Discussion
fido said:
So what's more important a stupid name or a dumbed-down exam?
Well I agree the GCSE as it stands need changing or replacing, but I'm not jumping up and down with glee purely because the GCSE is to be scrapped. Too many people here believe any replacement will be better than the GCSE purely because it's not a GCSE but I wouldn't be so sure.A stupid name really isn't a good start though. Can the Government not afford one of them marketing firms? Those people with 'ultrabooks' who take 'extended lunches' and name stuff?
martin84 said:
fido said:
So what's more important a stupid name or a dumbed-down exam?
Well I agree the GCSE as it stands need changing or replacing, but I'm not jumping up and down with glee purely because the GCSE is to be scrapped. Too many people here believe any replacement will be better than the GCSE purely because it's not a GCSE but I wouldn't be so sure.elster said:
btsidi said:
The existing GCSE system seems flawed to me, outside of the recent argument over the bandings.
How 70% odd of pupils can get a C or higher is beyond me - surely a "C" grade should be at the half way point, and attained by 50% of people taking the exam?
This is how it used to be. Now, technically everyone could get A/B.How 70% odd of pupils can get a C or higher is beyond me - surely a "C" grade should be at the half way point, and attained by 50% of people taking the exam?
They should go back to the banding of grades. So only the Top 5% get A* and 10% get A.
This would be the only way to fairly judge who got what.
But for some reason we seem to want to congratulate our athletes for achieving more golds and silvers, yet we mock the system that sees our kids for achieving more A* & A grades.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
elster said:
btsidi said:
The existing GCSE system seems flawed to me, outside of the recent argument over the bandings.
How 70% odd of pupils can get a C or higher is beyond me - surely a "C" grade should be at the half way point, and attained by 50% of people taking the exam?
This is how it used to be. Now, technically everyone could get A/B.How 70% odd of pupils can get a C or higher is beyond me - surely a "C" grade should be at the half way point, and attained by 50% of people taking the exam?
They should go back to the banding of grades. So only the Top 5% get A* and 10% get A.
This would be the only way to fairly judge who got what.
But for some reason we seem to want to congratulate our athletes for achieving more golds and silvers, yet we mock the system that sees our kids for achieving more A* & A grades.
What's happened is that there is now hard-nosed investment in elite programmes using lottery funding. If there is a sport with athletes carrying a realistic chance of a medal, they get funding. If not, they don't - as such, funded elite sports programmes deserve the credit.
We need something broadly similar for the most able pupils in schools, in terms of provision suited to those who will benefit from it. If as a country we can hang on to their talent, which we desperately need to do in order to remain competitive, we can look forward to international successes as per the Olympics.
The same principle applies to other pupils, in terms of appropriate courses for horses which are also appropriately funded.
What we don't need is a one-size-doesn't-fit-all GCSE approach which doesn't serve the most able pupils. These (again, if we can keep them here) will be the source of future jobs and your/our pensions.
turbobloke said:
It's hardly that.
What's happened is that there is now hard-nosed investment in elite programmes using lottery funding. If there is a sport with athletes carrying a realistic chance of a medal, they get funding. If not, they don't - as such, funded elite sports programmes deserve the credit.
We need something broadly similar for the most able pupils in schools, in terms of provision suited to those who will benefit from it. If as a country we can hang on to their talent, which we desperately need to do in order to remain competitive, we can look forward to international successes as per the Olympics.
The same principle applies to other pupils, in terms of appropriate courses for horses which are also appropriately funded.
What we don't need is a one-size-doesn't-fit-all GCSE approach which doesn't serve the most able pupils. These (again, if we can keep them here) will be the source of future jobs and your/our pensions.
But it is partly that. The quality of teaching and the resources that schools have compared to the 70s and 80s is orders of magnitude better. In my day education mostly consisted of turn to page x and copy the next x pages. What's happened is that there is now hard-nosed investment in elite programmes using lottery funding. If there is a sport with athletes carrying a realistic chance of a medal, they get funding. If not, they don't - as such, funded elite sports programmes deserve the credit.
We need something broadly similar for the most able pupils in schools, in terms of provision suited to those who will benefit from it. If as a country we can hang on to their talent, which we desperately need to do in order to remain competitive, we can look forward to international successes as per the Olympics.
The same principle applies to other pupils, in terms of appropriate courses for horses which are also appropriately funded.
What we don't need is a one-size-doesn't-fit-all GCSE approach which doesn't serve the most able pupils. These (again, if we can keep them here) will be the source of future jobs and your/our pensions.
turbobloke said:
It's hardly that.
What's happened is that there is now hard-nosed investment in elite programmes using lottery funding. If there is a sport with athletes carrying a realistic chance of a medal, they get funding. If not, they don't - as such, funded elite sports programmes deserve the credit.
That's exactly what has happened in schools. Kids that are C/D level are targeted for additional help to make sure they achieve the C grade. Kids that are A grade standard are targeted for extra coaching to ensure they make the A or A* grade, and don't drop down to a B.What's happened is that there is now hard-nosed investment in elite programmes using lottery funding. If there is a sport with athletes carrying a realistic chance of a medal, they get funding. If not, they don't - as such, funded elite sports programmes deserve the credit.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's exactly what has happened in schools. Kids that are C/D level are targeted for additional help to make sure they achieve the C grade. Kids that are A grade standard are targeted for extra coaching to ensure they make the A or A* grade, and don't drop down to a B.
Actually what really happens is the teachers completely ignore the A/B grade candidates because all they are interested in is a "pass" - A* to C for those league tables.TwigtheWonderkid said:
turbobloke said:
It's hardly that.
What's happened is that there is now hard-nosed investment in elite programmes using lottery funding. If there is a sport with athletes carrying a realistic chance of a medal, they get funding. If not, they don't - as such, funded elite sports programmes deserve the credit.
That's exactly what has happened in schools. Kids that are C/D level are targeted for additional help to make sure they achieve the C grade. Kids that are A grade standard are targeted for extra coaching to ensure they make the A or A* grade, and don't drop down to a B.What's happened is that there is now hard-nosed investment in elite programmes using lottery funding. If there is a sport with athletes carrying a realistic chance of a medal, they get funding. If not, they don't - as such, funded elite sports programmes deserve the credit.
The kids in school have no parallel with the Olympic standard of sports for which they could be targeted and coached. It's not GCSE and it's not GCE A-level.
If you read back through posts in this thread (and the university social engineering thread) the entire point about reforming GCSE, and A-levels hopefully in due course, is that the one-size-fits-all plus all-must-have-prizes plus grade inflation plus spin is that there is now no confidence in those C grades no matter how they're achieved, because the standards in reality are so low. Our domestic grades are skyrocketing whether A*/A or A*-C while at the same time our international standing has plummeted.
The number of A* grades at A-level, for example, still precludes the most able students from being identified since the numbers achieving at that seemingly top level is so high. GCSE is if anything worse than that in its own way.
Part of what we need, in terms of providing all students with an appropriate menu at school, is an unashamedly elite education offer to those students who will benefit from it. As a result, the entire country will benefit, if we can persuade the most able students to stay.
Also to be clear, I have also pointed out that we must invest in targeted programmes and assessments that are appropriate to other students. However those kids when adults will largely be dependent on the highest attainers for jobs, and pensions when they grow old.
Elite is not a dirty word, though the left seems to see it as such. It represents excellence, which is a good thing. We can cope with it in sport, now we need to embrace it within education.
cuneus said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's exactly what has happened in schools. Kids that are C/D level are targeted for additional help to make sure they achieve the C grade. Kids that are A grade standard are targeted for extra coaching to ensure they make the A or A* grade, and don't drop down to a B.
Actually what really happens is the teachers completely ignore the A/B grade candidates because all they are interested in is a "pass" - A* to C for those league tables.My son was identified as an A student in many subjects, and was given specific coaching to maximise his potential. He ended up with 4 A*, 5 A and 3 B grades.
And contrary to popular belief, he had to work damn hard to achieve this. But maybe that's because he's actually thick!
Personalising the discussion is unhelpful. It adds nothing more than a particular case, which may obviously be close to the heart of somebody, but apart from localised emotional clouds the view hasn't changed.
What might concern parents in general is that with higher expectations from the outset, many children might have achieved far more...both in reality (absolute terms) and in terms of whatever grade was awarded from the current flawed examinations.
What might concern parents in general is that with higher expectations from the outset, many children might have achieved far more...both in reality (absolute terms) and in terms of whatever grade was awarded from the current flawed examinations.
What of independent schools, which achieve 90%+ for their students in Maths and English at GCSE? Their kids aren't smarter - the schools just provide much more focussed education.
Isn't this essentially "gaming" the system?
Should we be hearing politicians and the media lamenting these schools' exam results and demanding that this is addressed?
Isn't this essentially "gaming" the system?
Should we be hearing politicians and the media lamenting these schools' exam results and demanding that this is addressed?
turbobloke said:
Personalising the discussion is unhelpful. It adds nothing more than a particular case,
First hand experience of the system in action is probably more useful that some mindless parrot coming out with rubbish like "schools don't care about A&B students because as long as they get a C that's all that matters."Anyone can join a debate and quote verbatim the Daily Mail. Big deal.
I'm sure that if you can find the Daily Mail from September 1912, there will be a story in it saying "kids today are thick, exams are easier than they were in our day, they have no manners, they're illiterate etc etc etc.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
First hand experience of the system in action is probably more useful that some mindless parrot coming out with rubbish like "schools don't care about A&B students because as long as they get a C that's all that matters."
Well first hand experience is exactly what is was:My daughter was at a state school and at the parents evening one of her teachers said "She'll easily get the five grade C GCSE's" and and a bit more probing made it crystal clear that that was the extent of the ambition.
That school was rated outstanding in every category by Ofsted.
Even though it was half way through the first term we took the decision to pull her out.
cuneus said:
Well first hand experience is exactly what is was:
My daughter was at a state school and at the parents evening one of her teachers said "She'll easily get the five grade C GCSE's" and and a bit more probing made it crystal clear that that was the extent of the ambition.
That school was rated outstanding in every category by Ofsted.
Even though it was half way through the first term we took the decision to pull her out.
It's a shame that you had such a negative experience, but please don't tar all teachers with the same brush. I personally try to ensure that all students at all levels achieve in line with their capacities.My daughter was at a state school and at the parents evening one of her teachers said "She'll easily get the five grade C GCSE's" and and a bit more probing made it crystal clear that that was the extent of the ambition.
That school was rated outstanding in every category by Ofsted.
Even though it was half way through the first term we took the decision to pull her out.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm sure that if you can find the Daily Mail from September 1912, there will be a story in it saying "kids today are thick, exams are easier than they were in our day, they have no manners, they're illiterate etc etc etc.
Exams have got easier in the sense that it is easier to get an A/B/C etc. grade - across every subject (possibly except Music so i'm told). Employers and Universities are saying exactly the same thing. No one is saying "kids today are thick" - though literacy may have possibly got worse (this isn't from the DM ..http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/mar/15/raise-literacy-target-schools-ofsted-chief). It's certainly the case when i review CVs from applicants. Whether that's to do with the leftist infiltration of the teaching profession is another matter, but i'm certainly glad i went to a school which had a high proportion of ex-military and other non-teaching professionals who weren't pushed around by the NUT.Edited by fido on Wednesday 19th September 14:05
nadger said:
cuneus said:
Well first hand experience is exactly what is was:
My daughter was at a state school and at the parents evening one of her teachers said "She'll easily get the five grade C GCSE's" and and a bit more probing made it crystal clear that that was the extent of the ambition.
That school was rated outstanding in every category by Ofsted.
Even though it was half way through the first term we took the decision to pull her out.
It's a shame that you had such a negative experience, but please don't tar all teachers with the same brush. I personally try to ensure that all students at all levels achieve in line with their capacities.My daughter was at a state school and at the parents evening one of her teachers said "She'll easily get the five grade C GCSE's" and and a bit more probing made it crystal clear that that was the extent of the ambition.
That school was rated outstanding in every category by Ofsted.
Even though it was half way through the first term we took the decision to pull her out.
clonmult said:
nadger said:
cuneus said:
Well first hand experience is exactly what is was:
My daughter was at a state school and at the parents evening one of her teachers said "She'll easily get the five grade C GCSE's" and and a bit more probing made it crystal clear that that was the extent of the ambition.
That school was rated outstanding in every category by Ofsted.
Even though it was half way through the first term we took the decision to pull her out.
It's a shame that you had such a negative experience, but please don't tar all teachers with the same brush. I personally try to ensure that all students at all levels achieve in line with their capacities.My daughter was at a state school and at the parents evening one of her teachers said "She'll easily get the five grade C GCSE's" and and a bit more probing made it crystal clear that that was the extent of the ambition.
That school was rated outstanding in every category by Ofsted.
Even though it was half way through the first term we took the decision to pull her out.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Maybe we should apply that to Team GB in the Olympics. After all, we used to pick up 2 or 3 gold medals if we were lucky. But just like grade inflation in GCSE, we have medal inflation in the Olympics, and now we're winning 25-30 golds. Obviously the Olympic events must have got easier, as we could never accept that our athletes are better trained and are better funded and as a result are doing better than previous generations.
But for some reason we seem to want to congratulate our athletes for achieving more golds and silvers, yet we mock the system that sees our kids for achieving more A* & A grades.
That's a rubbish comparison. Using your athletics vs education analogy us Brits would be awarding ourselves gold medals for just turning up to national events, but rapidly slipping down international tables. In the Olympics we'd be lucky to even qualify for the finals.But for some reason we seem to want to congratulate our athletes for achieving more golds and silvers, yet we mock the system that sees our kids for achieving more A* & A grades.
When businesses cannot trust the current educational qualifications then they are no longer fit for purpose. I have no doubt that students with high passes richly deserve them, but they are now lumped in with students with the same qualifications who do not - how are employers supposed to spot the exceptional kids? It's those kids who are genuinely talented that are being put at a disadvantage here.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff