GCSE qualifications to be scrapped?
Discussion
The Daily Fail has received information stating that Michael Gove will scrap the GCSE, reduce the number of examination boards and remove stupid questions such as whether one would view the moon with a microscope or telescope
All good so far and I agree that this needs to be done; but will he actually achieve this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162369/Re...
All good so far and I agree that this needs to be done; but will he actually achieve this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162369/Re...
I Really hope so!
This could be the start of the UK getting back an education system to be proud of again! Time to get back to only studying for 8 exams...not 50! Students shouldnt be allowed to resit their exams, just because they didnt get the A* they wanted.
I just hope they follow this with an anouncement that they are going to reform the A levels too!
This could be the start of the UK getting back an education system to be proud of again! Time to get back to only studying for 8 exams...not 50! Students shouldnt be allowed to resit their exams, just because they didnt get the A* they wanted.
I just hope they follow this with an anouncement that they are going to reform the A levels too!
IMO they dont need to scrap or rename anything...just make the questions harder (well make topics in general harder by dealing with more complex subject matter while still being relevant to the real world. I would also like to see computer programming at GSCE, everything today relies on some form of programming). Would still be able to put it all under one board too but leave it as GSCE and A-level. That way at least people have the option to go for the top grades even if they have little chance. Its better than being capped at a C and having zero chance. Just need to move away from the all must have prizes awards going on now.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 21st June 11:18
UF said:
eccles said:
More bloody meddling! 
Or let things stay the same?Every couple of years they have a go at changing what's taught and how yet it's fairly obvious that many leaving school these days can't spell or do simple arithmetic even though they've got an armful of qualifications.
Happy82 said:
Sounds good, it's about time too! I read somewhere that it's to help prepare students for the toughness of university studies, I'm guessing it's a long time since those proposing the ideas went to uni 
Uni is tough providing a) you go to a good one and b) choose a proper course like physics or engineering and not learning about the family love circle in sociology/basket weaving/jamaican studies.Otispunkmeyer said:
IMO they dont need to scrap or rename anything...just make the questions harder (well make topics in general harder by dealing with more complex subject matter while still being relevant to the real world. I would also like to see computer programming at GSCE, everything today relies on some form of programming). Would still be able to put it all under one board too but leave it as GSCE and A-level. That way at least people have the option to go for the top grades even if they have little chance. Its better than being capped at a C and having zero chance. Just need to move away from the all must have prizes awards going on now.
I half agree half don't. The simple thing would be to make the questions harder and teach chidlren the subjects in question instead of teaching them how to pass. The issue with that is that if they did just suddenly make the questions harder and teachers did their job properly then all of a sudden pass rates which are one of the benchmarks of a decent school will drop. Schools that have churned out A* students over the years would possibly only manage to churn out B students. Although you'd expect the poorer schools to drop a few grades as well making it all relative. A rename/reform would be simpler for the general public to understand. Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 21st June 11:18
The issue would be is that people these days just seem happy to do enough and no more. It's all very well having a new fancy title for exams but if all the teachers do is teach the answers then its the same problem under a different name (and no doubt costing more money).
Which brings you back to your original point why not make the questions harder and teach the subject.
Dilemmas.
Maybe we need to cut the flowery idea of education is for all?
There are some that can, and others that can't!
Personally I think people should be talked out of the idea of going through to Uni, and just get out into the workplace...I know this is a little difficult currently, but then the exams could go back to the way they were 20 years ago, and then the qualifications gained would be actually worth something!
There are some that can, and others that can't!
Personally I think people should be talked out of the idea of going through to Uni, and just get out into the workplace...I know this is a little difficult currently, but then the exams could go back to the way they were 20 years ago, and then the qualifications gained would be actually worth something!
Nuclearsquash said:
There was a typical labour comment about this on the radio this morning, saying it would split people in to winners and losers.
I don't see a problem in that.
Odd then, that the Tories scrapped them originally...I don't see a problem in that.
It won't make 'winners' and 'losers' it'll spilt into "Us" and "Them" meaning people 'fit' for 'O' levels will be deemed better from the age of 14 and brand those consigned to the lesser qualification stream as lesser at that stage.
The education system doesn't need more f
king about with, it needs stability so decent teachers can teach and give our children a useful education!!!!!No-one wins with this constant meddling except politicians who get the 'quick win' of being seen to 'do something' about education.
The single GCSE qualification should measure all at 16 and those who are able will get good grades and those less so will get lower grades. Surely that's the best answer for all? Assess everyone at 16 (when they are looking at work or FE) by the SAME standard, not brand a late developer (or someone the teacher didn't like) as useless because they 'only' got a top grade 'CSE'?
M.
Edited by marcosgt on Thursday 21st June 11:35
The trouble with the exams is that exam boards and schools realised that grade inflation was a good way of improving their lot. More passes good be presented as better. Better exams and better schools got more pupils.
At the same time government realised that having more kids in education, and getting ever higher grades was a good thing for them. Look at the improved standards, look at all the education, see the youth unemployment figures stay low.
The best thing though was that the kids ended up paying for this. Grants couldn't be afforded once they decided to go down this route so in came loans.
There is, of course, the problem that many students will never, ever, pay off those student loans or will take so long to do so that they might as well never pay it off. Never mind, up the rates for those that do pay it all back or just tag it onto all the other debts floating around.
With gathering concerns about state debts however we may see a return to reality. All of the above is only possible for as long the debts can keep piling up.
At the same time government realised that having more kids in education, and getting ever higher grades was a good thing for them. Look at the improved standards, look at all the education, see the youth unemployment figures stay low.
The best thing though was that the kids ended up paying for this. Grants couldn't be afforded once they decided to go down this route so in came loans.
There is, of course, the problem that many students will never, ever, pay off those student loans or will take so long to do so that they might as well never pay it off. Never mind, up the rates for those that do pay it all back or just tag it onto all the other debts floating around.
With gathering concerns about state debts however we may see a return to reality. All of the above is only possible for as long the debts can keep piling up.
I think England would do well to adopt the outgoing Scottish system (which the Scottish Government seemed determined to ruin):
Single exam board (but keep Ofqual to keep an eye on them)
No modules (each subject is still broken into units with pass/fail tests that must be passed to continue to the exam but don't count towards the mark). Focus on a single exam in May and only one exam period each year. Far less emphasis on coursework.
No resits at all. You either retake the subject next year in full or appeal if you have very strong grounds (previous work, illness, etc)
4 main examinations over the 6 years (S1/S2/S3/S4/S5/S6) of senior school.
Intermediate 1 - easier than GCSE
Intermediate 2 - harder than GCSE
Higher - harder than AS Level
Advanced Higher - harder than A Level
University entry determined mainly determined by Higher results in S5 (so in S6 you apply with results in hand) so most offers will be unconditional (upwards of AABB). If you don't get the grades in s5, you could be given an conditional offer for S6 (e.g. inscreased to AAABBC)
A good student sits 7-8 subjects at Int 2 over the 2 years in S3/4, then 5 subjects at Higher in S5 and optionally 3 Advanced Highers or more Highers in different subjects in S6.
Other students can take subjects at various levels - perhaps a mix of Int 1/2s in S4 then Int 2/Higher in S5 and Higher in S6. Go at their own pace in other words.
Int 1/2 could even be taken in S2/3, allowing more time for Highers over 2 years in S4/5.
Earlier specialisation (7-8 subjects rather than the 10+ that many GCSE students are expected to do) allows students to focus on subjects they're interested in. Meanwhile encouraging 5 subjects at Higher allows English and Maths to be made mandatory. Also allows much wider breadth of study, particularly in STEM subjects. The Royal Society found that uptake of Maths+Physics+Chemistry+Biology in Scotland was 17% compared to 4% in England.
Reduce the range of courses - merge English Literature + Language, Maths + Further Maths and replace "core science" "double science" "triple science" with proper courses in each of the sciences, amongst others.
Adopt that system and you address most of the complaints about the English system including GCSEs, A Levels, university entry and lack of STEM education. A crying shame the Scottish Government are ripping it up.
Single exam board (but keep Ofqual to keep an eye on them)
No modules (each subject is still broken into units with pass/fail tests that must be passed to continue to the exam but don't count towards the mark). Focus on a single exam in May and only one exam period each year. Far less emphasis on coursework.
No resits at all. You either retake the subject next year in full or appeal if you have very strong grounds (previous work, illness, etc)
4 main examinations over the 6 years (S1/S2/S3/S4/S5/S6) of senior school.
Intermediate 1 - easier than GCSE
Intermediate 2 - harder than GCSE
Higher - harder than AS Level
Advanced Higher - harder than A Level
University entry determined mainly determined by Higher results in S5 (so in S6 you apply with results in hand) so most offers will be unconditional (upwards of AABB). If you don't get the grades in s5, you could be given an conditional offer for S6 (e.g. inscreased to AAABBC)
A good student sits 7-8 subjects at Int 2 over the 2 years in S3/4, then 5 subjects at Higher in S5 and optionally 3 Advanced Highers or more Highers in different subjects in S6.
Other students can take subjects at various levels - perhaps a mix of Int 1/2s in S4 then Int 2/Higher in S5 and Higher in S6. Go at their own pace in other words.
Int 1/2 could even be taken in S2/3, allowing more time for Highers over 2 years in S4/5.
Earlier specialisation (7-8 subjects rather than the 10+ that many GCSE students are expected to do) allows students to focus on subjects they're interested in. Meanwhile encouraging 5 subjects at Higher allows English and Maths to be made mandatory. Also allows much wider breadth of study, particularly in STEM subjects. The Royal Society found that uptake of Maths+Physics+Chemistry+Biology in Scotland was 17% compared to 4% in England.
Reduce the range of courses - merge English Literature + Language, Maths + Further Maths and replace "core science" "double science" "triple science" with proper courses in each of the sciences, amongst others.
Adopt that system and you address most of the complaints about the English system including GCSEs, A Levels, university entry and lack of STEM education. A crying shame the Scottish Government are ripping it up.
Bring them back. There must be some old tutorials and course books gathering dust somewhere.
Have a core of 10-12 subjects to choose from at the options stage. Good, worthy subjects, not the soft shyte rubbish that gets taught now.
Then a structured entry system (like it used to be) into further education;
Good 'O' Levels---------> 'A' Levels.
'A' Levels-------------> University (and ditch the pointless degrees)
We should also stop scaring kids into thinking that if they leave school at 16, they'll end up somehow worse off than a university graduate or someone with 'A' Levels.
Have a core of 10-12 subjects to choose from at the options stage. Good, worthy subjects, not the soft shyte rubbish that gets taught now.
Then a structured entry system (like it used to be) into further education;
Good 'O' Levels---------> 'A' Levels.
'A' Levels-------------> University (and ditch the pointless degrees)
We should also stop scaring kids into thinking that if they leave school at 16, they'll end up somehow worse off than a university graduate or someone with 'A' Levels.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff