What changes would you make to GCSE`s

[4lennahcnosloohcsvti]

If you could make any changes to gcse`s what would they be ?

What subjects would you remove from the curriculum and what would you add ?

I have mixed feelings about coursework and controlled assessment.

In my subject it was a nightmare for GCSE. 6-8 pieces of coursework/controlled assessment and it became a never ending treadmill of intervention trying to get the scores up. I look back at the hours I lost of my own life to gain odd marks here and there.

I'd rather have some form of modular exams, but not as many as the old modular science GCSE.

I love coursework at A Level though.

Yes, but they don't use them to issue a GCSE-style grade. I think doing so would be an improvement.

I would have system like in the USA where you have a GPA. I think every exam take you have a standardised score out of 100 and that is averaged out over all your subjects. Phase out silly grades which don’t represent if you are a top A or a bottom A. You could do exams over 4 years, gradually dropping subjects each year. You apply for uni on the basis of you prior year GPA and they give you a minimum GPA to beat to get the place.

@Foxesandsquirrels
I never said that pre 16 shouldn't study Maths & English, English is a different to English Language!
There are some kids who would benefit from a more practical way of studying not all want to become Mathematicians or philosophers and there should be a much wider choice

@Takeitonthechin what English did you have in mind?

That suppose to say Literature not Language

I think the problem with focusing the national curriculum on life skills and eg maths that you need for banking and English that you need for writing a job application and not making all children follow a reasonably broad and rounded academic curriculum is that it is going to disadvantage the brighter children in state schools and also maybe those who are later developers and might not really get into their stride until a bit later than average.

Selective schools whether private or state will all still be following an academic curriculum. A child who is at a school where the focus is on life skills is going to be disadvantaged when it comes to A Levels and university if they are competing against children who have had a lot more academic content. That isn't going to level the playing field when you look at law or finance or government or media or whatever.

A child who spends their initial years at secondary in lower or middle sets and then maybe speeds up, gets the hang of things and starts to look at a more academic pathway is going to be disadvantaged too, assuming the higher sets will do more of the academic stuff.

I don't disagree that there are some children who may be better served and happier going for a qualification that is more achievable or more practical or not explicitly academic but then you are back to a two tier system and people weren't happy with that either.

This feels like such a strong argument for a through to 18 model of secondary education (with either middle schools or 13/14 or all through from 12), giving kids more space and time to develop.

The other thing that gets missed in the 'these skills don't benefit the majority' argument is that many of the kids who do find their passion/interest in these subjects don't find it until they've done a fair bit of it at secondary, and without the time to learn and explore and get over the initial hump where things start out dull and then become fascinating, a lot of otherwise untapped talent - in a language, in computing, in a science, in theoretical maths, whatever - can be lost.

I would argue all children should do basic and "life skills" maths, English and IT along side the other subjects (including academic maths and English). All need to sit and pass this and it should be set at a passable level. It would be the minimum skills needed for most jobs and life.

Academic maths, English and other subjects would continue along with BTECs etc so that there wouldn't be a two tier system, but you wouldn't have 40% of children being effectively dismissed because they haven't fully grasped concepts they will never ever need for the rest of their lives.

Totally agree with this!

Definitely have 3 levels of maths. With the lowest being just 'maths for life' and instead of insisting college students do functional skills, make it so they have to pass 'maths for life' instead. It's unreasonable to expect a student who has learning difficulties to have to pass functional skills in order to gain a qualification in cookery or hairdressing.

Well at the moment the non academic students are disadvantaged. Instead of learning things that will actually be useful for their future they're having to learn things that suit the academic students. They leave school and go onto college and then still have to achieve things that are out of their reach academically in order to gain qualifications in practical skills. My daughter couldn't even do beauty therapy as she didn't pass maths. They put her in a level 1 which means she'll have to spend another year extra at college when someone who scored a few more points in maths gcse will be qualified at 18. Not to mention that the A level college next door not only get their own designated bus it's also subsidised and the practical college she goes to has no designated bus just a very expensive unreliable bus that comes every 2 hours. It's hard to see all the privileged kids get on their bus and my daughters left there waiting for her. All because she has learning difficulties.
The whole system is crap because those in charge have no idea about real peoples lives.

I'd scrap them and move to a "modular" system like Universities where pupils earn and bank modules/marks throughout secondary school. Allocate marks to each module which count towards some kind of "school leaving" certificate, the marks per module being based on the level of difficulty etc.

Pupils can move up to more difficult/advanced modules within each subject only when they've passed the earlier/easier modules. Some modules will be compulsory, such as basic life-skills literacy, numeracy, personal finance, personal health/safety, etc., but pupils can retake the module multiple times until they pass.

It allow pupils to move "up" through secondary school at their own pace and to their own ability. Ultimately, the strugglers should at least attain a "core competence pass" just by eventually passing most of the basic/simpler modules, even if it takes them several years, so at least leave school with some kind of "school leaving" certificate confirming basic life skill competences. Higher achievers can whizz through to the hardest/advanced modules to get to the highest level of school leaving certificate.

An added benefit is that it stops the "year by year" ethos and will put pupils of similar ability together in module groups rather than based on year groups, so struggling pupils can be "held back" effectively to take modules with younger pupils, and thus reduce the negative impact of being pushed through into more advanced/harder year groups despite not having grasped the basics in earlier years.

Yes, I think Maths needs to be split, not only into "functional skills", but also at higher levels, split between, say, engineering Maths and financial Maths

I’d stop all exams and have them continually assessed throughout the year on class work and homework, giving them an incentive to work hard all year rather than just for exams.

some people don’t work under pressure and why should your full school journey be classified on a 2 hr exam at the end of the year. School is much more than that.

I completely agree that this is very wrong too. But I don't think the answer is to disadvantage someone else. I'm very sorry for your daughter, that must be so frustrating. I also don't understand why beauty therapy requires Maths at all (apart from at the level of being able to do basic arithmetic using a calculator if necessary).

I keep coming back to Noblegiraffe's comment from near the start of the thread - the problem is that the 1-3 grades are treated a functional failures, even if in the past they were supposed to represent CSE rather than O-level grades. So we've ended up putting less academic students in limbo and treating them like they haven't learned enough to get on with finding worthwhile skills and training, when actually there should be pathways available to them.

I also take the view that not pushing the overall student body to learn more and be challenged is short-sighted. The breadth and depth of the curriculum is important for the country's long term outlook. But I also think we have all become a little too used to the idea that everyone should be shooting for A*s and As (and many uni courses reflect this in their entry requirements).

Every year the press howls about grade inflation focussing on A grades, but I think the "minimum C grade for everyone" standard is actually the biggest contributor to overall grade inflation. If the floor starts 4 instead of 1, of course teachers, students, and parents will treat 4 as though it IS a 1 - which is absolute rubbish for everyone, but especially for students scoring 1-3. Scoring a B shouldn't be a tragedy for getting into a good uni, but right now that's what it is. It's insane that we have a system where perfectly capable students despair at not getting straight 9s, while a third of the cohort is stuck in endless retakes. Who could possibly benefit from this?

I would bring coursework back. Some kids just don't do well under exam pressure

Personally I still think the comprehensive "one size fits all" approach is the main problem, as it clearly doesn't suit everyone at all. We were promised a "grammar" education for all, but not all pupils are suited to a fundamentally academic education, hence the high failure rate.

The real problem with the old grammar versus sec mod system was the lack of a pathway between the two. Once you were in a sec mod, you were basically stuck along that path, even to the extent you couldn't take O levels even if you were academically able. THAT was the problem. Instead of scrapping the system, throwing the baby out with the bath water, we should have worked on making pathways between the sec.mod and the grammar for the late developers, and/or beefed up the sec.mods to broaden their offerings for the more academic pupils.

Whilst I agree, it would need some kind of independent third party review of the marking, and also protections put into place to stop cheating and teachers providing too much help. We've had coursework as part of GCSEs in the past, and there were problems with cheating (both by pupils and teachers).

We really can't go back to where, even within the same school, one teacher is "hands off" and leaves their pupils to do it themselves yet another teacher in the next classroom provides a lot more "support". My son experienced exactly that with his Resistant Materials GCSE - he got no help at all as his teacher went off on sick leave and they had a succession of cover teachers who weren't even qualified in ResMat, yet the other class had the "head of dept" who provided one hell of a lot of hands on help in every lesson!

I don't know what the answer is really.

Scrap league tables and the "bucket" subjects.

Some kids are not academic but can excel in mechanics etc. Let them have that option

@Maddy70 out of curiosity - what's a "bucket" subject?

But a lot do. I thrived doing exams. I enjoyed the challenge and the pressure and the sense of achievement once done. I hated coursework . I was long, drawn out and boring and let’s face it, easy to cheat on. I’d struggle not to help my children tbh. There is no easy answer to the fact that children are all different and once system will never fit all.

@Drfosters if the the issue with coursework is the idea of doing it at home (so parents can "help") - I can't see why some shouldn't be worked on at school during lesson time.

@Drfosters I hated coursework too and would've gone much better under the current system, however that's exactly why it should come back. It levels the playing field massively.