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 ?

Obviously, the answer is a mix of final exams and coursework, but only if the coursework is properly "policed", i.e. no help from teachers or parents etc as that isn't fair on the pupils who don't have someone to help them. As suggested above, perhaps some way of coursework being done in the lessons would help guard against "help" from parents/siblings etc., but we'd still need some way of ensuring teachers don't "help" too much, perhaps by it being done under supervision of a different subject teacher or invigilator rather than the usual class teacher.

I can see why coursework is such a pain for schools though, as you'd always have people missing various lessons and needing to be caught up, and it ends up taking so much time away from actual teaching.

And as soon as you make it too formal in how it's supervised, it becomes just another exam.

I think for any sort of coursework to be useful, they would have to get rid of league tables and publishing of results where high grades in some way benefit the school.

As well as the various maths changes, I would also get rid of the memory requirement in English, and allow clean copies of books and poems to be brought in to the exam. I'm not sure how it could be done economically, though, as I know schools have enough trouble affording one class set of the books, let alone two, and checking to ensure they are clean copies would be another administrative burden; it might also stop schools being able to change books/plays/poems as often as they might want to, which could be a disadvantage. But it would so much more sensible than having students memorise so much. Even just a clean copy of the poems would be better, as those could be printed easily or even on the exam.

DD's one piece of coursework for her history IGCSE was a bit like this. She did her research and planning as normal homework and in lessons and wrote the actual piece in class under exam conditions. I couldn't have helped her anyway as I am a total no-hoper at history, but it wasn't needed as the planning etc was turned in to be marked and they had a chance to make changes based on feedback so I guess even those who didn't have someone able to help at home would get a decent idea of what they had missed or could improve.

It was basically an exam where you knew the question in advance and had the opportunity to look up whatever you needed to know to answer the question. I thought it was quite good. It seemed to me to be a chance for anyone who hates the memorisation aspect to show what they can do when they don't have to remember fifty dates.

Is this what it was like before they took coursework out of GCSEs? I don't know because I am so old that I took O Levels and had no coursework at all.

Schools only get league tavke points fir certain subjects. Maths , sciences, computing , English history etc. They get zero points for art , home economics, mechanics etc. Si it's better for a school to put a kid in for history where they are likely to get an E grade because they have difficulty writing than it is to enter them for art where they might get a b grade. Its a scandal

@MapleSyrupWaffles

and allow clean copies of books and poems to be brought in to the exam

Not sure really why clean copies would be necessary. I did A level English in 1997 and we were allowed to take our books into the exams, literally full of notes, highlighter markings, paper tabs, underlining quotes, etc. The exams were set and marked accordingly, in the knowledge that candidates were using their own/annotated books in the exam, so achieving marks was a lot harder and you got no marks for simple regurgitation of quotes, extracts, etc - the marks were all about understanding, inference, etc.

There is also a danger of a teacher being unexplainably biased against a pupil. This does happen, and kids have no defence. An example from my personal experience: a pupil prepared a piece of coursework well in advance, there was plenty of time to make corrections (which other pupils did), but they were told that everything is very good. The pupil only gets grade B overall, all because the coursework was marked by the same teacher as low C, while the exam grade was A.

GCSE art does count for the open buckets. As do some vocational and technical qualifications.

@Moredarkchocolateplease GCSE maths has 3 papers, IGCSE has 2?

@Moredarkchocolateplease State schools can't enter kids into IGCSEs

Not sure really why clean copies would be necessary. I did A level English in 1997 and we were allowed to take our books into the exams, literally full of notes, highlighter markings, paper tabs, underlining quotes, etc. The exams were set and marked accordingly, in the knowledge that candidates were using their own/annotated books in the exam, so achieving marks was a lot harder and you got no marks for simple regurgitation of quotes, extracts, etc - the marks were all about understanding, inference, etc.

yes that would be fine too, if suitable questions could be written at GCSE level; my concern was more that students would sneak entire pre-written essay plans in, as some teachers go through and make plans based on many possible characters and themes with their students for them to memorise, and it would be possible to bring a lot of that material in, given the relative similarity and predictability of a lot of GCSE level questions, and the number of students - including some at more basic levels who need the more predictable questions - taking it compared to A-level. I know some teachers also have the students essentially memorise a set pre-written story for the creative writing question, and adapt it to whatever the actual question is; it's harder to do this for the non-fiction creative piece, but they try to do a few that are adaptable, and learn those with repeated practice. The literature questions are likely to be the same, at least at that level.

Well they can but it doesn’t count for the league tables.

There was a school that still entered kids for IGCSE English because they thought they were so well regarded that parents wouldn’t mind the league table aspect, then Ofsted came in and slated them for their 0% English and maths grade 4+ measure (among other things).

@noblegiraffe Well yea you explained it better but that's what I meant. Essentially they can't.

As a uni graduate who now has seen two DC struggle through education, I think it does not help to play off different groups. Of course some children perform well under the current exam system, they might not do so "well" under a more flexible system with coursework options.

But think about inequality. The current GCSE system is a bad fit for those who struggle with exams, highly academic "grammar school" syllabus, many of the neurodiverse or those with less than ideal home support. Basically those who already have the odds stacked against them in life, are more likely to leave school with no or few qualifications. The top 20% won't have their lives spoiled by a few less A*'s. They already are set up to succeed. We should rebalance education to help those it isn't currently working for and reduce inequality. And that means a meaningful less academic option.

It's all a lie to kids anyway - do academically well and get a good job...
Except it's the trades that earn well these days, much better than your average degree level office job.

My DCs both have high functioning SEN, as do a lot of young people. They say they wish school taught things like budgeting, navigating the benefits system, tax, how to clean a house, maintain a car etc.

@Findyourneutralspace To be honest, those things are easy to navigate if you have a firm foundation in Maths and English.

Perhaps that's because people with trade skills are in short supply (lack of enough apprenticeships) and there are more people with degrees than jobs requiring them.

Also we know a lot of tradespeople, they are definitely not all that well off. I think that's a bit of an urban myth of people who think plumbers are too expensive.

Perhaps that's because people with trade skills are in short supply (lack of enough apprenticeships) and there are more people with degrees than jobs requiring them.

Also we know a lot of tradespeople, they are definitely not all that well off. I think that's a bit of an urban myth of people who think plumbers are too expensive.

@NotMeNoNo

We should rebalance education to help those it isn't currently working for and reduce inequality. And that means a meaningful less academic option.

Yes, indeed, but we had that alternative - they were sec.mods. but the system was scrapped and replaced by the comps due to cries of the grammar/sec.mod. system being unfair (which it was, but scrapping it wasn't the answer, as we can now see!).

This is the crux! Good literacy and numeracy skills are the key to virtually everything. They're the key to doing well in other subjects such as languages, humanities and sciences. They're the key to doing well in life admin generally, i.e. managing and understanding money & tax, job applications, workplace skills, etc. People with poor literacy and/or numeracy are always going to struggle and underperform both at school and in adult life. They're the roots/foundations of everything else and need to be prioritised at the earliest possible age, before the pupils go on to study languages, sciences and humanities to exam level.

@user1497207191 Exactly. I don't think replacing the English curriculum with 'how to apply for benefits' will help anyone. Establishing a firm foundation in literacy is the key to all this. Not all kids will get that firm foundation via the GCSE curriculum.

Scrapping grammars was definitely a good thing, you can see that clearly in Kent where they weren’t scrapped and you have grifters charging a fortune to worried parents for “11+ tuition”.