I'm just getting my head round Gove's changes to the exam system- and I am even mor horrified than I thought I would be!

[curlew]

The three things that leap out at me are 1)all year 11s have to do 8 GCSEs of which 5 have to be EBacc subjects, which will be a real struggle for many, 2) no more tiered papers, so one exam for all, so kids for whom a C is a real achievement have to sit a paper which has also to cater for the effortless A*, and 3)only the first attempt at an exam counts for the league tables. This means for a school like ours, where the vast majority of students are middle/low ability, and where we have always let many have a "practice go" early, won't be able to- because the risk to the school is too great.

My DD isn't a problem child - try reading the definition of MODERATE Learning Difficulties. She SHOULD be in a SEN school, or at the very least have the full statement that I fought for (and failed to get) for 13 years.

I would far rather she used that time to scrape a D/E in English, when she left Y6 working on NC lvl 2, and got her Maths skills (which, despite additional input, were at a 4yo's level when she was 11) than learnt an MFL. And the school were in agreement with that, as she had been TRULY failed by her Primary school, and she would have left school illiterate and innumerate if they didn't have those lesson times in which to do additional work with her.

And it HAS made the difference - she has a place on a level 1 NVQ in professional Catering after year 11.

She would have been unemployable had the school insisted on attempting to teach her an MFL, and not put those hours into basic literacy and numeracy skills.

DD is resisting just ONE GCSE - her Maths, as she is unsure that the November sitting she did will get the G grade she desperately wants.

And THAT IS the reality for some students in Comprehensives - they can work their bloody socks off, get hours of extra support each week, and STILL be resisting to try to get a G grade. And that G grade would mean the bloody WORLD to DD, because she's had to slog her guts out every day since she was 3yo to try to understand something her brain found impossible - numbers.

What use is algebra to a chef?!

I DO disagree with the controlled assessments. It's shit. If my DD can get a B in a Science CA, then it's not an effective measure of true ability. It's just NOT. The amount of coaching MY adult tutor group (mixed ability class, grades likely to range from E-A) got last night in Science alone is ridiculous - if I DON'T get an A in the CA, I'd have to open my skull and try to locate a brain cell...

And there will be more coaching next week before we sit the CA the week after. I can't see how ANYONE can get less than a C in a science CA, given the amount of spoon feeding. And I can only imagine how much MORE spoon feeding there is for school age pupils.

Coursework was FAR more rigorous, constant bits of coursework, no coaching, a piece of Coursework on every topic, far more a true measure of ability IMO.

Not that I'm complaining about DD's B in her science CA last year - it brought her grade up to a D overall on a Foundation Core Science paper, and is her best grade. I'm hoping she does as well in additional Science this year...

And again, I thank FUCK she's in Y11, and will avoid the fuck up that Gove's exams will be for anyone with SEN.

Nobody will convince me on the merits of CA's though, especially in science.

An example - this year's Core Science CA in physics is about angle of incidence being equal to angle of reflection. One of the most basic physics topics in the syllabus. It's just too bloody easy, even WITHOUT the spoon feeding.

I've already got the majority of the marks for the two written papers, contained in the notes I took in class last night - and I've got a further two weeks to practice and write and rewrite it. By the time I've done that twice, it is simple to see where you have lost marks. You can then regurgitate that in the CA, and get far more marks than you would if you were only given the title 2 weeks in advance. Or if you came face to face with a paper you knew nothing about.

Look, I'm not saying that the teacher said 'come on girls, get your Mums to write the essay.'

But how on earth can she police the level of input from home? How can any teacher?

I've had friends and family members asking me to write their DC's essays for CA (I'm a writer and academic). I've seen threads on MN where posters are corralling stuff for their DC's CAs. If you search online you'll find CA essays for pupils to copy should they wish.

This goes on!

And even though I didn't do that for my DD (she's far far too opinionated and awkward), she received an amount of help from school and home that fell within the rules, that outweighs what most other pupils can expect.

Couthy, the results for the November exams are out, has your DD not been given them?

Relieved that maths will still be tiered. When you see students working really really hard at foundation, with superb teachers and they really struggle to get that D they are desperately hoping for then I would say no, they wouldn't benefit from higher level teaching. They struggle to follow foundation reaching.

foundation needs to be used carefully and for those who would genuinely be stretched to get their C. If C/D is their expected grade (not target) then they should go into Higher. Schools track so carefully and really do have a reasonable feel of where a child is at in their maths.

There are some schools who enter all of their kids for higher. The ones I know do it by only teaching a few subjects to the lower ability kids and teaching that really well to them. This means they can scrape a c but know nothing about many areas of maths.

I still want to know what people think is in it for teachers to hold children back. It seems to be an article of Mumsnet faith that this happens- but nobody will ever say why!

Because teachers are under a hell of a lot of pressure to get as many students as possible to get a C grade.

If a child has never shown any evidence that they'll get above that, then some teachers will feel it is far safer to put them in for lower tier, where they can concentrate on the basics. You're asking less of the child.

And what's in it for teachers to do all that extra work at higher tier for a child they don't think will get higher than a C anyway? They're already stretched to breaking point.

I think this is highly understandable and I don't blame teachers one bit for not taking a punt that may not pay off, given the constant pressure they're under.

One thing that really strikes me on this thread is the opinions shout CA and coursework. In the (independent) schools I've worked at, this is how they worked:

Coursework-I taught the text and gave them the question. They wrote a draft which I read and gave some verbal feedback on. (Things like 'this bit doesn't make sense to me, are you sure you've thought this through?) They wrote the final piece.

CA-I taught the text and gave them the question. They wrote the CA under exam conditions.

To my mind CA is much more rigorous because there are no drafts and no feedback. To do it any other way in my schools was considered cheating.

But the ton of bricks descends if children do not "make expected progress".

Antionette- that's what happens in my experience of state schools too. Except that with controlled assessments they were given a deadline to bring in any resources they wanted to use, they then researched and planned and made notes, then actually wrote the assessment under exam conditions.

How it worked at DD's independent school was they were given the text and then spent some time brainstorming it.

Homework would be to come up with ideas about it. DD would discuss with me, and I'm certain so would the other girls.

In class there are ten in the top set and they would each give their ideas and develop them. The girls would then have lots and lots and lots of terrific ideas.

Previously, they had been taught in great detail how to structure essays to get the very best marks, so their task was to chose which ideas they wanted to use and frame them in the correct way.

DD would take an idea and prepare a draft of that idea. She wrote gazillions (discussing them along the way in detail), discarding the ones she was unhappy with. Eventually she ended up with enough for an essay.

She then prepared a crib sheet with enough key words to ensure she could rewrite that essay under exam conditions.

Sorry, yes Curlew, they had some time to write their notes to take in with them. But with coursework they could spend weeks and weeks perfecting one paragraph if they wanted to so I definitely think CA is the tougher option.

wordfactory discussing and developing ideas is part of teaching any text, and teaching how to write essays is also totally normal and expected. Writing a draft to then rewrite in the CA would be frowned upon at the schools I've been at.

I think this is highly understandable and I don't blame teachers one bit for not taking a punt that may not pay off, given the constant pressure they're under.

I totally agree, BUT there should be more to education than an attainable GCSE result. The benefits of teaching beyond a certain grade may not be immediately obvious but will stay with children for life and they may be grateful for it later on.

"I still want to know what people think is in it for teachers to hold children back. It seems to be an article of Mumsnet faith that this happens- but nobody will ever say why!"

For an easy life, dressed up as kindness.

"For an easy life, dressed up as kindness."

Rapidly followed by an "unsatisfactory" judgement from OFSTED.

No, because if DC are put on a lower-achieving track earlier on, OFSTED will not pick this up.

This issue is rampant in the UK.

I don't think teachers mean to hold children back. But some may set realistic, achievable, lower targets, because they are a safer bet.

How do these secondary school school teachers out for an easy life influence year 6 SATS? Do they sneak into wherever it is they are marked at dead of night and adjust all the results downwards?

I agree: I don't think that teachers are necessarily conscious of their mindset or actions. Certainly the ones I speak to aren't. They genuinely think they are doing the right thing by their pupils by making their own and their pupils lives easier and gentler.

curlew OFSTED will never pick up on it.

These are DC who have not shown evidence that they can go beyond a C.

And whilst they are not exposed to the higher tier work, discussions, homework, whilst none of their peers are working to that higher level, they're unlikely to show any evidence that they could achieve beyond a C.

So as far as OFSTED are concerned, the child has achieved their potential.

It's really odd. In my experience teachers are wildly excited, both personally and in terms of what it means to their school, to have children who exceed their expectations. But, according to Mumsnet, any slight signs of potential in an ordinary state school are ruthlessly stamped on for the sake of a quiet life. Most of the people who hold these views seem to be parents/teachers at independent or grammar schools. Not sure what can be drawn from that.......

Results from a study on setting by ability in maths, article here:
www.nottingham.ac.uk/csme/meas/papers/boaler.html

• Approximately one-third of the students taught in the highest ability groups were disadvantaged by their placement in these groups because of high expectations, fast-paced lessons and pressure to succeed. This particularly affected the most able girls.
• Students from a range of groups were severely disaffected by the limits placed upon their attainment. Students reported that they gave up on mathematics when they discovered their teachers had been preparing them for examinations that gave access to only the lowest grades.

• Social class had influenced setting decisions, resulting in disproportionate numbers of working-class students being allocated to low sets (even after ‘ability’ was taken into account).

• significant numbers of students experienced difficulties working at the pace of the particular set in which they were placed. For some students the pace was too slow, resulting in disaffection, while for others it was too fast, resulting in anxiety. Both responses led to lower levels of achievement than would have been expected, given the students’ attainment on entry to the school.