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.

Might I respectfully suggest that even the most appalling stereotype of a state school teacher would be able to tell the difference between a child who would struggle with a lower tier maths paper and a potential Etonian.......!

I think what I'd like to see is that all DC accessing the same curriculum, just at differing speeds within their sets.

And no decision be taken as to whether they're higher or lower tier until close to exam season, allowing fluidity. It also means that even those DC who end up taking lower tier have at least had the opportunity to be exposed to higher tier curricula.

Curlew - no, some teachers are not able to do this, especially, I think, with boys that don't easily fit the geeky stereotype, and especially when they are young - 5, 6 or 7.
Evaluation of my DS varied drastically (from being "a slight underachiever", to being "distinctively average", to being "amazingly creative and bright", to being "obviously a high achiever") depending on the personality of the teacher (over his 5 years in the primary) - all quotes.
I think the system might be much better for girls actually.

I think what I'd like to see is that all DC accessing the same curriculum, just at differing speeds within their sets.

But then it should be obvious that the top sets will cover more of it, and the bottom sets less. They should all have the opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned, and that can't happen if you give them all the same paper, unless the exam takes all day, and then to bottom set will be twiddling their thumbs for most of it.

"I think what I'd like to see is that all DC accessing the same curriculum, just at differing speeds within their sets."

Well, if you want to do that, you'll have to remove a substantial chunk at the "top" end of the curriculum. Which certainly I don't want to do. Do you?

No, you don't have to remove a chunk off the top. Everyone will reach as far as they can. With lower sets being aware that if they put in more effort and worked harder, they would be able to get higher.

More pupils underachieve due to lack of motivation and sufficient effort than due to genuinely low intelligence.

I agree with innercity - teachers are not unanimously able judges of potential. I can think of several examples of "problem" DC who failed to acquire basic skills at primary who have later (by virtue of IQ testing) been shown to have exceptional potential.

And anyway, why does all teaching have to be done specifically to the exam, and then further limited to a predicted grade?
Is that all there is to education after Y9?

For better or worse I think that that examinations determine the syllabus in all subjects everywhere in the world these days once DC get into the final 4 years of secondary schooling.

Leftover monster - what bollocks. My DD HAS worked her fucking socks off in Maths and STILL is struggling to get a G grade. She could work on it24/7 and be no better. What toffeerot!

Whatever the flaws of SATS, or rather the flaws in the way the SATS system operates, they are still, at the very least, something the child has done at 10/11 which gives some indication of where they were at 10/11. And they are used as one factor in giving predicted grades up to GCSE and - I think - even A level. Everything seems to be about 'moving up two sub-levels', at every stage, so obviously the last assessed thing you did, matters.

In terms of 'holding back', I think there are different interpretations of this going on - not putting a child in for the higher paper if that child hasn't ever shown that he or she is capable of higher than a grade C doesn't seem to me to be the same thing as not teaching a child who could get an A to the level they will need in order to get it. I think the first of those happens - I don't think children who should be getting As are encouraged not to aim above a C.

I don't know, it could be just me, but I have a DS in Y9 and if feels like it's all too much too soon. Primary school focuses on more or less basic skills, then they only have 3 years of secondary and they enter the exam factory.

as far as I can gather, at DCs school, the decision as to whether people did the foundation or higher paper was only settled after the Mocks last December
so the borderline students were given the option to work hard and prove they could do it and the lazy gits were bumped down

makes perfect sense to me

but its a basic tenet of management theory to set targets that are
Realisable, Understandable and Measurable

sitting an E grade student down in front of a higher paper is just demoralising

sitting an A* grade student in front of a paper with lots of D grade questions will not allow for enough tough questions that differentiate at the higher level

so both groups of pupils benefit from the double levels.

"More pupils underachieve due to lack of motivation and sufficient effort than due to genuinely low intelligence."

Could you link to the evidence for this, please? I'd really like to read it.

Yes, CouthyMow, but SN children need a more individual approach and you cannot generalise on the basis of one case.

curlew - I haven't read the entire thread but just to pick up on a couple of points...

Gove is NOT insisting that all Y11s do 8 subjects of which 5 must be the EBacc. The proposal is to change league tables to show the average grade achieved by pupils across their 8 best GCSEs, the percentage of pupils passing both English and Maths, and the percentage of pupils achieving the EBacc. The idea is to move the focus in league tables away from the C-grade boundary. That may mean schools will encourage pupils to do at least 8 subjects including the EBacc but it is not becoming compulsory.

TalkinPeace - I kind of agree but there is evidence that some schools are entering pupils for the foundation level paper when they are potentially capable of higher grades.

prh47bridge
I kind of agree but there is evidence that some schools are entering pupils for the foundation level paper when they are potentially capable of higher grades.
I am aware of that and it is unforgivable
If a massive comp like DCs one can hold the decision open till the second term in year 11, I'd like to know what excuses other schools use for NOT keeping the option open till the last minute.

If nothing else it would be incredibly motivational for borderline kids to know that they might get a shot at the higher paper if they keep working.

And a useful threat to hold over the heads of shirkers

Once the decision is set in stone it has no more leverage.

TalkinPeace - the issue is not merely one of taking the final decision on whom to enter for what paper at the last minute. Were it so simple.

Boinsoir
the issue is not merely one of taking the final decision on whom to enter for what paper at the last minute
please elucidate

Curlew, pretty much every study done on underachievement points to external factors which affect a pupil's motivation to do well at school and result in low grades.

I have already done, at some length, on this thread.

The issue is one of able pupils not being identified as such early in the system. The current monitoring based on progress versus earlier benchmarks becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Curlew, pretty much every study done on underachievement points to external factors which affect a pupil's motivation to do well at school and result in low grades."

A link or two, please?

bonsoir
but at DCs school, the sets are fluid right through the years, kids are taught to their ability - all covering the curriculum but at different speeds
so the decision of which paper will be sat is taken late

its not rocket science
it just involves planning

"The issue is one of able pupils not being identified as such early in the system. The current monitoring based on progress versus earlier benchmarks becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy."

Do you have evidence for the fact that able pupils are not identified as such early n the system?