so is anyone's child not predicted to get an A* in gcses

[southeastastra]

cause i've seen lots so far

[ZooeyGlass]

GCSE predictions are worthless. They count for absolutely nothing, and yes most of them are pretty goddamn easy. Maths, Bio, Chem and Phys are all about past papers, whilst Eng, Hist and to some extent Geog are about essay technique.

[claig]

TheFallenMadonna, I don't know how it works. If a child can't read or write and has no hope of passing GCSE English, do they still have to be entered for the exam? Is that some sort of legal or OFSTED requirement? Or can they instead just be removed from these lessons and receive intensive 8 hour a day tuition in reading and writing until they reach a good standard.

[TheFallenMadonna]

Yes. Many secondary school teachers start out thinking that children will be able to read when they arrive at secondary school. Very few can't read at all, although I do teach some. There are many more though who read at a level below that at which, well, exam papers are written. And textbooks. Literacy problems are the biggest thing holding some of my classes back in terms of assessment. And we live or die by assessment.

[claig]

thanks, yes I see what you are saying

[TheFallenMadonna]

I absolutely agree that a child who cannot read should be doing some kind of reading recovery programme. I was just pointing out that the child's inability to read was not down to poor teaching in English lessons.

[claig]

TheFallenMadonna, this child can barely write his name, but it sounds like he is being entered for GCSE English. Does that generally happen in schools even if someone can't write? I think that clumsymum has a good point, maybe he should instead get some emergency remedial training at a primary school level rather than struggling with secondary level English

[TheFallenMadonna]

Teenagers don't learn how to read in secondary English lessons.

[clumsymum]

abbierhodes

If this lad has been attending english lessons for the last 3 years, but is still unable to read or write, what have those lessons actually achieved for him? Surely they have simply been a waste of time, for him and for you.

"I've been his English teacher for three years, and I can assure you that he has also been taught properly"
Hmm, you have been thru the motions of teaching him, but he hasn't been able/willing to learn.

If he does indeed have severe dyslexia, he needed different/more specialist method than you provided. His time has been wasted, and he has been made to feel like a patsy in the process.

If he isn't dyslexic, then the whole academic process has passed him by. In this case, rather than sitting him down and force feeding more of the same, accept that he isn't an academic, and let him move on to a practical course instead, so that you can devote your time to those who can and will benefit from it. If he is able to learn to read, he's more likely to want to acquire the skill when he realises he needs it to identify the correct spare parts for the Fiesta he's putting back on the road.

Illiteracy among school-leavers is becoming more prevalent. Either we're breeding MANY more kids with dyslexia problems, or our education system is alienating more and more children.

I know which I believe is more likely....

[abbierhodes]

"Thank you. It's ridiculous that this lad can barely read or write. His teachers and his school have failed him. My MIL was in the remedial class all the way through school but her spelling and reading is fine. She doesn't have an extensive vocabulary, but what she does have is always correctly used and spelt. Infact her spelling is often better than younger people she works with because she was taught properly."

Thanks for that, Lequeen. I've been his English teacher for three years, and I can assure you that he has also been taught properly. Your MIL clearly isn't severely dyslexic.

[soremummy]

Yes my daughter WONT get A this year at best she would maybe scrap a B. Her sister last yr got top girl at school achieving 7 A and the rest A. No i am not bragging but all people /children are different and my 2 certainly are. I would never compare them results wise and never consider either to be stupid except in the common sense department and you can guess which one has more common sense! /Tbh there is far too much pressure put on these children to get results and an awful lot of work and revision for thrm to do.

[clumsymum]

LeQueen, you have my opinions exactly, but expressed them more eloquently.

I do think our current education system is appalling, and no-one seems brave enough to say so.

And for the teachers on here.... It's not you personally that I'm criticising, It's a system that doesn't work, for you or the children.

[clumsymum]

LeQueen,

I so agree with you, that acedemic qualifications are no good to some people, simply because some CANNOT get their heads around it at all, but have brilliant practical skills. Our current educational system ONLY seems to serve/reward those who can do the academic stuff, and it's the system which causes kids to be written off if they can't get the GCSE's.

I know the old grammar school system was slated by a lot of folk, but essentially it helped folk in this situation. By sending the academics in one direction, and those with more practical skills in another, it allowed kids to nurture and develop their own talents.

I DO AGREE that the "one chance" 11 plus system was too draconian. If a grammar type system was ever re-introduced, it should allow more on-going assessment, more movement between the elements (which I guess is what streaming in a comp is supposed to do, but doesn't seem to do well).

Furthermore, we need to re-introduce the practical courses with less academic stuff back in. Home economics used to involve cooking and the practical aspects of domestic management. But now kids have to write essays about it, rather than DO it. Similarly classes such as woodwork/metalwork would involve the practical skills we need, so we end up with our own plumbers and joiners again. I guess that alot of kids who will NEVER grasp academic maths, would understand a lot more if they were using maths to work out how much wood they need to make a staircase.

I know mine is an old fashioned view. I'm sure some here will argue with me, but we do know that the current system isn't working for a whole load of kids.

[claig]

thanks lazymumofteenagesons, I did manage to get 3 'A's , I went for interview, but I didn't get in. But it was entirely my fault, at the time I was a "wild child" rebel, had a bust up with some of the seniors showing me around and blew it big time

[lazymumofteenagesons]

My brother was awarded an 'exhibition' to read PPE at Oxford in 1973 - A level scores were A,B,C in Economics, English and Maths. It was incredibly unusual to get all As.

That said, I don't think they are easier now, just different. DS1 got a string of A*s in traditional subject GCSEs and people just seem to think you get this with no effort. He worked harder than we ever did to achieve these. Their lives from year 10 upwards seem to revolve around the exams which is not healthy. (Also our holidays are affected when they have exams straight after etc!)

[coldtits]

This obsession with A grades leads to a mass neglect of the large section of the population who are never going to achieve them, no matter how hard they work.

These pupils should be streamed into classes where they are taught as much as possible for them and taught properly. Instead, we have the 'syllabus' which is largely irrelevant if you aren't going to get a grade A, B or C, so those who aren't going to get that grade are left far behind and not given enough time to understand what they could grasp if the teacher wasn't trying to cram them. They are just left floundering around, and the schools' attitude seems to be an unspoken "Fuck it, it's not worth the effort if they aren't going to score well. If you can't get a C, you can fail instead, because a D counts for nothing"

[claig]

let us all know when it is coming out, if it's not a best-seller I'll eat my hat

[claig]

the tussles between you and MrQueen make hilarious reading. You really must write a book about it. I would pay top dollar for it and wouldn't be able to put it down

[claig]

LeQueen, agree with you, this child is not thick at all. I don't believe he can't be taught to read and write, something is going wrong, he needs to be taught in a different way. It is not good enough to accept that he cannot spell his name. On another thread by chance I stumbled across this school for dyslexics
www.iconmethod.com/nias.htm#Icon.
If you read the testimonies of the children and parents at the bottom, you find that these children thought they were too thick to read. But they all mamaged to read and write and get good exam results because of the different way that they were taught to read.

[claig]

clumsymum, thanks for posting those great links to old 'O' level and GCSE papers, I don't think I would ever have found them myself.
bellissima, they used to tell us that only 0.5% of the population got 3 'A' grades at 'A' level, and even at Oxford and Cambridge 3 'A's was not the norm. I am fascinated by these old papers, if you do come across any more links, please post them because I don't think I will ever find them myself.

[snorkie]

'Getting a B for turning up' is clearly an exaggeration, though with the modular system it can be true for the last papers if you've done well enough on the earlier ones. Eg physics gcse - score 100UMS on papers 1 and 2 and the ISA (not as unusual as it sounds - to get 100UMS you need nowhere near 100% raw scow - more like about 28/45) and you have already scored 300/400 overall before you sit paper 3. 280/300 will give a B, so indeed all you need to do is turn up for paper 3 to get a B.

Wasn't there a case last year where someone wrote "f off" on their English exam and scored 5% (would have got more if they'd added an exclamation mark)?