Planned changes to secondary-school exams (EBacc etc): teachers say there should be more consultation; what do you think?

[LittleTownofBethleHelenMumsnet]

Hello.

We've been contacted by The National Union of Teachers (NUT), who'd be really interested to hear your views on the planned changes to secondary-school exams.

The NUT, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Musicians' Union have joined forces to say that, although they're not opposed to reform of the exam system, they think the Government's recent consultation on the new EBacc was too limited and that any decision to move ahead is being made in haste.

They say: "We believe on an issue of such importance to young people's future the conversation cannot be over. Accordingly we are asking for a further consultation with a wider remit and brief, involving parents and students, as well as the profession and employers."

They've also set up a microsite to petition Michael Gove to re-open and extend his review of secondary-school exams.

Please do feel free to post your thoughts here.

chloe74 - we got nobbled for Community Cohesion, which was then a limiting factor (ie. you couldn't get above 'good' overall with a 'satisfactory' for ComCo.). Our ComCo person had just left - under a cloud - & the new one had been in the job for less than a fortnight.

We were 'Outstanding' for Teaching & Learning, & we've since been graded 'Outstanding' by HMI in subject inspection.

My own opinion is that we can't be genuinely outstanding, in terms of quality provision for the children we teach, if we're left in the dark as to what we're supposed to be teaching & it's not been properly worked out. I can write Schemes of Learning for terminal exams only if that's where we're going, but we need a properly worked out spec in order to do our jobs properly.

'FYI I am not fully in favour of the proposals, I am fully in favour of waiting to see what the proposals are before I dis them.'

This is the problem you see. Those of us with a genuine interest in education would quite like to have seen them too. What we are 'dissing' is not the proposals but the process.

Chloe I find it very interesting that you haven't responded to my worries about the changes so I will state again...

*do not cater for all abilities
*not workable to have one exam to suit 80% of ability range
*the limited curriculum it will enforce (don't believe the hype that the subjects that don't contribute to the league tables will continue when that is what a school is judged on)
*the speed in which it is being brought in
*the lack of consultation with experts
*the complete contempt to the misgivings that experts have already voiced

so rather than just sounding like Gove's puppet can you actually articulate a sound argument/reference to the above issues?

Doubt it. I blame her English teacher, tbh.

Just a quick reply to Chloe - the first news report I heard on the EBacc did say that the arts would be sidelined. That was a few months ago, IIRC.

Secondly, despite my lengthy post about the way that art can change society and individuals, you are still completely missing the point. I won't bother trying to explain it again! Except to say that as a professional choice the arts are more classless than masses of academic/ 'professional' careers such as law, publishing, medicine, architecture - the list is endless. You'd probably see that if you engaged with the arts.

FWIW can we do a straw poll: who did trigonometry at school? And who has used it since leaving school?

My replies: Yes, No.

I suspect that most people would answer in the same way. We all study a whole bunch of subjects which we are unlikely to ever refer back to in later life. Education is generally not tailor-made until we make our own choices as adults. So why do you consider the arts (which we've established you know next to nothing about) to be different, less valuable, and therefore justify a booting out?

I'd be a 'yes, no' too, & I'd argue that studying trig was quite good brain gym & gave me an insight into 'real' Maths - I didn't study Maths beyond A-Level, & had no great aptitude for it post O-Level.

It was a glimpse into something that was not for me, but might've been had my talents been different. Hopefully I'm better informed as to the value of Mathematics as a result.

Teaching & learning should be about opening doors in this way - Gove seems quite keen on slamming them in people's faces.

My point exactly, ravenAK, very well put.

I spent my childhood surrounded by people who took Gove's dim view (there's a double meaning in that! - and that's a Shakespeare quote, ho ho!) of the arts. Because I was academic as well as artistic, it was assumed that that was the direction I should be pushed in.

Decades later this square peg has finally rejected the round hole and I am now developing my own arts career. NEVER before have I been so stimulated, challenged, inspired, blah blah I shan't witter on about myself! I have never been so determined to build a career as I am now. And I wish I had had the strength of mind not to listen to the fuckers who lost me many, many years of career success and fulfilment. Nobody has the right to do that to anybody - particularly not those who haven't a fucking idea what they are talking about.

But are you doing it in yellow cross-gartered stockings, Maya? .

Yup. And damn sexy they are, too. 'Specially with my cellulitey thighs poking out above. Foxy lady, that's me!

Could someone tell me when it refers to 'science' is that the equivalent of a single GCSE, double science award gcse or 3 separate sciences? Much the same applies for English - will it just be language, literature or a combination?

It may be a silly question - but will there just be one piece of paper awarded for the subjects in question - I suppose a bit like the pre-war matric exam?

I may be an old cynic but I can see that the certificate of achievement for those who don't achieve the ebacc will have zero currency.

Okay, I have two children who are doing GCSEs, but they vary a lot in syllabus and assessment methods from my eldest (sat them last summer) to my younger (sitting 2015). I also have a youngest who will be in the Ebacc years.

I assume that private schools will choose to sit iGCSEs instead, and I kind of hope that my DCs state school will take those instead of the new untried qualification. You can sit a foundation paper in iGCSEs btw.

I don't believe that Gove listens to anyone, expert or otherwise, he just goes on the fuzzy memories of his (and maybe his friends) schooldays.

LaVolcan I don't understand the English components, either, but I think with double or triple science GCSE, there are different components when course-worked based,including a sort of general science exam taken early as part of the modular work.

But hey, don't worry about wrapping your mind around it, Gove wants to change the whole structure anyway!

Double science counts as 2 GCSEs & is usually considered the lower ability science qualification. Both interpreted as general science, not specialised.

Triple science is for higher ability kids, counts as 3 GCSEs: one each in bio/physics/chemistry.

triple science isn't necessarily for higher ability kids - double is all you need for A level science and some high ability dc choose to do extra languages or humanities instead of the extra science. It is true though that higher ability children now have an 'entitlement' to do triple science if they want to (in theory at least).

Back in the old days of O levels when 8 subjects was normal, it was quite unusual to do all 3 sciences. Lots of people just did one or two. I personally think doing one or two science GCSEs that cover some of all the sciences is better than doing just one or two specific science O levels and I'd be surprised if Gove tries to move back to that. I'd expect his new ebacc science to be at least the minimum needed for A level which is the equivalent of 2 GCSEs, but he maybe thinking it will be more - No one really seems to know.

Can somebody clarify something for me? I thought the EBacc was just a certificate you got if you got GCSEs in English, maths, a science, a language and either history or geography? People are talking on here as if it's a new exam. Have I missed something?

Seeker they're talking about Goves proposed new qual for current yer 7s which will be one award EBC as long as kid gets maths English science MFL and humanity. If you're crap at languages tough - you don't get the qual even though you may be a math genius.

I maybe wasn't clear: I wasn't asking about 'science' now. I agree that double science wasn't a bar to a child going on to do A levels in sciences since I had one who did that. In the old days the O level combination was usually Physics and Chemistry, or Biology and Chemistry but very rarely all three and usually gender biased at that. (I am not sure that this has changed much - wasn't there a report out this summer saying how few girls are doing Physics A level?)

But I digress. When you say gelo No one really seems to know, that is what I expected the answer to be. It sounds too as though you won't just get the one certificate for it, so it won't be like now when getting all five components deems you to have got an Ebac. This will be unlike the BTEC, which as implied up thread, is a much misunderstood qualification but where you do have to pass all the components to gain the award, so in that sense is a more rigourous award.

Personally I don't see why an educated person shouldn't be expected to have science and language qualifications, so I don't have a problem with the concept. What does baffle me, which I think has also been said elsewhere, is why have the qualification at 16 when that is no longer the school leaving age? Why not rethink the whole 14-18 exam structure instead of chopping it in two? Again though I think various reports have been made about this, which have been perfectly sensible but have just been binned.

What a mess, especially for those children who will be the guinea pigs.

Ah, see I thought the kids would sit EBCs in English, maths, science, mfl, humanity and these would be individual qualifications. If they score a full house then they will (like now) get an ebacc certificate to go with it.

There is no EBacc certificate right now noble. The current EBacc is just a way of measuring schools. It's shorthand for 'GCSEs in these 6 specific subjects' which is too long a title for an Excel column.....

Do they not? Crikey, all that fuss about it and they don't even get a piece of paper to prove they've got it. Employers will really not give a shit, will they?

So it really will be like the old 'Matric' (School Certificate) or the current BTECS?

Not sure what the old school certificate was. The new qualifications will be separate qualifications in separate subjects with a grade for each (but 1-6 rather than A*-G). If you pass all of them, it's called an ebacc. If you don't sit them, you get a piece of paper listing the work you did at school when everyone else was studying for their exams. If you pass some but fail others, you'll get your EBC in maths or whatever you passed, but not the ebacc. If you fail all of them, I guess you just get a certificate with 'fail' for each subject.

Remember, if the exams are to be sat by 80%, that means 1 in 5 students will get no qualifications, just the bit of paper saying what work they covered (but weren't examined on). It'll be worthless.

I am a bit suspicious that we are being drawn into opposing Gove plans by by whipping up fear among parents. Fear of the unknown actually.

I too understood or at least thought I understood the Ebac would just be a certificate that showed you had achieved a certain standard in core traditional subjects but that all the subjects woudl carry on being taught and examined as single subjects just like the old O Levels or GCSE.

I dont believe for a moment that Gove wants to stop children taking arts subjects or taking 3 sciences if they wish.

Yes we need to know the details but as far as I can tell those details have not yet been published.

After all the NUT have a record of opposing everything that Gove proposes whether it be good or bad.

Here is some info on the old school certificate. www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/acland1911/index.html which makes interesting reading. I had thought that Gove wanted to take us back to a golden age of the 1950s, but reading this it looks as though he wants to take us back a century.

MoreBeta: I don't think that it's a question of opposing everything that Gove does, it's just that in this case it's all being rushed in, without the details being known and despite misgivings from many bodies besides teachers. I am sure that most of us posting here would consider ourselves to be well informed and educated but we are not at all clear about what is being proposed. Is that because we are deluding ourselves and we are really all a bit thick, or is it that Gove really hasn't bothered to think it through?

Unfortunately I am an old cynic and ultimately I think Gove's main aim is to do what will further his own career. I hope this one backfires on him spectacularly, but I have a suspicion that he will have moved on by then and someone else will be picking up the mess he has left.

Morebeta, I think there is plenty to fear from what is known! And that so much is unknown for brand new qualifications we are supposed to start teaching in under 3 years time is also very worrying. If I had a child in Y7 now I would be very concerned indeed. Even if the details are ironed out, exam formats decided and specifications drawn up in time for Sept 2015, it's going to be such a rush job that the first cohort will really suffer from lack of adequate preparation. Once the changes are bedded down and established, students will be starting to prepare for these new style qualifications from Y7, which will give them a huge advantage. (Will they be allowed to do better than the poorly prepared cohort or will that be deemed to be grade inflation? If grades are artificially reduced to keep them in line with the first cohort, then how can the level of skill of these students be compared?)