Igcse to gcse

[Lfs2126]

Are the syllabuses very different?is it possible to transfer from one to the other?

Are the syllabuses very different?

You'd need to compare them for the precise subjects and boards involved. For maths, the differences are probably not huge. For English, the issue of set works will arise (and the lack of Shakespeare in iGCSE). For history there could be no overlap at all in the periods studied.

Which subject? Which boards?

i am curious on this also - dumb question , but do state schools do GCSE only and only privates do IGCSE? And do Oxbridge prefer IGCSEs for maths, physics etc, because they perceive IGCSE is harder or more extensive? And are IGCSEs seen as easier than Pre-Us which likes of Winchester do?

Is there any advantage of taking IGCSE say on maths a year early again because i see some schools say they do that for able sets so they can progress quickly onto Additional Maths, Maths A level and further maths etc.?

"Are IGCSE's seen as easier than Pre U's"
Pre U's are an alternative to A level not IGCSE or GSCE.
Latin IGCSE is significantly harder a friend a very experienced Latin teacher said its a least equivalent to AS level and last summers set text would normally be found on an A level paper. It's apparently marked harder as well. Can't comment on the rest of the subject.

The iGCSE is increasingly popular in state schools, particularly those that are low-attaining. The idea that the iGCSE is "harder" or "more rigorous" is a myth promoted by private schools. Teachers who have taught both largely reject the idea, and the maths, in particular, is ideally suited for less academic children as it is far more structured and has lower language demands.

Oxbridge don't give a toss about the nuances of boards and minor variations on the GCSE, but there is no evidence that the iGCSE is either harder of more extensive. That failing schools switch to the iGCSE in order to improve their results is suggestive. The Pre-U is an A Level alternative, not a GCSE alternative, and has had virtually no takeup outside its own creators.

It is only worth taking a GCSE or iGCSE early if you get an A*. Otherwise, you are better off improving your grade at GCSE. The various additional mathematics courses may be a good preparation for AS, or may just put you off by getting you to do at 15 material you'd be better off doing at 16. Taking AS and A2 early is highly unlikely to be a good idea, unless there are very specific reasons, and is something that schools do to impress the easily impressed.

At what stage are you thinking of transferring? Is it because of a school move?

If it is in the middle of the two-year run-up to exams, I would have thought any kind of shift was going to be a problem, whether it is between exam boards for GCSEs or from GCSE to IGCSE, because syllabuses can be very different, and even if they are similar, different teachers can choose to cover things in different orders, so switching mid-way could mean missing large chunks of the syllabus.

DS's school does a mixture of GCSEs and IGCSEs, but I'm not sure if you can generalise about one type being harder than the other - I think it's mainly that IGCSEs are a more traditional format with less/no coursework.

friday, I am curious, how many and which low attaining state schools are changing to IGCSE?
I heard that some schools were changing over as GCSE will now also have terminal exams and the IGCSE is thought less likely to be subject to further change. I also understood that the written style of IGCSE questions was more straightforward to understand because less wordy but not that the level of knowledge required was less.

friday16...I am no expert but that doesn't chime...I mean that IGCSE is suited for less academic children...you look at very high attaining schools indies like Royal Grammar Guildford who do a lot of IGCSE's and score high for maths and science offers for Cambridge etc. and they do IGCSE maths a year early for a large part of their cohort.

TES Article on the rise in GCSE.

"CIE published its IGCSE English results for 63,333 candidates in the UK last week, accounting for the majority of the total 78,000 entry across all exam boards.

The Cambridge figures show that the proportion of A* grades plummeted from 21.6 per cent last year - when there were just 18,302 UK entries to the qualification - to 7.4 per cent.

But C grades were up from 19.3 to 29.8 per cent, suggesting a big shift in the ability profile of candidates. This summer more than half - 53.4 per cent - of candidates were in the C/D grade range compared to less than a third - 29.2 per cent - in 2012."

TES Article on shameless gaming.

DCs school is using iGCSE extensively for the lower attaining sets in Maths and English as its much more rote learning and much less interpretative
(some kids are doing both until April so have the two schemes of work side by side)
several of the other schools in the area are doing the same

you look at very high attaining schools indies like Royal Grammar Guildford who do a lot of IGCSE's

One theory is that by switching to a parallel qualification the indies were able to claim that the same nominal GCSE results were mysteriously better because they were iGCSEs. There's no evidence that's true. Universities certainly don't care (and don't pay any attention).

Our local comp has switched to iGCSE English, from GCSE, for the current Y10. Their 2012 and 2013 English GCSE results were very poor, Ofsted came in and put the school into special measures, the head and half of the SMT resigned/were sacked and the governing body has been dissolved. That's not a "high attaining indie", and they're not switching to iGCSE because they're seeking additional rigour and challenge.

Thanks friday, it would certainly seem less able candidates are taking it but, unless it has been badly taught in their schools, it is not an easy exam to do very well in as, with the uptake widened, the percentage getting A* is a third of what it was previously.
Talkin perhaps the lower sets benefit from IGCSE as children with dyslexia and so on will find the question style easier to understand?
I may be naive but I don't think some very academic schools would continue to use them if they did n't feel they were challenging enough as that would make the transition to A levels harder and impact on their results.

I don't think you're being naive summer I think your being logical. Many of the super selective independents do use them and then go onto to get top A level/Pre U results so either they are an excellent preparation for A*'s and A's at A level/pre U or I suppose they could be so easy that the schools have more time to go beyond the curriculum and start the more rigorous and demanding work required for A level/Pre U.

it would certainly seem less able candidates are taking it but, unless it has been badly taught in their schools, it is not an easy exam to do very well in as, with the uptake widened, the percentage getting Astar is a third of what it was previously.

I don't see your logic. The question is "what results would the same cohort have achieved had they taken the GCSE?" That's unknowable. The fact is that in the past couple of years, there has been a six-fold increase in the number of people taking the iGCSE in English, and that increase has come almost exclusively from schools at the lower end of the attainment spectrum. Why would such schools do that if they were harder? If they're targeting C, every D is an absolute disaster: these are schools that are already flirting with the floor standards. They must believe they'll get better results, as the cost of them getting worse results could be special measures.

with the uptake widened, the percentage getting A is a third of what it was previously.*

What do you deduce from that? Perhaps 50000 extra candidates who would otherwise have got D at GCSE have switched to iGCSE and got C. How would you rebut that hypothesis?

An exam is taken by a selective indie. The following year it's taken by the same indie, and a comprehensive school next door that is in an Ofsted category. The rate of Astar drops. What can you deduced from that? Very little.

perhaps the lower sets benefit from IGCSE as children with dyslexia and so on will find the question style easier to understand?

Why won't a simpler question style benefit all candidates?

I may be naive but I don't think some very academic schools would continue to use them if they did n't feel they were challenging enough as that would make the transition to A levels harder and impact on their results.

Again, I don't see how you can argue that. They're highly selective schools. They'll be expecting a majority of the A Level entries to result in Astar or A. For every very successful school using the iGCSEs, there will be at least one similarly successful school that doesn't, or doesn't in any quantity. happygardening is creating a false dichotomy: the most parsimonious interpretation of the data would be that the choice of GCSE syllabus is not a wildly important part of the success of schools at 18.

If you are a state school you have to do Shakespeare. Even in IGCSE. CIE, the spec we use, has now got a separate English schools option which conforms to NC requirements.
We do it because it is similar in structure to A Level. A further bonus is we do an Unseen Lit paper instead of the dreaded controlled assessment.

Friday the missing data to demonstrate that the exam is easier to get a C in is whether the schools who switched got significantly better results than when they did GCSEs, independently of other variables such as change in teachers etc.
BTW, theoretically the IGCSE may be easier in the core components but the questions differentiating between B and A/A* could require more knowledge than the GCSE. This means that although more candidates might pass, it would be a harder exam to get a top end mark.

What happygardening says makes perfect sense to me and cannot be a false dichotomy if you are arguing that the IGCSEs are significantly easier at any grade boundary than GCSE. Either the syllabus/exam is tough enough to prepare well for the next level or, it is easy enough to achieve good results but leave plenty of time to prepare for the next level. If the GCSEs are easier, successful schools could fall in the latter category whilst successful schools using IGCSE could fall in the former and vica versa.
I somehow doubt that the years 10 to 11 are irrelevant to building to good A level results as you seem to be arguing.
Sorry OP, this is completely off course from your question.

In my subject, Maths, the igcse covers harder work, however the style of questions is much simpler. E.g. It's obvious it's a circle theorem question or a Pythagoras question as it's just on that, rather than it all being in some hideously forced context and the children needing strong comprehension skills as well!

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10255180/Schools-moving-to-easy-IGCSE-exams-to-boost-grades.html

Some 856 schools – most in the independent sector – provided IGCSE exams in 2010, but numbers increased to 1,402 a year later and 1,842 in 2012.
This year, some 2,677 schools will offer IGCSE, with most entries now in the state system.
One contributor on the TES website said: “Compared to GCSE it is an absolute doddle. The first few times I tried it, I ended up trying to cover too much too quickly, and then realising I still had a whole term left.”
Another said: “It is super easy!. The exam = embarrassing. The coursework = so, so easy… Want your school to increase results? Change!”

I think my DCs' schools use IGCSEs because they see them as better preparation for A levels - in the longer term, they know their pupils are all capable fo getting great results at 16 bu their main focus is how they perform at 18 so they start preparing them for that as early as possible.

And they don't do it in all subjects - each is considered on its merits. For example, my DDs schools just switched to IGCSE physics - but not before they trialled it for a year to see how it sat side by side with the GcSe. They already do IGCSE chemistry but they're sticking with GCSE biology - so it varies by subject.

Friday 16 can I pm you?

Of course.

Friday your quotes are hardly compelling evidence one way or the other to convince me; in fact slightly offputting since you are showing some Daily Mail tendencies of selective quoting and occasional misinformation (Dot has corrected you regarding the inclusion of Shakespeare set text).
as well as some generalisation about all IGCSE versus all GCSEs.
Time will tell as more schools use the IGCSE and the comparative experience of others such as Beck and trinity will become more widespread.

Dot has corrected you regarding the inclusion of Shakespeare set text

Actually, she hasn't. What she's said is that a state school subject to the NC (ie, not an academy, not a free school, not an independent school) has to use that add-on paper in order to use the iGCSE. How many non-academy KS4 schools are there left? Specifically, how many low-attaining schools which have switched are not sponsored academies?

Friday16. Thanks.its sent