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.

LaQueen - you feel that because you can do it, anyone can. That's JUST NOT TRUE. My DS1 learnt times tables by rote. He has instant recall. My DS2 learnt times tables by rote. He has reasonably quick recall, once his brain has processed the question (he takes longer to process information and questions asked of him due to one of his SN's). My DD was taught her times tables by rote. She has NO recall of them.

Just because you could learn your times tables by rote, as can MOST people, it actually doesn't follow that EVERYONE can.

I have evidence in front of my own eyes and ears that despite all 3 of my older DC's being taught times tables by rote, one of them has no recall.

I am immensely proud of my DD's progress in Maths, at 11yo she didn't securely recall number bonds to 10. Tonight doing her homework on MyMaths, she was rounding up numbers to one decimal place and to the nearest whole number, and got 98% of the questions right. That might be level 3/4 work, but to me it just shows how far she has come in the last 3 years.

Multiplication isn't going to be her strong point, it never will be. She has a calculator on her phone. And as she points out to me - no one is good at everything, but everyone is good at something. She is good at Catering, and hopes to make a Career of it, and be a productive member of Society. She doesn't waste time bemoaning the fact that she is not good at multiplication, why should she when there is a tool she can use to do that for her.

Many moons ago, we measured using the tips of our thumb and the length of our feet, hence feet and inches. Then some bright spark invented the tape measure and ruler. How many people now measure solely using their thumb tip and their feet?

Yes, it is good to be able to do multiplication in your head - but there is a widely available tool to use for that task, so why is it seen as such a crime for my DD to use one?

Another thing that my DD pointed out to me was that Stephen Hawkins is one of the cleverest men alive. But he isn't very good at walking, because he has a disability that makes that impossible for him. She then added that she is very good at cooking, but she isn't very good at Academic things, because she has a disability that makes it far more difficult for her to retain the facts in the way needed.

I think, personally, she has a fair point. That harks back to her previous saying that No one is good at everything, but everyone is good at something.

But, I do think that Academies is part of what the great and the good now want. Blair supported academies and Gove does too.

LaQueen I went to a direct grant grammar school, and before that it's Prep School. I had as formal and old fashioned an education as just about anyone in the country. I am grateful that it taught me to read phonically and gave me an amazing grounding in Maths, such that when I came to have to complete a Maths module as part of a Masters in Business, with just an O level gained 12 years before I could spend a night with a undergraduate maths text book and teach myself the advanced maths I needed to calculate the equation of a demand curve. But I still don't have instant recall of my tables, I can brush them up to the point where I can but then they go rusty again. In addition I got 99% for that night's work but most Maths and Economics graduates got 90% with an hours work because they appreciated that an estimate achieved by working out the much simpler equation of two nearby points was a much more efficient use of their time. And then of course when I came to apply that knowledge as a marketing professional, I had software to do that job for me. Academic rigour is useless without the other skills to apply it.

That direct grant grammar school was an absolutely miserable experience, a few shining inspirational teachers but mostly they leached the life out of everything they taught, and the confidence out of everyone they taught, and I know many who went to Grammar Schools who had exactly the same experience . We all pretty much got a clean sweep of 1s at O level and As at A level but we emerged very ill equipped for the world of university or work. I didn't have the confidence, let alone the skills to apply my intellect fully at uni until the third year. It took me until my late twenties to develop the confidence and creative and strategic thinking skills to enable me to succeed in my career ( and then to change it's direction back to the academic world and succeed again), and frankly very few of my peers ever did, ending up in jobs that in no way reflected their potential. Our undergraduates come to us so much better prepared not just with knowledge but with confidence, passion for their subject and a much wider skill base. I would dread having to weed out of the narrowly qualified Gove babes the ones that will actually have the skills to succeed in our course, except that by then I will have my pension!

And of course the irony is that there has been absolutely no rigour in the way that Gove has arrived at his assessment of the current state or the research underpinning the development of his proposals. I have not yet seen one statement he has made that he backed up with sound research or that was not easily undermined by subsequent exposure to analysis, it is rhetoric based on stereotypes and anecdote. What he is proposing is the imposition of political dogma rather than managed change based on sound research of the current state and the actual strengths and weaknesses, problems and opportunities and into the desired goals, with sound development of a plan that will achieve an effective transition between the two. The latter is the rigour that would be imposed by any successful organisation.

When I was at school I ended up taking both o levels and CSE s. they couldn't decide if I was clever or not obviously! So two sets of exams. I got all grade 1 in the CSEs and Cs B and A in o levels so waste of time. Are we going back to this?
At the moment we need to face the fact that you cannot progress with D or F at GCSE. I have students tell me they want to be midwives. I say what did you get in science ? They say F! I want to say 'wake up!' we have not managed expectations of these kids very well. They all think they can do quite complex jobs but without trying too hard. The drop out rate of some uni courses is 60% and it's because the students cannot manage the academic study.
I am no fan of Gove I worry about the Tories taking us back to Victorian era but something must be done. My 7 year old dd answered some GCSE Mathis questions correctly yesterday that my DH had in his pocket. Should she be able to do that?

If they were Foundation GCSE's, and your 7yo is good at Maths, then yes. I assume your 7yo got lvl 3 at the end of Y2?

If so, then yes, the easiest questions on a Foundation GCSE will be able to be answered by a bright 7yo.

And my DD is sensible, she knows her limits. She knows that she will never be a doctor or go into law.

She has chosen a career path appropriate to where HER skills lie.

At 14, and the start of Y10, she has just hit level 4 in Maths.

She should still get a qualification that recognises the hours and hours of frustrating work that she has put in to dragging herself up to that level. Her Maths is functional. Not good, but functional. She can weigh and measure.

My 10yo is working on level 7 Maths. Everyone's different, but it shouldn't mean that there isn't an appropriate qualification for them.

My DD, with Gove's exams, could carry on doing Maths until she is 30 and STILL not achieve a pass. Because she is just never going to 'get' things like Pythagorus theorem or quadratic equations.

Why do those who think that everyone should leave school at the same level as everyone else not open their eyes, look around themselves, and see that EVERYONE HAS DIFFERENT SKILLS.

Stop trying to fit square pegs in round holes, and provide qualifications for everyone.

I wonder if it would be better to make it more clear what we think GCSEs/O levels are actually for.

Are they to show the outside world that you have a basic level of proficiency in a subject?
Or are they to show you really know your eggs? To a level that is not necessary day to day, but displays academic ability?

I'm not sure that one qualification can actually do both these jobs.

Isn't about time we introduced a test for proficeincy in english and maths, for those students like couthy's DD? Somehting that shows they have a decent level in both. But not lump her in with those students who want to take academia further.

Because by doing that all that happens is that you either set her up to fail. Or you water down the test so that those wishing to display academic rigour cannot do so.

Been giving it some thourght and wondered yes it varies.

but whats national average of kids that achieve a-c grade gcse?

for some reason I have it in my head its50%but that could be to do with crap secondrys sorry I mean academies of excellance here.

A privious poosted who stated 30%went to uni what about the other 70%fantastic question.

It wasent just gcses/a levels that were dumbed down it was apprenticeships too being reduced in time frm like 5years to 2years-well that was case in carpentry.

we have shortage of practical trade skills yet fe colleges unable to offre many places so so competition for these places are feierce and usally require gcses c in maths , english and sometimes scienece.

I also dontb think the range of jobs are as good as when my parents grew up.

My dad worked as apprentice with local council planning department.

Those who went to grammer but dident wantt uni went on to secretary or bank cashier even as those jobs were highly regarded and paid higher.

we have no industry.
most of our jobs are service sector jobs/tertiary.

A lot are retail no wonder we went bust if we just relied on the shops.

Dont get me wrong having worked in retail and worked my way to the top some jobs are quite skilled but others are very boring, low paid.

Then lets address -The rise in special needs.
many more statemented kids than their seemed before.
some of that is down to specific conditions being formerly recognised.

But if we have a larger proportion if special needs again unsure what percentage is then we do need to cater for them.

I do believe from experience in my school and my step son only small proportion have geuine learning difficulties.

Some autistic peopel can be very bright and shoudlent be streamed into vocational.

A lot seems to not be so much learning difficulties its more like cant be bothered and behavioural issues that stop him from learning as in some ways he seems like could be bright lad just massivly under achieving.

He spent a great deal of last year at a PRU school which i think is more about containing problem kids than teaching them, sounded liked a holiday camp and worried the naughtier boys would rub off on the semi good ones.

Its horrible going up when your mum doesnt have much faith in you and doesnt value education-just said dident think it suited me.

Its horrible when kids get dumped in bottom clases when they could do better. instead of how many acheive an a how many reach their potential?

what can kids aspire for if not uni?

with risng rents, living costs there will be a lot of adults still living with parents. Think council tax could be fairer and shouldent have to pay for kids who dont work.

LeQueen surely a comprehensive education system needs to have a universal examination system? We can't have an education system that is geared up towards gaining qualifications that aren't open to all children.

I don't see why it has to one examination system mamma.

Most of us take our driving tests. When we pass it shows that we have reached a level of proficiency deemed acceptable.

However, if we want to specialise in driving we have to take further tests to show our expertise.

Providing that the proficiency tests in english/maths etc are accepted as being of a high enough standard, then they will do the job nicely for those who do not wish to pursue academia.

There's nothing to say of course that those students can't enjoy an education that includes more than the contents of the proficency tests, but I can see no reason why they should tested. That just turns somehting that should be joyous and beneficial into something tortuous.

I completely agree with word - except that I'd take it further, I think all children should have the opportunity of a liberal arts education, but they don't need to be tested on anything other than proficiency in English and Maths (which does not need to include weighing and measuring FFS) and maybe citizenship and personal finance as well - unless they want to be. And there should be no stigma attached to obtaining additional academic qualifications later on if suddenly that seems like the right thing to do (as there is no stigma attached to mature degree students, for example).

I also agre with LaQueen regarding practical things which don't really have a place in a school environment at all. I'm delighted that DD1's school doesn't do cookery (or Food tech as they call it now, trying to make it sound clever). I'm very not delighted that DS has to do it at his school.

And could people please stop conflating people with SENs with people who aren't academic. Some people with SENs aren't academic, some are VERY academic. In the same way that some people without SENs aren't academic and some are.

There is also an assumption from the powers that be that if you're not 'academic' you should have a 'technical' education.

As a professional engineer, I find it a bit irritating that the assumption is that 'technical' is for dim people! (You need 3Bs at A-level to get on to an engineering degree that enables you to become Chartered)

Plus, many academic people are great at unacademic things - like music, art, knitting, running. Children should be encouraged to try and enjoy everything - no-one should make assumptions about their skills.

I also agre with LaQueen regarding practical things which don't really have a place in a school environment at all. I'm delighted that DD1's school doesn't do cookery (or Food tech as they call it now, trying to make it sound clever). I'm very not delighted that DS has to do it at his school.

You do? I quite like it when schools branch out and offer vocational courses. People cook for a living, people can become professional chefs so I don't think its out of place for schools to teach something that some students might be able to forge a career out of.

catinhat I agree.
I think an education should encompass all manner of things.

But I can't see what the obsession is with testing students on it.

I know plenty of home educated DC who got places at excellent universities without swathes of GCSEs...

Therhurbarb

Rote learning has little place in maths - only in basic arithmetic. E.g. early primary school stuff.

Proper maths is about understanding and modelling. If you don't understand, you can't progress.

This is the problem...people like Gove think that maths is arithmetic but arithmetic is just a tool.

Music and art can be highly academic subjects. They are a broad church.

@smells it depends if you think school education should be all about getting a job. I don't think it should be.

I think the whole curriculum needs an overhaul anyway. Kids are studying a lot of subjects because Aristotle thought it was a good idea, FFS. We need an open debate about what school is for, what school is supposed to achieve, & what kids need to be equipped to deal with modern life.

Personally I would not make maths compulsory beyond the age of 14, or indeed any particular subject. With languages, say, if you started at primary school by the time you got to 14 you'd have a more than adequate level.

MordionAgenos

Agree with you - Gove seems to dismiss subjects like music and art as 'easy' subjects.

But, they can and should be explored at as much depth as possible.

*Its going to be interesting to see exactly what happens when all of the changes finally meet up.

gove hasn't left an area untouched, so we don't know if any of his changes are compatable with each other yet. *

This is very true, Boney. One of the most infuriating things about the exam shake up is that there is no joined up thinking between this and the curriculum reforms that are also being planned. What is the point of pronouncing on how you are going to examine children when you haven't yet decided what you are going to examine them in? It worries me is that we don't yet know what the new secondary English curriculum will contain.
Also, as an English teacher, I certainly don't believe that one three-hour exam at the end of a two-year English literature course is the best way to examine the knowledge and skills acquired over that time frame. At the moment the English Literature GCSE is assessed by two 1hr45min exams and two 2 hour extended essays sat under exam conditions. How is a single three-hour exam going to test pupils' knowledge and skills as comprehensively as that. And half the people who are applauding Gove's burbling about 'rigour' in testing probably don't even know how GCSEs are currently examined.

It seems to me, from even a cursory inspection of DD1's syllabus, exam load etc, that subjects such as English Lit, English Lang, RE, History and especially music are tested with much more rigour and depth than when I did those subjects for O level (with the caveat that she does no coursework, it's all controlled assessments and terminal exams at her school). There are clear issues with maths and physics (so, possibly, the other sciences too) and MFL. But a sensible approach would be to take a subject by subject view, starting, as others have said, with the curriculum.

My comments about Gove - he makes my blood boil - where are the principles? Never mind the rush to change.

Do they/we want every child to get a certificate with a reasonable grading or do they/we want the harder working and better at exams and fact retention to be rewarded? I would prefer children to be better prepared for jobs.

I would prefer to have a system at both ordinary and advanced levels where governments have no say whatsoever in the set-up or running and which are set-up to be merit and knowledge retention based. I'm fed up with schools and exams being used as a political football. It should be impossible for every year to gain more A+++ than the previous. Have these people ever heard of a bell curve and moderation? The A levels were graded too lazily and look where it took us - way down the international standards tables.

What I would prefer is streaming into vocational and degree qualifying courses after 16. It has been said that universities and employers are not happy with everyone getting good exam grades - so what happens? they revert to type and it's where mummy and daddy went to school/work and whether you have a rich background - same as for degree funding & places from this now on. Or worse you earn 4 A* and still don't get on a decent paid course because of the same.

For me that sucks! Gove and Cameron are hiding their overt discrimination against social mobility with 'change for the sake of change' because Tarquin and Trixibelle will go to private schools and Oxbridge regardless. Then they will work for mum and dad's mates when they graduate. That is reality. Gove and co do not give a fig for the average person. But then what politician is not already a millionaire ex-Etonian? (I am not a supporter of any party btw)

Hence - I say start with agreeing the principles. Merit based training, enabling social mobility, preparing for work, a fixed international standard and no more messing around and lying to us. How hard can it be - people go abroad and their kids get other qualifications! The world is laughing at us.

I'm not holding my breath though.... we're waiting on idiots in power - the other consequence of a non-meritocracy.... time for my de-stress.

Gove was adopted into a Labour household. He went to a state school and then won a scholarship to an independent.

He is all about social mobility and absolutely believes in it.