iGCSEs

[montenuit]

So now the GCSEs have become more rigorous, more content, grades up to 9 (A**) are they harder than iGCSEs?

iGCSEs were often preferred by some independent schools, because they are a better foundation for A level. Is that still the case?

Have they changed/increased content too? They also have changed to grades 9-1.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/state-school-pupils-shut-out-top-universities-private-gcses-difficult-easier-head-teacher-a8414206.html

I'm confused. Says in theabove IGCSEs are no longer recognised or included in league tables so why are unis even acknowledging them?

Surely if not the rich have access to them they should be disregarded anyway. If they're actually easier now shouldn't there be a system recognising this?

Only

I teach in a Pupil Referral Unit and last year we chose to enter our students for the A*-G IGCSE Maths rather than the 9-1 GCSE because it was considerable more accessible at the lower end. We have to do GCSE this year, so I can't speak for the 9-1 IGCSE.

I have also taught CIE and Edecxel IGCSE Science, and I found the IGCSE had considerably more content than the old Science GCSEs, but presented in a fairly straightforward way. The new Science GCSEs have the content (and rote learning) now too, so...

Having experienced both in English, iGCSE was easier thane the old English GCSE and also easier (albeit weirder) than the new one -and included coursework. Lots of comps enthusiastically adopted iGCSE English when they realised it was - statistically speaking- easier. Some schools messed up the teaching and did woefully. Others got ridiculously high results (usually ones where there was a teacher experienced in delivery of iGCSE in all its whimsy) So the government scrapped them as a performance measure.

In the two years we delivered it, the students who did iGCSE (anyone from set 3 and below) got better results than those doing GCSE , went on to do A Levels in English type subjects :and bombed (with ridiculously high target grades, of course). However, our uptake to A level was really high ; totally not the case in the first year post 9-1 GCSE.

All of our local selective Indys sit mainly IGCSEs. There is no course work options at any of them except for Art and PE, so I don't know how these other schools managed to find courses that included it, and I suspect they may be non-selective schools looking to bump up their results.

I am in SW london and these same selective Indys are the top performing schools at A level in the country. So obviously these schools are choosing courses which are rigorous and a good preparation for A levels, particularly because GCSEs are of no importance whatsoever to top-performing students once they have progressed to post A levels.

Brigton College is a selective Boarding school. It is well aware that the top performing schools against which they should be comparing results will have followed the more vigorous options as the best preparation for A level.

DS sat 2 language IGCSEs, which he studied over years and a language GCSE that he studied over 1 academic year. The difference between the 2 exams was ridiculous. He has an A* in a language at GCSE that he doesn't actually know a word of. For GCSE the students are even told the essay title in advance so they can prepare for it (learn it off by heart). It is madness that he has the equivalent qualfication as for the other 2 when he had to work so hard for them. He is still fuming about it.

The maths one seems somewhat easier, to my mind. (the 9-1 igcse). The questions seems to be worded more straightforwardly, and they only have to do two papers, both with calculators and with forumla sheets. They have a few additional topics (basic differentiation, for example), and some fewer ones (completing the square, etc). For the pupils that I teach, the iGCSE seems to fit better with their strengths, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be harder for others.

and yes, it's the independent schools that are sticking with the iGCSEs instead, particularly maths, but also in science, as they seem to be allowed to offer two full sciences independently (e,g. just biology and chemistry, as full GCSEs, no physics, no double science, no combined, no triple, etc).

The English IGCSE with coursework was the widely popular Cambridge IGCSE if I recall. Three bits of coursework, plus a speaking and listening component.

Not really fair is it.

Surely unis should just accept one qualification, the GCSE and the GCSE only. Accepting exams that skirt round and benefit in anyway is surely not on if the benefit is one only the rich who have access to private schools can access.

Just makes the unfair private school advantage even bigger.

I don't think universities are all that concerned with GCSEs really. It's A-levels that matter.

I thought GCSEs do matter now and are counted. Happy to be told otherwise though.

Again I don't know any of the local Indy schools that will allow you to only sit 2 science IGCSEs. The dual science award is paper 1 of all 3 sciences and that is sat as standard for anyone opting out of triple science. It is one of my many complaints about education today that someone like me who just couldn't do chemistry would have to struggle with it nowadays.

Piggy - was there no final exam at all on the Cambridge course because that just sounds silly.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40418457

Yes cake : one comprehension style exam with some transactional writing and three bits of coursework iirc.

My DS has just done the new English igcses with Edexcel both with coursework.

university.which.co.uk/advice/gcse-choices-university/how-important-are-my-gcse-grades

Says here GCSE results can be crucial for many degree applications.

Yes I just looked it up, its still running for current students. The speaking and listening don't contribute to your result but you can have a separate certificate! Why would you bother doing it? And then everyone sits the first paper 50% of the mark, and there is an option for a second paper or you can opt to submit a portfolio of 3 pieces of work instead.
Before the GCSEs were reformed was there an option to do an exam instead of coursework or was coursework compulsory? because if there wasn't I can see why a school may favour the IGCSE.

Can see why this issue has been so widely reported. It isn't fair. I hope they do something about it.

There’s no reason universities shouldn’t accept it. And they will have to accept it from some students. It would be a bit odd to say it’s fine for X group of students to have iGCSE but Y group can’t.

The random allocation of what the government decides to measure schools on doesn’t really have a great deal to do with uni admissions anyway.

Prior to the new style 9-1 maths GCSEs , the iGCSE was a lot harder, the old Maths GCSEs seemed to have been dumbed down year on year until recently. So it was ‘fair’ then either.

Unis go on A levels, exam boards options for those are the same for private or state, afaik.

Wasn’t

GCSEs have only recently started to be more important for uni admissions since they scrapped AS levels and unis don’t have any actual sixth form results to go on.

There are definitely some private schools that allow 2 single separate iGCSE sciences, as I've some pupils doing those. It doesn't seem fair to compare that with GCSE double science. Both valuable options, but very different from each other.

I am in SW london and these same selective Indys are the top performing schools at A level in the country. So obviously these schools are choosing courses which are rigorous and a good preparation for A levels,

Do they not admit external candidates into the the 6th form? Or only those who have taken iGCSEs, so as not to risk diluting their results with the inevitably lower achievements of students who took inferior public exams at 16?

State school kids do get multiple A*s at A level, too, despite the crap GCSEs they have been forced to take.