain amount of counting on fingers and toes! You can't retain that degree of rote learning all your life. It is important because it does give you a feel for numbers which makes you instinctively question whether anything involving numbers is right. However what the schools are much better at now is giving them strategies so that they can get to those numbers more quickly than we do. My daughter have now taught me I 8 and 8 until I was sick on the floor (64) and that 9 = 10* less the number you are multiplying it by.

However why Jugglingwithpossibilities do you think you would have a better grasp of History if you had rote learned a list of Kings and Queens. I do know them but only because I visited castles and palaces, read Ladybird books and 1066 and all that (Horrible Histories predecessor) and Jean Plaidy (Phillippa Gregory's predecessor - but worse) and developed a love of history which made me want to understand the personalities, currents and forces which shaped it. The sort of rote learning that was inflicted on me at O level did nothing to contribute to that process, quite the opposite, and I certainly can't reel off the 18c and 19c dates, politicians and acts of parliament I had to regurgitate to pass.

It is a well known fact that very few adults know 7 x 8. The 7's is a very nasty table. However, most people (with a passing aquaintance with tables) would know that it is 40 or 50 something.

I like the bent finger way if doing 9's.

Actually, I'm all for a bit of rote-learning. Kings & Queens song is one of mine & ds's favourite things (he's a History boy...).

Also great for times tables & Latin verbs, & whilst I'm happy to do both with my lot at home & whilst they're at primary age, I see no problem with re-introducing the times tables to primary schools if they aren't already there.

It would be nice to see higher expectations at 16, though, than parrot learning.

Gove's an idiot. A blithering, selfish, egomaniacal fool.

Agree with Rhubarb's post of 16:15.

I think the point of learning history and geography facts is that it is easier to make links if you have a certain amount of retained knowledge.

However, 50 years ago if you couldn't remember a fact you might have to wait till you could get to a library. Now all you need is a phone (and a healthy amount of scepticism about the veracity of the Internet) so things have changed.