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.

I think the obligation for everyone to take 5 Ebacc subjects is the worst bit. And the significant reduction in "approved" vocational subjects.

So, bonsoir. How is trying to get kids to do qualifications they couldn't do in a month of Sundays going to help?

Why are you so defeatist? The hardest thing of all is to achieve great things when the standards set for you are so low that they are almost meaningless.

Depends where you live maybe. We are rural, and many kids will go into those sorts of jobs if they can. They will look like they have nothing to offer on paper, but will end up growing/raising your food and making your cider. If they are lucky enough to get jobs obviously

"Why are you so defeatist? The hardest thing of all is to achieve great things when the standards set for you are so low that they are almost meaningless."

You really, really have no idea, do you?

I think what I have learned from this thread is

• You will never please everyone
• This govt along with all those before them have implemented changes which have not been tested, explained to the general population, nor thought through. Regardless of their good intentions, it will be a disaster because ultimately if no-one understands the objective and has any measure of what is considered to be success or failure of the new structure, it fails. End of. God forbid we should copy a system which is universally believed to be successful [ie Germany] in most respects.

shakes head at mystery of English education system and goes off to sit in a dark room and wonder what lies ahead for her kids in their teens

"The problem is that now you will be presented with a paper three quarters of which you can't begin to attempt. Is that better?"

Surely a child should be entered when they are ready. Under the old GCSE system many children left school at 16 so there was some sense in there being a "qualification" that showed minimal literacy. The school leaving age is being raised which means there is the option of less able children sitting exams at 17 instead of 16.

curlew - I have rather a lot more of an idea than many since I live in a country with fully comprehensive education to age 15 (a real rarity) and a single leaving exam at the equivalent of Y10 for all DC.

I think they are all great reforms but I am probably in the minority.
My DS will be the first year of the new style GCSEs.

...what TalkinInPeace & Purplegirly said.

There is considerably more cluelessness being shown on this thread than there generally is in my lower ability GCSE English group.

Not particularly a criticism of the less-informed posters; before I became a teacher, having existed in a relatively rarefied atmosphere of grammar school, university & industry, I'd probably have agreed with them.

A well written exam paper can be accessible to the majority of DC. Those of higher ability will write fuller more mark worthy responses and those of lower ability will write less but should still be able to access marks across the paper.

I would probably have agreed too, before I became actively involved with a school which has,in a "good" year, 18% high achieving children.

It is a "good school with outstanding features" with spectacular value added for low and middle ability children. It is justly proud of giving children the best possible start to adult/working life. I very much hope it will continue to be able to do so under the new system but I suspect not.

No - it doesn't work like that in skills-based subjects like English & Maths, pickled siblings.

It might be a bit more workable for knowledge-based exams in the Humanities, say.

Not all DC's can access MFL, for example. What Gove seems to be forgetting is that there are DC's with moderate LD's in mainstream school, often without statements and relying on 25 hours a week or less support sitting Foundation papers.

It is a credit to my DD's school that the majority of her grades will be D-F, rather than U.

Under the new system, I can guarantee you that she would be disillusioned with education, would 'opt out' of engaging with it, and would be totally illiterate.

She is working her socks off in Maths to attempt to achieve a G grade.

My DD is only doing so well because she dropped MFL in Y7 to use those lessons to concentrate on her Core subjects, specifically English and Maths.

This new system w I'll be. Next to useless for children like my DD.

Why not, CouthyMow? Is it because MFL are intrinsically "too difficult for the less intelligent" or is it to do with failings in the system?

I have very strong evidence-based opinions on this, by the way, having gone to school in a country where everyone learned at least three languages in addition to their mother-tongue.

Teenmum3, I would hazard a guess that your DC don't have major SEN and still be left to rot in MS school with less than half the support they actually need.

And if that's the case, I would like to respectfully ask you why you feel qualified to state that this new system will be the best system for every DC?

The new system will actually suit my DS1, perfectly, but I have got the experience with my DD to see that it will fail a huge chunk of the population attending Comprehensive schools.

I'm just bloody glad my DD is in Y11!!

Bonsoir, I can't agree that the French system gets it right for lower ability / SEN. As I recall, a few years ago the French equivalent of the Audit Commission was heavily critical of outcomes / value for money for these pupils. My own experience (teacher, adviser, LA and Ofsted inspector in UK; teacher of English in primary schools and support for individual secondary age pupils in France), is that France is years behind the UK in terms of attitudes towards and support for SEN and lower-ability pupils and that many of these pupils appear to feel defeated and alienated by the system here. I have never heard the level of discussion in French staff rooms about differentiation and pedagogy that is commonplace in the UK. I am sure that the system works for more able pupils, though I am not convinced that it encourages the flexibility needed for life in the twenty-first century.

Bonsoir, for the majority of DC's, I would agree that at least one MFL is essential. But there are DC's like my DD, in MS school, who are struggling to get to grips with English, much less introducing an additional language.

You wouldn't expect a DC in an SEN school to take an MFL GCSE, would you?

But the reality is, in the UK, that there are FAR too few SEN school places, and FAR too many DC's with quite severe SEN in MS with nowhere near enough support.

If you take THOSE pupils into account, this system will totally fail them, where at least under the tiered system they have a chance at achieving a D-G grade in a subject.

And it is actually quite possible to get a B grade on a Foundation GCSE paper, if that grade is warranted. I know this as I'm currently at College sitting a couple of GCSE's myself.

Gosh. And there was I thinking that a large rurally based population like that of France would have Agricultural Contractors. Aka Tractor Drivers.

It makes my heart sink, all these completely untested reforms. How can they possibly improve the outcomes for the children - by which I mean ensuring that they have more skills, understanding and knowledge by the time they leave school.

I don't think that the French system gets it right for DC with SEN. What I do think it gets right is that DC cannot be written off by their teachers at an early age and put on a lower ability track, which is what happens in the UK.

I am stunned at the attitude of some of the English teachers at my DD's (high-performing, highly selective) bilingual school who write off perfectly able DC at a young age and decide against their parents' wishes that they are not capable of learning English to a high standard and put them in a low performing set. "Hold back policies" enacted by teachers are a really worrying feature of English education. Low expectations engender low achievement.

I do find all this anecdotal stuff about "hold back" policies very odd. Why would a teacher or a school deliberately do something which would have them failing an OFSTED inspection before you could blink?

"Low expectations engender low achievement."

What people fail to grasp is that for about 36% of the kids at out school, a C at GCSE is a high expectation.

Hold back is endemic in both the culture and the system in the UK. Having a single standard for which all DC are eligible helps to counter the worst of it.

I'm a bit confused - I thought scrapping the exams catering for different abilities is a good thing. Surely if you get a C in a paper where a C is the best you can get, or get a C on a paper where some pupils can get an A* there is no real difference or reduction in achievement.

I must admit to a simple layman with a child heading for these new style of exams, the reforms hadn't hit me as being bad. I do think there will be more sense of achievement in gaining an exam result where you can't redo it if you do badly - where is the achievement in doing things more than once to bump up a score?

I don't think anyone is failing to grasp that, curlew.