The IGCSE Unfairness from Gove

[LuluJakey1]

For years, Tories have hailed the IGCSEs that public schools do, as much harder than the GCSEs that state schools do. They held them up as evidence of the academic rigour and high standards of public schools.

Now that state schools have been allowed to do them and they count in school league tables, what has emerged is that lots of schools are opting for them because actually, they are much less onerous, have less content, are very predictable and said schools are doing extremely well with them, as well as if not better than many public schools.

My friend mole at the DFE tells me that, surprise , surprise, Mr Gove will reverse his decsision of a couple of years ago and announce, in the near future, that IGCSE English and IGCSE Maths will no longer be allowed to count in state school league tables from summer 2016.

However, public schools, which are not restricted, will still be able to take them and count them in their results.

Who says the Tories are not elitist and don't favour the already privileged!

BTW even controlled assessments have very heavy preguidance at some schools, again unfair. The children work very hard to practically learn it by heart before the assessment- what a waste of their time!

"Terminal exams without coursework select students best able to cope with university and professional exams."

An opinion held up as fact. without seeing how the questions are written they could just be regurgitating knowledge learned by rote.

"More selective universities select students generally on the basis of who they think will best cope with the skills required at that level and preUs are regarded as more stretching and therefore get more points."

Does more selective mean better? Why if PreUs gain more points do they still select students that do not have them?

"BTW even controlled assessments have very heavy preguidance at some schools, again unfair."

In the same way that some parents pay for extra tuition or teachers teach pupils how to pass the exam and not the subject.

boney the difference is that whilst teachers can help students with exam technique and take an educated guess at what is likely to come up, the reality is that there is no way of actually knowing what will come up, until thst paper is opened.

In IGCSE there are few exams so question spotting is always questionable as a good protion of the syllabus can't come up!

CAs are the complete opposite. Teachers, parents and students all know the question and can prepare ad infinitum. Since the mark scheme is readily available also, it is perfectly possible to obtain perfect marks. It is an utter joke!

You can get huge amounts of help with the set answer, and then you're allowed to take in an aide memoir so you can regurgiate it.

What does that test?

Boney I am not sure what point you are making. Of course a lot of exams test regurgitated information but terminal exams mean that you have to learn all the material taught over 2+ years as Wordfactory says. You should also be selecting and applying the appropriate skills you have built up and practised over the 2+ years.

I know that exams don't necessarily pick out the brightest or best writers or original thinkers but unfortunately most people have learn the basics before they can do more advanced work and those basics are tested by exams and dissertations / in depth projects without spoon feeding.

my partner went to a secondary modern and is a very educated man, but not from school. Everyone who had failed the 11 plus was considered intellectually inferior . Consequently, no one was offered O levels and rural studies, which involved looking after the school pigs ( yes they had pigs) formed the backbone of the curriculum. Fortunately for him the school became a Comprehensive, allowing him to join a sixth form, obtain A levels and move onto University. In his primary school children were presented with the 11 plus exam one sunny morning with no idea what it was all about, because the primary school did not feel any pupil had the ability to pass so why spend time in preparation.
I too failed the 11 plus as I have dyslexia. I sat in the bottom stream for everything for many years with teachers encouraging my parents to have few expectations I would achieve anything. About the age of 15, I discovered classical literature. I taught myself, at one point paying for my own evening classes while I was still at school, and despite the odds, passed my O levels and A levels, went onto university and I am now professionally qualified. ( I still can`t spell)

While I agree the poorest in society have been disadvantaged and in the past the Grammar school offered many a route out of poverty, for many others it just reinforced the segregated nature of the education system. We should not need selection to give any child an opportunity and the postcode segregation is something to be ashamed of. It is the right of every child to education of the highest standard, regardless of the wealth of their parents or their academic ability. Then after this it is up to the individual what they do with it.
Sorry if this sounds like a bit of a rant. It is meant with no disrespect to any other contributor, all of whom make very valid points.

I don't think IGCSE is easier, especially the CIE IGCSE. My DD's friend finished this one-year IGCSE recently. She need to study everything in one year while normal students have two years. They actually studied the same thing and that girl told me they don't even have time to cover every topic.
I think the main point is the quality of teaching.

summerends
"I am not sure what point you are making."

My point as posted upthread, is that there is no definitive way of proving that one method of examination is harder/better than any other.

For every school that "spoon feeds" controlled assessment there is a school that "teaches to the test".

The change will only be from 2017. DS1 has already started his courses and five of his subjects are iGCSEs, but he'll be finished by 2016.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10936433/International-GCSEs-axed-from-school-league-tables.html

My DS2 also does CIE IGCSE whereas my less able DS2 did mainly GCSE's at his school, the less able did GCSE's the bright CIE IGCSE. I've endlessly revised both, having studied science at undergraduate level I was shocked and concerned at the level in the GCSE science papers, nothing like my day, my DH did English and he was very surprised at the English Lit. Can't comment on the MFL as DS1 didn't do one so nothing to compare DS2's against. But a friend whose an MFL teacher endlessly comments on the dumbing of the French MFL, I failed spectacularly GCSE(O level) many years ago and even I could answer 70% of the French GCSE questions correctly. We had less to do with DS2 revision thankfully but the bits I did for the science the level was higher although I still slightly disappointed frankly.
Boney and others I also don't buy into the logic that super selectives would use easier IGCSE in preparation for the harder Pre U what would be the point? I know you think they're results obsessed but also why give your super able pupils an easier IGCSE? Surely they want to stretch them not bore them stiff. Also most parents who've chosen these type of schools are not interested on (I)GCSE results I know I'm not and neither are most of the parents I talk too, it's university destinations that interest us and therefore it's the A level/Pre U results that count. I not even sure DS's school even publish the IGCSE results, frankly I've never even tried to find them, whereas I did scrutinise the Pre U/A level results of his school and others we looked at carefully especially the subjects my DS is interested in.

middleclass DS school seesm to treat IGCSEs as an irritant .

The results certainly aren't trumpeted. Everyone assumes and expects they will be good.

It's the 18 year olds' results that matter. Where did the leavers go...

And even then, many people would choose the school regardless.

For the most academic we judge a school on whether they are kept interested and enough are getting into the range of courses they aspire too. The universities judge which students they feel are most suited and assess the credit given to post 16 exams.
I can just reiterate that coursework and CAs that one of my DC has done for GCSE seems little learning gain for time spent particularly for MFLs.

summer

You are now changing the criteria of your argument, Yes for the most academic we use tests, but just because someone is not academic and finds tests hard that does not make them unintelligent.

"we judge a school on whether they are kept interested and enough are getting into the range of courses they aspire too."

We judge schools on how well all pupils are kept interested and enough are getting into the range of courses they aspire too, not just the academics.

Boney it does n't make them unintelligent but unless they have learnt to strategies as soon as possible for example for dyslexia / poor working memory it does mean that they will also find higher academic exams a dispiriting struggle.
You seem to be arguing two points but not separating them - 1)a poor exam performer does not equate with poor academic intelligence - of course not but see above.
2) all exams of all types cannot be shown to be harder or easier
Most would disagree with you.
I think that masking somebody's future academic difficulties by prepared CA and coursework may get them good results but not the skills to cope with university learning and testing.
Of course academic intelligence does not relate necessarily to success later in life.

summer

taking the points as split
On point one we seem to agree, but if poor exam performance is an indicator of intelligence then why do many degrees have an high ratio of vocational sections to them?

on point 2 how do you set a benchmark that shows which type of examination is harder of easier.

Update on iGCSEs : www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28108153

Not sure if we are talking of the same types of degrees but some professions require a high level of practical competence as well as academic skills.
My criteria for a tougher exam would be

1. not modular - thereby preventing material just being learnt in small chunks and then forgotten.
2. testing writing and reasoning skills and not just using pre rehearsed question types, pre- learnt answers or assessments dependent on variable teaching help.
3. for MFLs learning the building blocks so that these can be pieced together flexibly not just parrot fashion for certain stock phrases.
4. a more demanding syllabus to be covered for higher grades. The benchmark - well I think those who teach the subjects at post school level could help judge for sixth form exams as they already do by UCA points but I am sure you and others have other solutions.

I can't see that this will effect many of the independent schools who only offer IGCSE Tissue as many have already opted out of league tables my DS2's has and as I said doesn't seem to even publish their IGCSE results (I looked on their website after I posted above). Doesn't bother me.
One of the many advantage of paying is that your school and your children are not at the whim of every government change.

summer

Your suggestions whilst valid are still only opinions, and to ratify the belief that the exams are harder you would be relying upon the opinions of others.

What would you do to obtain valid scientific data to support the hypothesis that IGCSEs are harder than GCSEs?
the link provided by Tissue would suggest that those bringing in the new exam believe that the new exam is harder than the current IGCEs.

Boney I don't want to air my credentials or expertise (they might all be made up anyway. However I have certainly observed the limitations of the present system in preparing students for independent thinking . IGCSEs and preUs fulfil at least some of my above criteria

The link said "ministers belief that IGCSE's don't share the same construction as the government reformed qualification-in terms of amount of course work and the timing of the exam."
Firstly if ministers believe something them I have a tendency to not believe it, secondly for CIE IGSE English Lang only 10% of the mark is course work. I haven't got the faintest idea what wrong with the timing of it my DS sat his this summer in May ok maybe a week earlier than others but I do t see that as a problem.

middle

I concur that which is harder is based on whom people trust, (universities say so, ministers say so etc.)

summer

Without a doubt the current system needs to be improved, but changing the system for one that a good chunk of the pupil population cannot access won't make it better.

I think if Mr Gove's new all-singing-all-dancing qualification turns out to be better prep for A level/pre-u than IGCSE, then many schools will adopt it.

However, most teachers, in both sectors, remain unconvinced that it will prove to be much more than a pig in a poke!

As things stand, it is not even available, let alone tried and tested...

The new exam may be better preparation but I suspect many independent school will stick with the IGCSE because it's not being adjusted and altered every couple of years at the whim of ministers. Many independent school also routinely teach way beyond the actual exam curriculum and as Theword view IGCSE's as an irritation so I think they will just stick with what they know works for them; easier or harder they certainly aren't have a detrimental effect on the fantastic results many get.