Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Scrapping GCSEs

112 replies

gelatinous · 20/06/2012 23:46

Daily mail article here.

Good idea or not?

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 21/06/2012 20:07

I am Shock at how misleading that Guardian article with sample questions from GCSE papers is. Whoever wrote it appears to have just opened the exam paper at the first page and copied out the first few questions. The questions listed for the higher paper don't get any more difficult than an easy B grade. Obviously anyone with a decent maths background but no real experience of maths GCSE is going to look at those questions and say 'how easy, GCSEs are rubbish'. The questions get harder as you go through the paper, with the A and A* questions nearer the back, but apparently the Guardian writer didn't get that far.

pointythings · 21/06/2012 20:12

giraffe I actually find that really reassuring - apparently the Mail did something very similar. Would you say that the same thing applied with the old O levels, i.e. that the easy questions came at the beginning and things then got progressively tougher? As I've said before, DD1 had a look at the 1985 O-level sample questions and worked out the answers just like that, but obviously they came from the beginning of the paper. I would hope that there would have been more challenging material in the O-level paper (and I believe you when you tell me this certainly applies to the higher GCSE paper).

noblegiraffe · 21/06/2012 20:55

I don't know about O-levels so can't comment but they have clearly only selected questions that they could type easily which restricts them from the start! You can actually click on the links in the article and see the GCSE papers yourself to see how selective they've been. But as a quick guide, the hardest question they've selected from the higher tier paper is Q19 of 27 on a paper where the hardest questions are at the back.

Tinuviel · 22/06/2012 00:43

pointy/giraffe

I did 'O' level in 1981 and it was definitely harder than the questions in the Guardian. The ones shown were from the start of the paper and questions got harder as you progressed. As far as I'm aware the main difference in maths is that 'O' level included Calculus (but with our Board it was one of the 'optional' topics) and GCSE doesn't (although IGCSE does!)

TheFallenMadonna · 22/06/2012 07:03

From next year, GCSEs will not be modular. There's no need to return to an O level to make that happen. It has happened.

tectime · 22/06/2012 08:05

I have already mentioned that the return of the "O" is fantastic news for England. Good riddance to the GCSE. I certainly do hope that the Government provides teachers with better resources and also elevates the status and payof teachers. Education is after all an investment. There are as many dross teachers as there are competent ones. A lot of the teachers I have met have been highly comptent; about 30% need to be weeded out of the profession.

I am delighted that my Primary school children will sit O'Levels, as did I. And bollocks to you liberals out there!!!!!

noblegiraffe · 22/06/2012 08:14

What I don't understand is that if this really would be a 'return to O-levels' and the new exams would be of the same level of difficulty as the old O-levels, then how, under the new system, would 75% of children be expected to cope with these O-levels when in the olden days only 20% of children could?

Is this a tacit admission that children these days really are cleverer than in the 50s?

BeingFluffy · 22/06/2012 08:27

Tectime, I certainly hope you don't come to regret your words. I sat O' levels during the so called Golden Age and I can tell you they were basically a memory test. If you did no work during the course and crammed the night before you could get good grades - I am proof! It is good for lazy people who have the ability to memorise and write woffle in a convincing way for two hours but not necessarily for the average hard working studious person.

We must be lucky, I have come across one or two teachers in the state sector I disliked due to personality but I have never encountered an incompetent teacher in my own state school days or in my daughter's state schools. I did come across incompetence in the private sector; but paying peanuts attracts monkeys I suppose.

My DD has just done her GCSEs, they test in much more breadth and depth than O' levels ever did. She has also done 11, more than the 8, I sat which was standard in those days. We are both grammar school girls!

In respect of your earlier posts about the superiority of the Far East's education system - I previously worked at a well reputed Uni in central London. I found many students from that region to be utterly incapable of analysis and forming their own opinions, all they could do was memorise and regurgitate. We tried to help them but it was often too late to develop those skills. While saying that, most of them passed because the Uni wanted the overseas rate fees! Which is another scandal quite frankly.

My sister has taught and is currently an academic author (in English) working in a Far East country. Her experience is that the day to day teaching is often poor and secondary age kids (apparently the majority) have to go to night classes to cram for their exams.

gelatinous · 22/06/2012 08:45

good point noble. Sounds as if it will be another lets introduce something tougher that will in fact not be tougher at all but will just add to the already muddled set of examinations available (GCSE, BTEC and iGCSE seems quite enough choice already). Why not just toughen up higher tier GCSE a bit, make exams terminal (as planned) and re-introduce quotas for each grade to prevent grade slippage. Not opposed to reducing the number of exam boards, but if you only have one there's no incentive to produce error free papers and provide good service etc. If there's, say three, and each knows if they mess up they'll lose their contract and be replaced then you have a bit of competition. If quotas are used then grades can't slip.

A new exam seems unnecessary.

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 22/06/2012 08:52

I totally agree that the current maths GCSE doesn't stretch the most able. As the higher tier paper has to cater for students down to C grade, there isn't enough space on the paper to put enough tough questions on.

What we need is a three tier system in maths. A paper for the weakest (let's call it Foundation), a paper for the middle students (let's call it Intermediate) and a paper for the strongest students which concentrates on the toughest topics (let's call it Higher).

Oh wait, we had that until, what, five years ago? And maths teachers have been bemoaning its loss and calling for its return since, complaining that maths was now not challenging enough for the most able? They wanted Foundation students to be able to get a C and instead of just adding that for exceptional performance at the bottom end, they buggered up the top end.

FFS. There are things that could be done to improve the system without completely throwing it away.

BonnieBumble · 22/06/2012 09:10

"And bollocks to you liberals out there".

(Bangs head against the wall).

crazymum53 · 22/06/2012 09:15

Beingfluffy I agree with your comments on the Far East education system. I have taught A level Chemistry to students from these countries and they are used to memorising large amounts of work and can repeat this (including on an exam) without really understanding it. They often have better mathematical skills than GCSE students but are much poorer at questions that require analysis and interpretation of data. These type of analytical questions are the type of skill that Scientists require in the real world.
The other thing that nobody has mentioned yet is that the number of O levels usually taken was much more limited than GCSEs. At my school you were limited to taking 8 subjects at 16 (there were options to take up to 2 additional subjects in the sixth form). This meant that pupils were encouraged to specialise very early and many students stopped studying Science (apart from Biology) at 14. If you were studying 3 Sciences then you could not fit in a subject such as History, Music or a second MFL. At GCSE pupils can study a larger number of subjects up to the age of 16 and this seems to provide a more balanced education.

mummytime · 22/06/2012 09:21

I am just fed up with change GCSE exams have been changing every year from at least "starting to study" in 2009. They have: Introduced ISAs 2009, changed syllabus (2010, 2011, 2012), introduced controlled assessments, got rid of multiple choice (2011), gone to terminal (2012).
And now Gove wants to go back to O'levels in 2013! At Robert Gordons he didn't even sit O'levels the first time round himself!

I had hoped my DD would at least have one year for her teachers to get used to a new exam and method of assessment, but of course the fairest system is just to change the goal posts every year, so everyone gets the same chaos.

The stupidest thing is that if everyone has to stay at school until 18, An exam at 16 is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

gelatinous · 22/06/2012 09:26

I did maths O level back in the day. It wasn't especially difficult, everyone in my school did it a year early. Then most went on to do another O level called 'additional maths' (or something similar) which bridged the gap to A level & was a really good course. Similar things still exist. Schools should use them more (and not do statistics GCSE instead).

This is the way forward for more able mathematicians - Let them do GCSE early (but make sure it is only the able ones doing this, not the C/D borderline ones trying to bank a C), then do the FSMQ or similar. If everyone doing early maths GCSE continues to another maths qualification that should prevent this.

OP posts:
gramercy · 22/06/2012 09:50

I hear your point, noble giraffe, but I do think it's wrong that the maths paper orders the questions in difficulty.

Back in the old days (snore, perhaps we should have an acronym for that on the education threads BITOD) questions on calculus, sine and cosine etc etc were randomly dotted around. The last question might be easier than the first.

I agree that exams should be a test of what you know rather than trying to catch you out (which was frequently the case I remember) BUT too much hand-holding defeats the object of any test.

webwiz · 22/06/2012 09:58

I agree with mummytime I despair of the amount of change in secondary education. The fact that teachers manage to actually teach anything amid the chaos is a minor miracle.

SecretSquirrels · 22/06/2012 10:11

gelatinous yes to that. I have a very able DS who did his maths a year early and got A*. I feel he has wasted a year doing statistics.Luckily he is so interested in the subject that he has done maths outside of school but with the best will in the world he will be rusty when he starts A level in September.
I tried to persuade the school to do FSMQs or something similar but to no avail. Their priority as always is those borderline D/Cs for their rankings.

mnistooaddictive · 22/06/2012 10:24

Squirrel- I think you may be right. GCSE stats is not enriching for able mathematicians, it is more maths when they need harder maths. I taught it alongside GCSE do they did both exams at end of Y eleven which is better die keeping knowledge fresh etc. We did it for 1 years before moving to fsmq as it wasn't meeting the needs of the most able.

pointythings · 22/06/2012 18:16

Well, it looks like the Lib Dems are going to torpedo this - the second good thing they've done since they torpedoed Adrian Beecroft's 'Fire at Will' plan for workers.

When will governments realise that the reason that the education system is in trouble is that they keep messing with it every five bloody minutes?

cardibach · 22/06/2012 19:03

mumzy where on earth do you get the idea that only A and A* grades at GCSE matter? COllege courses specify 'higher grade' which meand C or above. Universities generally don't care except for the most competitive courses - C and above is fine.
As others have said, the old O level was only taken by about 20% of the population. Around 50% now get A*-C in GCSE. I think it is on the whole because of better teaching and more focussed support (teaching to the test, if you liek - but that isn't necessarily bad. If you had an exam to do would you study things that wouldn't come up?). Are you all ready for the majority of your DCs to fail these exams? It's reahter like calls for grammar schools: everyone assumes their DCs would get in. THey can't all be right...

EvilTwins · 22/06/2012 19:44

Gove was supposed to attend a Skype interview with 6 students from different schools in my area yesterday. They were interviewing him for a special edition of our local paper which came out today and was almost entirely written and edited by the students. He didn't show. His office called 15 mins before the set time to say he was unavailable, meaning that the 6 teenagers who had been brought in from their separate schools, missing lessons, were there for no reason. The man is a prize buffoon.

47to31in7days · 22/06/2012 20:16

mummytime not everyone will be in school till 18. That's not the law anyway: it only requires participation in education which can be 1 day a week in a job or some form of part-time, vocational or technical ed. Full-time (pre 16) education will continue to be required by law only until the final Friday in June at the end of the eleventh year. I know this will mean school/college for the majority of YPs as said but as over 70% go on to academic FE now the numbers will not be that high.

What about the delinquent youth who refuse to participate after 16? It's wishful thinking to assume that 17 year olds will get out of bed early until the day of their birthday because Mr Gove tells them to. There is no custodial sentence or anything that drastic. They'll just face fines which will probably end up coming out their parents' pockets like the young ones. Heck, even in US states where classroom-based ed is mandatory for all under 18's the dropout rate is high. Do you not think there should be something at 16 so those who fall into the new NEET-teen Wink criminal offence trap or get a perfectly legal job/apprenticeship have a recognised basic academic qualification, likely a CSE or whatever it's called now?

Do people remember when there used to be 3 different leaving dates for Y11/ S5/ Fifth Formers depending on their birthdays? so those who turned 16 early in the year could walk out at Christmas, some at Easter and pupils born in high summer had to finish the year but actually left school at 15 (as they still do now but can't get a full-time job until their 16th birthday.)

RiversideMum · 22/06/2012 20:17

Like others I wish Gove would just SHUT UP FOR FIVE MINUTES. I work in Early Years and we have a new Framework starting in September and there are no guidelines for assessment published - no training, no assessment tool - no-one knows when it will be available. I'm sure it's the same with linear GCSEs. My DD has just finished her GCSEs and took 31 exams in all over the 2 year course. I'll bet nobody has worked out how pupils in 2 years time are going to take that many exams and how they are all going to get marked in time for results day. Gove needs to reverse his talking/listening ratio.

mummytime · 22/06/2012 20:40

If there is a delinquent youth, they will probably not be sitting exams at 16 anyway, certainly not the new style O'levels. There will still be qualifications post 16, which may be more relevant anyway.
Actually as old as I am, no one in my year was allowed to leave until the end of the summer term (which my school managed to define as the same date as the beginning of study leave by starting sixth form in July). However lots of people left with no qualifications, most with a handful of CSEs, and a few with some O'levels.
I'm not saying GCSEs necessarily should be abolished, but I think that is more where the effort should be focused not on a return to O'levels.

BTW O'levels allowed a lot of rote learning, whereas students are now supposed to be able to use and really understand knowledge. Also on most papers you didn't have to answer every question, and whole sections of the syllabus could be omitted, something that modern GCSEs and A'levels rarely allow (I got an A'level in Philosophy on half the syllabus, and I and a friends son both left out part of the Further Maths syllabus we just couldn't get).

MigratingCoconuts · 22/06/2012 21:01

As a secondary science teacher, I absolutely agree with everything ThefallenModonna has said!

Also, tectime...good for you! But I do hope that your primary children turn out to be academic enough to get those new O level that you are assuming they'll be taking.... because I'm not sure what the alternative will be like and what value it will have. Are you?

Swipe left for the next trending thread