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.

aabb - that's something I was going to say.

Coursework, to me, sounds like a brilliant way of preparing someone for work - carefully researching a topic, drawing information from a range of sources, working out what bits of information are relevant and not relevant, and putting it all together into a coherant whole. Don't most people have to give presentations etc where they use exactly these skills? Compared with passing exams where yes, there are some careers you might have to, but most where you don't?

My Dad tells of not working at all for two years for his A'Level English, spending two weeks before learning quotes and getting an A. More rigorous than my GCSE English where I had to prepare three essays (or five essays - can't remember now) , across a range of genres including Shakespeare, and poetry? I don't think so, and neither did my Dad. I will accept that I sat the exams near on 20 years ago but even so, the idea that coursework is the easy option is a joke. It means you have to stay focussed for the entire period and develop a whole different skill set, rather than tuning out for most of the time, memorising stuff for a few weeks and then forgetting it straight after. Which, if you have a good memory, is perfectly possible and is not necessarily a sign of rising standards.

Am I right in thinking he's getting rid of GCSEs in English, maths, the sciences, history, geography and languages for the current year 7? Students will still be sitting GCSEs in RE, DT, Art, Music, Economics etc in 2017? Ofqual will develop a new set of qualifications (along the lines of EBCs) in these subjects. How'll that work for students?

I have a DS in Yr 8 so probably the last year of GSCE which I really don't like - they aren't going to be worth the paper they are written on really. At least those sitting the new exams will have everybody's sympathy!

I know somebody has got to be the last but it is a shame it has to be him and his year! That is a purely personal perspective of course and if you have a child in Yr 7 you will completely disagree.

I disagree about coursework - I am very glad I didn't have to do it in the early days of my education. It wouldn't have helped me at all. I have done coursework at a higher level (post grad) and it doesn't test you like an exam. You don't have to know your stuff, just be able to write a piece of work which you promptly can forget. You don't have that with exams. You are forced to work in such a way that you remember what you are doing. I don't want a doctor who has to take their time researching and working their on diagnosis. I want somebody who will do the tests and give me an answer. Same with any professional - accountant, lawyers, dentists etc. Or even at the other end of the scale with more vocational jobs, like a hair dresser or a car mechanic. I don't want to have to go back to a salon or the garage over a number of days whilst they work out the best way of doing the job. I want them to know when I turn up, what needs to be done and get on with it.

I'd agree with getting rid of coursework - when that was devised as central to GCSEs, the internet had not even been invented. Now, the opportunities for cheating/plagiarism ranging from simple cut-and-pasting to paying people to write your coursework for you - numerous sites/individuals on freelance sites happy to do this for a pretty small fee - mean that coursework is simply not viable any more as part of any meaningful qualification (arguably it never was,as the opportunity to get your mum to do it/copy your friend's was always too great).

But a change of this magnitude needs a much larger lead-in to avoid chaos.

The major flaw, though, is that it seems to lack any signs of overall strategy. So no clear understanding what will happen to all those for whom the new exams are too hard,except being told to stay and repeat them, which will hardly prove a useful exercise for the unacademic or those of a practical bent. (Or an easy exercise for their teachers.) No alternative vocational routes suggested at 16 or older. So all those who claim that CSEs were fine because they know loads of people 30+ years ago who did them and had successful careers miss the point that in those days there were good vocational carrer routes - training on the job for many jobs (like nursing) that now require degrees, apprenticeships etc - but Gove has not suggested removing the need for degrees from nurses etc, or introducing apprenticeships etc.

I suspect Gove's real aim in this is to ensure the numbers going to uni are drastically reduced as fewer get minimum qualifications. Jobs like nursing will be reduced by reducing the NHS. Middle class/lower middle jobs will generally be removed as much as possible and the working classes deskilled entirely by these new exams, to ensure that our workforce becomes as 'competitive' as China's, India's etc - ie prepared to work for starvation wages for big corps that back the Tories, because they have no choice.

BBB: I don't want a doctor who has to take their time researching and working their on diagnosis. I want somebody who will do the tests and give me an answer.

Which is fine if all combinations of all symptoms are known for all conditions.
If you present with something unusual, which your GP has never come across before, do you not want someone who knows how to correctly research something?

I have more faith in people who don't automatically say "Oh, yeah I know what that is" but admit to being a bit unsure and asking for time to work it out.
Maybe not with a hairdresser - but then how many variations on cutting hair are there? Or similarly a car repair - it's fairly finite, what needs to be done.

But in my job where there is definitely more than one way to do something, I would prefer someone who can research, rather than someone who has learnt a few facts in order to parrot them back but forgets them shortly after.

I think the complete opposite of you, Bertha. I have a good memory - I can remember things quite quickly and remember cramming hundreds of 'facts' in, for exams right through from GCSE to degree level, which I forgot days later. Coursework, which took several weeks to complete, needed analysis of information from a range of sources, and a coherant synthesis, with correct referencing, even at GCSE level, and because of that tended to stick far more than short-term cramming of facts.

Bruffin - YOU might have been told, but no-one in my DD's school was. We chose the options, got given the timetable, and THEN got told. So we were making the decision blind, so to speak.

Not that it would have made much difference to my DD - there is no other pre-16 route into her chosen trade in my town other than GCSE's, as not one of the accessible Secondaries offers a vocational route into Catering.

So it was GCSE's or nothing, and a College that will not drop their entry requirements for the current Y10, but have plans to change them for the current Y9.

Doesn't help DC's like mine who are on a limited time scale due to lack of parental finances and the removal of EMA.

Forgot to say that in the current lunatic plans, current year 7s will be doing the new quals in only a handful of core subjects - the other subjects will still (presumably, swept this bit of complete disorganisation under the carpet) be GCSEs.

So what will that look like, then? Students with a mish-mash of different qualifications?

And if the Ebacc is only to contain 5 'core' subjects ever, what kind of qualification will students ever get in these (presumed les important?) qualifications?

Currently, students do 2-3 sciences;the Ebacc only has 1. Most people do 2 X English - rhe Ebacc only 1. What about people who do 2 or more languages, etc??

The whole thing is complete back-of-envelope, dog's dinner stuff.

Who thought of it?

Oh, of course, that man with no experience of the educational system outside of having once been a pupil; no teaching experience or professional knowledge whatsoever. :(

It does seem to me that a major element of who likes gove exams and those that don't depends on whether they where good at the end of course exams or not.

In all of my years working in the "real world" I was only asked once to give an answer straight away by a top exec who new jack shit about the proffession.

The majority of jobs require some form of research based on existing knowledge.

Gove has spoken to head teachers. He was extremely well-briefed in the House of Commons and the Labour opposition was totally ineffective, because he knew his stuff.

My guess is that the EBacc will be the core requirement and pupils will be able to resit it at 17 , 18 , 19 etc. Other subjects will probably follow a similar formula, but they will be additional to the core.

Current GCSEs won't be devalued, just as O levels weren't devalued by teh introduction of GCSEs. Employers will have some sort of equivalence ranking for exams taken in different years.

Catinhat - My DD could carry on learning English until she was 30 and still not receive a basic qualification in it.

I will feel more magnanimous towards Gove when he actually explains what he is doing for the 75% that an O-Level qualification won't suit. And what he intends to provide for those who are more suited to vocational training.

Low-income families (be they unemployed or employed on NMW) just CAN'T support their children much past 19, unless they are clever enough for Uni, when they get extra help to go.

So if they were forced to stay at school studying for Maths and English qualifications that they still may not receive, that only leaves them one year to train in something before they HAVE to be in employment.

Surely accepting that they just aren't strong academically, and finding an alternative route to employment, like vocational training, would ensure far greater employment.

And whoever said it was a cynical attempt to create a workforce that was competitive with China and India, having to work for starvation wages because there is no other choice (think about the Welfare reforms), has hit the nail on the head IMO.

Keep the top 25% in decent paid employment, turn the 75% into a 'competitive' workforce by not providing them with any alternative education to earn anything above a subsistence or starvation wage.

Cynical? Moi?

I didn't hear all of the statement, but he keeps referring to English. At the moment, there are three versions - English Language, English Literature (which have to be taken together to count, but are two separate GCSes) and English ( which is a combined single GCSE - not really preparation for A levels in Lang/ Lit but fine if you are going on to do, say, Maths and Science.

I am concerned about what GCSE English will look like under all of this. Maybe a précis and a proof reading activity? Discursive essay? Translation of Anglo Saxon? Who knows?

In the early parts of Gove's speech, he repeatedly mentioned the "corruption" of the exam system. He mentioned that it was teaching to the test and favoured middle-class children via the coursework and controlled assessments.

It seems that the government is determined to reverse the dumbing down and devaluation of our exam system, by instilling rigour and tackling what he seemed to say was "corruption" of the system.

Eagerly awaiting the new league table proposals, too - about 35 - 45% of the kids I teach are likely to 'not be ready' for the new quals when they leave us at 16. How will their success be measured?

for those worrying about kids in certain years being guinea pigs someone has to just as my sister was for the current gcse,s in 1988.[ she,s a primary school teacher so not done to badley] Also fior those worrying that the last of the pupils sitting current gcse,sthat their qualifications will be worthless i have plenty of friends who sat the last of the o levels, their qualifications are nt worthless, and for the person who said her daughter was predicted c/d,s with modular exams but with linear exams will leave with u,s with all due respect what does that say about the standard of modular exams?

breadandbutterfly you make a good point re the science qualifications.

DD1 is currently in year 7 and in the top set for science. Students in the top set in her school do triple science at GCSE. I wonder if the new qualification will cater for her or for the students who would have done double science.

Shallow, I know, but I wish I could watch Michael Gove speak without itching to punch him in the face.

Actually, I did GCSE's that involved coursework, hated it, and would have been FAR better off sitting a linear exam.

However, two of my 3 school age DC's just won't achieve ANY grades in linear style examinations.

Hence my ability to see that this will be disastrous for the vast majority of pupils, and that something else, i.e. a more vocational based training, in a decent choice of trades, would be more appropriate for most of those.

Just because terminal exam-style qualifications will suit my DS1 and would have suited myself, doesn't mean I can't understand how useless they are for my DD or my DS2.

I still think Gove basically doesn't give a shit about anyone outside that top 25%, as he hasn't made any announcements on what he will provide in the way of appropriate, achievable qualifications for the other 75%.

He is basically writing off 3/4 of a generation.

And people think the change to the system is a good thing?

I would only agree if ALL pupils needs had been thought about.

A previous poster asked me whether a single qualification route should ignore the top 25% or the bottom 25%, as we need the top 25% to be competitive on the world stage.

My answer is that life, and qualifications, are not 'one size fits all'.

If it was, then everyone would pass a PGCE, or the bar exams, or a plumbing course, or medical school. It is folly to think that one size fits all can ever work in a sensible education system.

NO ONE'S needs should be ignored, there should be sensible provisions made for ALL pupils. Not a proposal that ignores the needs of the majority in favour of a minority of people suited to academics.

x2boys. It says NOTHING about modular exams, and EVERYTHING about my DD's specific SN's, that mean that she cannot retain large swathes of information that has no relevance to her day to day life for two years plus, as some of her GCSE's are started at the end of Y9...

Couthy, exams are there to test for a certain standard. They are not a hoop jumping exercise for everyone to pass.

Gove expects the majority of pupils to be able to pass these exams, but there will be far fewer receiving A*s etc., since the dumbing down will come to an end. He said it will favour poorer children, who don't get all the help for coursework from their parents and tutors. It will be a one-tier system, not a ywo-tier system. So every child will be taking the same exam, devised by teh same board. It won't be easier for some than others.

but thats your daughters specific needs though not alll those who sit gcse,s if somebody gets an a star in modular but a d in linear verxams than thbe standard of modular exams must bu substandard your daughter aside

exams even

That's the point - most people ate going to drop one grade at most. My DD will drop 2 grades OR MORE.

It is precisely BECAUSE of her SN's that she will drop so many grades - some subjects FOR HER that were predicted C's on modular will become U's on linear.

Why should MY DD become a casualty of Gove's vanity project?

If it was YOUR child, who had already faced an uphill struggle to achieve even half of what their peers will, had the rug pulled out from under them, YOU'D be pretty pissed off too.

Most pupils will drop maybe one grade on linear. My DD won't achieve grades at all. And that has nothing to do with the exams, after all, if it was just one grade she would drop, and that was the same for her whole cohort, then fair enough.

But the difference between modular and linear for someone with my DD's SN's is the difference between getting a C/D and a U, not an A* and an A.

Are you that blinkered that you can't see how this could ruin the lives of many families with DC's who have SEN's, and the worst affected, with the least time to prepare, are those currently in Y10 like my DD?

What did SHE ever do to Gove, except have dreams of ACTUALLY GAINING EMPLOYMENT?!

x2boys - so what is Gove proposing FOR DC's with SN's like my DD then? Especially those currently in Y10, who will be worst affected and have the least time to prepare?

That's right. NOTHING.

CouthyMowWearingOrange These proposals won't identify the 25% brightest either, they will identify the brightest who are good at exams. How do we in unis identify the brightest who for whatever reasons do not show their potential in a 3 hour exam on a given day? And how do we ensure that students have the skills in researching and assimilating facts and really understanding their subjects rather than just rote learning and regurgitating knowledge? There was a need to introduce rigour and differentiate the brightest but that wasn't mutually exclusive with the best aspects of the current system. Gove is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and there has been insufficient consultation with the professionals who will be teaching these qualifications and the institutions and employers who use them to evaluate students. At higher level evidence of the ability to go beyond exam passing, coursework, the extended project qualification etc are becoming ever more imporatnt as tools for assessing candidates. So he really is taking things backwards for pupils from the whole spectrum of ability. And the irony is that the shortcomings of these qualifications will become as apparent as they did for O levels, when Goves Conservative predecessor did away with them in the first place, and indeed as they are for the Singaporeans now who are looking at ways to better encourage creative and crtical thinking in their exams, and it will be all change again....

I think we need to ask what skills we want though.
As I said above, in my experience (and this is not about modular, it is about the emphasis or otherwise on coursework produced through the two years), coursework requires a different set of skills.
Being able to sit an exam and do well is a test of memory.
Being able to produced a good piece of coursework should show skills like sourcing information, selecting it, and correctly referencing it.
All of these are useful skills in the workplace.

If coursework doesn't work well at the moment, surely it is the methods and not the theory that is at fault.
It is perfectly possible to sit an exam with a list of facts memorised earlier that day and do well, if you get lucky on the questions - it doesn't necessarily lead to higher standards, or an indication of greater abilities.
In fact, in veterinary science a few years ago, there was a move to look beyond exams as an indication of suitability for the Vet Uni courses, because they were getting candidates who were brilliant at remembering things for exams but crap at actually handling animals - now you need a bank of work experience as well!

If the exam system is designed to cream off the top 25% who can sit in an exm situation and recall perfectly, then fine - what will the other kids be doing? And what will we do in a few years time when the jobs which currently ask for exams and degrees don't have enough people to fill them (jobs like nursing which didn't ask for this level of qualification until recently), and the 75% of kids who didn't do well in exams can't get jobs because nearly all jobs seem to want one?

It's got to be much more carefully thought through.