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.

Being as the Govt are planning to make staying in school to 18 compulsory, it begs the question whether any national assessment in year 10 will be neccessary.

Students go onto uni because so many employers require it as a bare minimum. For most jobs you shouldn't need a degree. It isn't the students being ridiculous in continuing into higher education, it's the employment market.

I think that the curriculum up until 16 should remain academic, but the actual results you get at 16 shouldn't matter as much, or perhaps shouldn't matter at all.

The level of knowledge and understanding to get A*-E in History, Geography, Science etc isn't that great. But people do need to know it. It is part of living in and participating in a democratic society that you have a basic understanding of the world around you.

If we continued to teach that, but worried less about the results, people could then move on to either A levels or vocational courses at 16. If people who are perfectly capable of doing a catering course can't get a C at GCSE, then the issue isn't that they shouldn't study Geography if they can't get a C, but that catering courses at 16 shouldn't be asking for C grades.

Yes, I agree MarysBeard.....it isn't the students being ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, however, that one needs a degree now to do a job that, in my generation, one could do at 16, leaving school without A levels even (e.g nurse, secretary, clerk in a building society/bank/insurance company). Many of my contemporaries left at 16 with 3, 4, 5 'O' levels and just went to work.
Then there were careers that one did with only usually not very good A levels like physiotherapy, radiography, surveyor, that sort of thing. Didn't need a degree for those either.

"Being as the Govt are planning to make staying in school to 18 compulsory, it begs the question whether any national assessment in year 10 will be necessary"

It's not a plan, it's the 2008 Education and Skills Act. And it doesn't exactly raise the school age; 16-18 year olds must be in education, on an apprenticeship, or in work with a minimum specified training component. So it doesn't clearly obviate the need for 16+ exams, as there will still be school leavers at that point.

The more trailing I hear of this on the news, the more there seems to be a fair amount of re-announcement of earlier plans.

I regretted not continuing with my PGCE, until Gove came along.

Read about this in The Times.

Gove is saying the exams and standards will be higher, but if they're are too difficult for pupils, then said pupils can take them at 17 or 18. That bit concerns me - would a less academic student really want to carry on with English and Maths to the age of 18 in order to get a qualification in it.

Do you know what I think the problem is, these politicians didn't do well at school (Cameron got lots of Cs at O-level.) They think they're clever and therefore assume that there has been tons of grade inflation, not realising that others of their era got all As at O-level.

Anyway, let them fiddle - they can then deal with the consequences. I do think just one exam board is a good idea, but then they need to be held carefully to account.

No change and some stability would be good once these changes are in.
My youngest will mostly do IGCSEs anyway which I think will be like the O levels I did. i remember the school forced everyone to do a CSE (English) as well as the O level (sensible precaution). I remember going to see the Hwead to ask for permission not to sit it (as I got the best exams in the school etc in due course) as I did not want my academic record sullied with a CSE. I still had to take it. It is probably right that we moved to a one tier system but the difficulty for employers and graduates is when results differ over the years.

Was AAA in say 84 better than AAA 10 years ago and AAA now in A level and how is an employer to know? Was my 2/1 degree when one person got a first that year and only 15% of chidlren went to university and only a third got 2/1 or higher better than the 2/1s of my off spring? Doesn't matter at all until young people come to apply for jobs when recruiters are not likely to say ah yes 2012 I know it well - the year English results went wrong or ah 2006 before grade inflation took off your ABC is really good for that year? No they don't study grade issues like they might fine wines and graduates lose out through the inconsistencies over time.

Im not sure what I think.

I struggled in large comprehensive where apart from english was in mostly bottom sets.

I sat mine 1996 and passed all but only 3 at grade c rest were ds and 1 e for maths.

I remember how crap I felt gcse result day.

I got c in english
c in french-as had french tutor
c business studies.

failed maths with e dd -science. d geography, d history.

went to head 6th form as wanted to stay on with my freinds
couldent get onto alevels.

was steered towards advanced gnvq similar to 2alevels but could tell school and others dident take it too seriously.

In lower 6th resat english lit and history.

got c for lit and b for history-worked so hard for that b.

so i least had 5 good gcses

my freind who did worse than me 1 c in art was streered towards intermediate gnvq in health and social care worth 4gcses for a year then left for college to do advanced level.

Upper sixth as know then considered nursing but that needed grade c maths, english and science- i had only english, diplomas were competative and most needed degrees.

Teaching again has same problem had to have magic at all all 3.

school kept telling us go to uni.

I applied but my offers seemed much higher than alevel students.

i was asked for distinction.

I struggled with gnvq as sheer amount of coursework was too top heavy on coursework and yes sadly did do it myself not the parents.

I dont belive employers or uni value them as much as alevel.
As I applied to unis 2diffrent years once with gncq and once with alevels the offers were unfair was easier to get in with low grade a level.

I grew up in single parent family dont think mum got income support she got cb and old family allowance if stayed in ft education until 18.
So I like many other 6th formers worked part time in local supermarket which is why i struggled.

Passsed gnvq not with distinction.
failed 2nd maths resit
went to college opted to do 2alevels a in year law and sociology and have 3rd go at my maths.

Got dd alevel was quite pleased as thats what most of my 6h form left 6th form with and got me a place at uni to do bsc business and legal studies which In passed.

I then after graduating ended up in low paid retail job managing cash office-ironic forb someone who was crap at gcse maths,
went on to work my way up to store manager so doing things like profit and loss balance sheet. stock takes, managing wages-all maths.

needless to say could have done this with degree.

Most of my freinds who did degrees unless very vocational ended up in low paid jobs could have done without alevels or degree.

Those who stayed small rural town could only find low paid or part time unskilled work or had kids early.

I must admit part of my drive to go uni was

to prove people wrong -I wasent thick.
to get away from my mum who drove me mad and move to a place with more going on.

I dont regret going to uni as made good freind but wish I had done more vocational course. i know many who on 2nd degrees as now know what what to do but looked into social work degree no funding now for 2nd degrees and 9grand a year tutions plus childcare.

my hubbys high earner just got better gcses than me -dropped out alevels.I would says hes equal inteligance than me hes 8years older not sure alevels harder back then, he was 1st year gcses.

dad-grammer school, did alevels but went onto college and ploy is a qualified structural engineeer and says hes way better than hsi degree counterparts in the office.

Mum -secondry modern cse-more intelligant than she lets on just wasent ambitous-some of her freinds done very well for themselves

fil-carpenter said apprenticeships were even shortened and dumbed down an apprenticeship used to be 5years long and highly respected.

I have 14year old stepson-hoping he learns a trade but demand for sparky/plumber courses high and think you need c for that now.
Sadly cant see him getting an c grades despite him being steered towards softer gcses and manipulating school league tables.

When you 13-starting gcses sometimes doesnt seem that important think its too young everyone in until 18 and doing exams at end of international bac be better.
Also our school pushed academics.

remember one freinds mum asking me if was doing beauty at college in really nasty way and I was like no alevels actually.

Maybe they need to also look at amount of kids leaving primary not being able to read or add up as they only have 3years to catch up before starting gcses so would always be on teh backfoot and most secondrys stream into sets from year 8 and 9 and the bottom sets are very disruptive and not nice places to be,

I was the first year to sit the GCSE in 1988 and remember only being given the 1 year lead up so as guinea pigs we were definitely disadvantaged to the pupils to follow on from us.

My eldest son has just started yr 7, I do not want him to be a guinea pig. I really am worried about these changes.

Does anyone know how this will affect the 4 years currently doing GCSE's?
I have 2 children in Year 10 and year 8. My DD in year 10 has obviously already started her course,but will these next 3 years carry on with modules?
It seems unfair to not have mentioned the impact it will have on current students. As far as I was aware,they were already changing it to linear exams for 2014, is that true?
If so,we'll have 3 different styles of exam over this 5 year period,if the new changes happen.
Can anyone enlighten me please?
Thanks

My DD is in year 10 and when she was choosing her options earlier this year we were told that she would not be doing any modular courses, just linear.

As i feared my daughter will be the guinea pig for the new system,quite depressing.

So... I'll have had one child the guinea pig year for modular exams; one the first year to switch back to linear; and one the guinea pig (or near-guinea pig) for Gove's New Toy.

hey ho.

My 3 DCs will all be in different groups - DD1 taking her GCSEs next year, her school does as much linear as possible but she did do one module this summer just gone, plus controlled assessments have already been done. DS, currently in Y8 - he will be fully linear I suppose. DD2 is in Y5 - so she will be under the new exams. :(

Personally I think such a change is long overdue. Over the last decade or two standards in real terms have dropped. Anyone saying otherwise is simply not looking at the facts.

Our rankings in the international league tables have dropped and employers are all saying students are ill prepared for the modern workplace. My half-sister had to do summer catch up sessions to prepare her for the jump from GCSE to A-level maths. Such was the difference! I had no such need back in my day.

I do think that we should have harder GCSE's for the academic and another qualification which is more vocational based. But they shouldn't be linked. One of my pet hates is the whole 'GCSE equivalent' grade system. How on earth can a qualification in say Construction be the equivalent of 4 GCSE's?? Which ones!!?!?!

Let's make our tests harder. We're doing all our kids a real disservice by lowering the bar. The brighter ones come out with meaningless A*'s thinking they are shit hot the finding out that in reality they're not. The less academic ones work their arses off to get a D/E only to find they may as well have not bothered since the qualification is about as useful as a chocolate teapot in the real world.

Meanwhile our international competitors are miles ahead of us and pulling away from us whilst we all remain too politically correct to admit that in order to succeed we need our best & most able to shine so that they can go on to create the wealth our country so desperately need.

Niceguy, have you read the link in the OP? This is linked to also; it makes interesting reading.

SO if we compare say mam (good post above) and me. What are the reasons I did better in exams? Is it parents' IQ or child's IQ or type of school or high expectations?

If exams need to change then they need to change but mucking about with GCSEs then scrapping them is disruptive to so many year groups of children and employers won't know what to make of the last batch of GCSEs.

And I failed to mention the poor teachers having to chase their tails trying to keep up with the changes.

link to Gove's statement

Watching it live. Gove is an excellent speaker and performer. He is wiping the floor with the progressives.

So is it Y7 downwards that are no longer studying for full GCSE?

Continuous assessment is more like the real world so it's a good test of application and ability - who writes a novel for instance in one hit? The problem with continuous assessment came because work being assessed wasn't always done in school (so you couldn't prove it was their work), and most often the pupil's own teacher assessed it, so it wasn't impartially marked. As usual with this government, they've thrown the baby out with the bath water.

I'd like to know that too MrsjREwing - are the current Y7's going to be the guinea pigs? And what if the school currently does KS4 over 3 years?

I don't expect anyone will be able to answer these questions with any certainty forquite some time, as the government like to rush through all changes in education so that the teachers don't have time to get fully prepared