Will new GCSE's bring a halt to Social Mobility?

[BlueBelle123]

This is something that I have been pondering - if the new grade 9 becomes the entry requirement for the top universities and competitive courses and if the vast majority are awarded to private school pupils then pupils at the local comp. are going to find it almost impossible to access these places. A lot of Ifs I know but it does make you think - or am I talking complete rubbish, love to hear what you think?

I'm resolutely not a fan of Camus.

It is perfectly possible to be part of society without that being a geographically rooted society.

I don't disagree but if that continues it means being only truly part of of a society that consists of people with similar experiences of being expat and childhood in international schools.

No - it consists of anyone who has had significant mind-broadening experiences.

I generally rather prefer DC educated in international schools to those of either the UK private (who are often entitled and snobbish, without much reason) or state (too often blinkered, small-minded and parochial) schools. It seems to produce a mindset that can believe (for example, and only to be slightly provocative) that the NHS is the envy of the world when objectively it is fairly second rate in a First World context! Of course, if one is located in a war zone or a country where per capita income is near the bottom of the global scale, then it's a blinking marvel.

And I am with bobo in believing that it's liberating not to be too rooted.

That is sufficient for dinner table or work place conversations but not for being properly integrated into a society where most people will have geographical roots.

What is so fabulous about geographic rootedness? Having grown up in a services environment, most small town denizens in places I've been (from Cornwall to the Midwest USA) who have never seen much of the world bar the odd holiday resort, seem to have little experience of anything except home and family. Their ideas and horizons are limited and worse still, many seem to be proud of the fact!

In fact, wearing my agent provocateur hat, I think it explains some considerable way to explaining why the English white working class under-perform in educational statistics!

"goes some considerable way to explaining why..."

Cresset most British people are perfectly capable of seeing the advantages and disadvantages of the NHS compared to other international healthcares. Nowadays an international perspective is perfectly possible for most without a nomadic lifestyle. BTW IMO expat international school pupils may also have a parochial mindset due to a rather restricted socioeconomic lifestyle and social circle which often does n't reflect that of the countries' inhabitants.

Expat international schools are far from being the only sort of alternative childhood experience that opens horizons. Not being part of the social fabric in any shape or form is not ideal but, in Europe or North America, would be highly unusual.

Apologies for being naughty!! I'm not convinced that most British people can compare the NHS with other healthcare systems and there is a strain of opinion that continues to claim it's the envy of the world but still...

I think the original question on this thread was about the new GCSE restricting social mobility, and we seem to be wandering away from that, but, on the assumption that social mobility is a good thing (as long as it's not our DC moving down of course!) then the implication of the most recent page or so on this thread seems to be that GCSE grades rank low down the scale of contributing factors.

Would agree with you that international schools' students have a different outlook, and that it isn't always very reflective of the countries' population but in the places I know anything about, my experience is that large numbers of local professionals (the MN demographic) also choose international schools because they teach mainly in English, and this alone swings the deal. Expatriates who send their DC back to UK boarding schools probably have varied reasons for doing so, but I'd guess many are in countries where there is no international school option available.

BlueBelle You said earlier "My concern is that the focus of comprehensives is to achieve 5 good passes including Maths and English".

This is due to change with the implementation of Progress 8, which is supposed to eliminate the excessive focus on getting D candidates over the C boundary.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/progress-8-school-performance-measure

See my thread about how Progress 8 can't be used as a measure of effectiveness of schools

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/2499034-Progress-8-a-data-mangling-bunch-of-arse

I think I can see this coming up a lot in the future.

I thinkGCSEs in their current form do nothing to separate the talented from the hardworking recipe followers. Not only that i think the mark scheme sometimes actually discriminate against 'deep' students

I don't think that end-of-middle school exams necessarily should be separating the talented from the conscientious grafters, though.

Having just done the 2015 GCSE cycle with my two, there is no doubt that they did not test really high ability.

Indeed, in English, my DD was consistently told to dumb down to get her A*.

That said, they still do test a number of important things; proficiency in the subject, organisation, consistent effort (okay, kids can do well if they're clever and cram last minute, but more usually, the ones who work reasonably consistently throughout year 10/11 do better).

Probably the greatest skill tested is the ability to juggle and keep a cool head.

I thinkGCSEs in their current form do nothing to separate the talented from the hardworking recipe followers.

Hot news! The UK driving test isn't a good predictor of your chances of winning an F1 championship!

It's not their job to do that. I'd also take a lot of convincing you can discern "the talented" by testing particular subjects on the basis of two years' study at 16 anyway.

Really? I think you could. Why would you not want GCSE results to identify the standout students particularly in view of the changes in a levels

All DC deserve a chance of getting their GCSEs with a good mark, providing they work hard. Life isn't just about awarding prizes to the talented.

Why would you not want GCSE results to identify the standout students particularly in view of the changes in a levels

Firstly, because there's no evidence it's needed. The AS is relatively new and universities were perfectly able to do admission under the prior system.

Secondly, because GCSEs aren't intended for university admission, and universities aren't stake-holders in them.

Thirdly, because setting a marking a single paper for the current range of outcomes is hard enough.

I think there should be more emphasis on talent being demonstrated through national competitions and prizes, to take the onus away from national examinations which need to cater to the masses.

GCSEs are an excellent way to decide who should take which track at age 16

• academic
• technical
• vocational

And then A level results decide who out of the first track takes which track at age 18

• top 200 University
• mainstream university
• work
• vocational training

And then degree outcomes decide which of the first two tracks take which track at 22

• academia
• research
• career
• job

Therefore there is absolutely no reason why GCSEs should be expected to perform tasks that are better done by later filters.

The problem is that GCSEs wiibe the only public examinations people will usually have taken before applying to uni

AS levels in year 12 are relatively new. Universities used to select on the basis of predicted grades and GCSE grades, with more weight being given to the former. They can do so again, and universities which want to be very selective can use their own pretests (as Oxford already do and Cambridge is planning to do, at least for some subjects).

It is not reasonable to design GCSEs to filter for university entrance two years later. Leaving aside the fact that these are taken by large cohorts and selection at the top for top universities is only necessary for a handful, GCSEs have never been a terrific predictor of A level/degree performance. Quite a lot of students are late developers: I remember school friends who had mediocre grades in many GCSEs (including science and MFL) but who did extremely well in humanities A levels and went on to top universities. Meanwhile there were students who got very high marks in Maths GCSEs and were considered terrific mathematicians by teachers but then struggled at FM A level. (Twenty years ago, so the GCSE back then is what we are returning to now.)

I agree with disquisitiones and as said before I think particularly for subjects like English or History and even MFLs talented pupils may actually get lower marks than they deserve through inconsistent marking and not simplifying down their answers sufficiently to fit the tick box or key word scan. Some schools are better than others at teaching their pupils that technique.