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.

And that was blinkin' demotivating and embarrassing.

...which is exactly why the teachers on this thread don't want to see those days come again...which is what is being proposed.

But that was a bad teacher then forgwatcher.

And nowadays, in Maths (and English) especially, they would be in rather a lot of trouble for failing to support you in achieving the appropriate levels of progress. Because schools are judged on that. And therefore teachers are too. Limiting a students' achievement is not a great idea for anyone.

One paper for a whole cohort is a ridiculous idea. I cannot believe anyone with experience of a full range of ability would think it sensible.

Raven and noblegiraffe - ok I see what you say. But for my less able dd, surely she will be prepared for this and do lots of practice papers etc to help her. Surely the students will still fall into groups of ability after the exams are held and the results will be issued with regard to this.

So in the end there will be little change in their results if student is compared to like student but perhaps a bigger change in the range of grades issued?

I am trying desperately to see your points of view but still feel so uncomfortable with a different exam, written in different ways, for different abilities. It just seems unfair to all really.

Give me an analogy and I might get it.

I didn't.. I did SCEs where the mark range was 1 (best) to 7. So did everyone else. That was one paper

Sorry standard grades basically. Graded 1 to 7

An analogy: sticking my 9yo ds in Man U's next match as striker, & saying kindly: 'well, he's practised, he just might get fewer kicks at the ball than the other players...'

He wouldn't even seethe ball. He's not being given an opportunity to show what he can do.

Give your less able DC a sheet of quadratic equations. Make her stare at it for 2 hours. Surround her with kids who are scribbling away.

Then ask her how she feels about maths.

Raven - in your analogy wouldn't your 9yo show his true abilities for the level of Man U striker though. Surely all the 9 yo's would be showing their true abilities.

If you entered him in a village team as striker but then compared his results to those 9yo's who had to compete at Man U for their grades - surely that is more unfair (even though he may have got the ball more and shown more what he could do - the better skilled 9 yolds would have obliterated him had they had the same match but they had to have a much harder match and so it becomes an unfair playing field).

ah I think I see the problem.

Is the concern that two tiers is an unfair playing field?

noblegiraffe - but she will have gone through this in school and be prepared. She would ignore the quadratic equations and done the stuff she can do - surely. If prepared well to expect that there will be stuff she can't do then I really can't see how she will feel any different in Maths to being aware that she is sitting the 'less able kids' paper (but said far less politely than this by some kids I know).

Obviously not 'done' but do.

raven - partly yes. I think that one exam shows kids true abilities at both ends of the spectrum and is totally fair.

I seriously do hope though that schools and teachers get their heads round this and become more positive about it so that children like my dd (low achiever) are supported and ready to get lower results than those in previous years.

I'm getting a headache. I don't think I will ever understand it all.

But the fact is that it is what it is - rightly or wrongly. I just hope that my dds at both ends of the spectrum manage it ok.

But then, as explained upthread, she can't do the quadratic equations, the A*s are wasting time doing questions that they could do in their sleep, & a fully comprehensive exam is about four hours long...with half that time being a complete waste for one group or t'other.

One thing we don't need is y11s spending more hours doing exams in order to 'test' skills they can a) not access at all or b) understood perfectly well in y7.

Frogwatcher, being faced regularly with sheets of quadratic equations won't make the experience any less shit.

Bottom sets know that the top sets are sitting a different paper but it isn't shoved in their face with a 'look at what you can't do, see, you don't even know where to start!!!'

The two tiered exams are worded differently, taking into account that higher/foundation pupils will be able to access different language. An A* pupil is wasting time being asked to "list ten things that ...", whereas a D grade pupil may struggle with the "how is mood and atmosphere is created in this extract".

Surely it is about getting each individual child to feel confident in their own abilities?

We can't all be brain surgeons or super models. I would never be able to fix a car, hang wallpaper or run the country. What I can do is teach, I think I am pretty good at it. Sadly the country is full of, and run by, people who think that they know all about what is good for education as they once went to school themselves ...

teachers get their heads round this and become more positive about it

Nope. It's a really shit idea. No sense in pretending different. Obviously, what we will do is crack on with making it work as best we can, for another 18 months until Gove ceases to be in charge of the whole fiasco & some other idiot gets to muck about with it.

Hmm...I don't know.

I had an argument with my science teacher in Year 10 - she wouldn't enter me for the higher science papers because she worried I'd fall off 'the cliff' in terms of grades - it was A*-C then U. She worried that I'd get a U.

I told her I'd absolutely be fine with the higher paper, and I was more than able to do it. To be fair to her, I never did a great deal of work in science because I hated one of my teachers and he had an equally strong dislike for me. So I can understand her misgivings, but one reason I did no work was because I was bored stiff - I got level 9's in my first science investigation, which we were told would be fantastic if we got level 6's.

Anyway, I sat the paper, completed it in 30 minutes then spent the rest of the exam going through page by page, counting the pages, convinced I must have pages missing because everyone else was still writing.

The paper I sat was graded A-E then U.

I got an A. The science teacher was more than a little shocked.

My own fault, but as an immature, disillusioned 16 year old, I didn't make the best decisions.

My dn has a problem with some of his subjects. He is taking his exams this year and having dossed his whole school life away he is really knuckling down (with private tutors) and crash studying now.

I think he will be restricted on his grades by entries based on past results when in fact he is bright. His tutor says he has the ability to surprise everybody and is zooming through work now at quite a surprisingly high level.

I worry he will get restricted by the lower entry exams although I wonder if his teachers will put him for the higher level maths as he got the highest he could get in the mock but he sat the lower level exam?

Usually we would, yes. It's one of the main reasons for mocks - to identify students entered for the wrong tier.

Doesn't happen very often, but we certainly change tiers where needed; which can happen anytime up until the day of the exam - when my exam papers are delivered for marking there are always crossed out names & additions on the candidate lists!

That's good to hear Raven. I really hope he does well as he has really shifted a gear.

Hmmm.

With regards to the first point, is that right? I assumed students could put in for as many GCSEs as was deemed appropriate, in subjects deemed appropriate. But the school would have to reflect this is the figures.

If I'm wrong and all students are going to be forced to sit eight, including EBAAC, then that's potty!!!!

As for the two tier system. I don't see the harm. It's just a bit like the old O Level, CSE split, innit? Though I would say it fools no one, leasdt of all the kids involved. They know full well it's not as hard, they know full well they're in the bottom sets, and as the OP is so often telling us, they know they've failed the 11 plus and ended up in secondary modern.

With regards to one try at the exams...about time. Utterly ridiculous situation that is the antithesis of a decent education and has made years 10 and 11 a living hell for many students. Whoever thinks that it's a great idea for those who hate exams and underperform in them to have to sit lots and bloody lots, wants their bumps reading!

But raven is the syllabus not different? Can a lower student trade up, so to speak?

No 11 plus here, & two-tier GCSE is very different from O-Level/CSE because you come out with the grade you deserve, & there's no stigma attached to having achieved your C or B on a Foundation paper, because no-one ever needs to know which tier you sat.

Agree with you about multiple exam entries, though! Miserable & counter-productive. Glad to see the back of 'em.