Discussion
turbobloke said:
Two GCSEs for the price of one, and clearly equivalent to double science in rigour and utility.
Oi oi, tis a bit harsh, us 'dual/double science' dum8f6kers can do 5h!t like...quant stuff too...ahem, alas I think may have overstated the case! Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 6th October 16:58
rover 623gsi said:
So, anyway…
My year 8 daughter is moving from middle school to high school next year. Last night we went to a school open evening during which I sampled some food many by some of the pupils. While chatting to the teacher she informed me that last year they had seven GCSE catering classes but this year they only have two.
This has happened because, as a result of school’s being judged on the Baccalaureate all the pupils starting Year 10 had to take either history or geography and a language. The result is that pupils starting their GCSEs only have one choice from catering, music, art, drama, textiles, PE, business studies, and media studies and a couple of others that I can’t remember. I also found out that as the school doesn’t have as many art students as last year one of the art teachers has been given a job teaching history – despite never having taught the subject before or having an history qualification.
Is this really a good thing???
My daughter is year 10, so we had the options talk at school last year. There was a very noticeable shift away from the new subjects and back to the traditional ones, statements such as 'you shouldn't disregard a btec in catering studies even though the local 6th form college doesn't count btecs when considering entry requirements'.My year 8 daughter is moving from middle school to high school next year. Last night we went to a school open evening during which I sampled some food many by some of the pupils. While chatting to the teacher she informed me that last year they had seven GCSE catering classes but this year they only have two.
This has happened because, as a result of school’s being judged on the Baccalaureate all the pupils starting Year 10 had to take either history or geography and a language. The result is that pupils starting their GCSEs only have one choice from catering, music, art, drama, textiles, PE, business studies, and media studies and a couple of others that I can’t remember. I also found out that as the school doesn’t have as many art students as last year one of the art teachers has been given a job teaching history – despite never having taught the subject before or having an history qualification.
Is this really a good thing???
Another unintended consequence of dumbing down GCSEs, the school at which my brother teaches (maths) requires an A/A* in GCSE maths from anyone wanting to take the subject at A level. The reasoning is that GCSE maths is now so easy, and the gap between GCSE and A level so wide, that experience shows pupils with anything less than an A at GCSE are unlikely to be able to cope. My son's school won't take children into the 6th form unless they have at least a B in each of their chosen subjects at GCSE.
Edited by RYH64E on Saturday 6th October 21:48
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What a dull place the UK would be, if when all the medics and engineers and scientists got home from work, there was no TV drama, or theatre, or music, or art galleries. In fact, they'd probably go and work abroad, somewhere where there was some culture.
Twee, but not real world. If I thought that fannying around in a school hall for two periods per week led to high culture in consequence, I'd be all for it. In terms of what emerged in the past, whether pre-Victorian or the post-war period, just how our musical / acting / artistic reputation managed to thrive and survive without all those GCSEs in drama studies and media is most surprising. Still, it's quite evident that modern 'talent' knocks the socks off everything that went before, so better late than never and hooray for leotards in term time.RYH64E said:
Another unintended consequence of dumming down GCSEs, the school at which my brother teaches (maths) requires an A/A* in GCSE maths from anyone wanting to take the subject at A level. The reasoning is that GCSE maths is now so easy, and the gap between GCSE and A level so wide, that experience shows pupils with anything less than an A at GCSE are unlikely to be able to cope. My son's school won't take children into the 6th form unless they have at least a B in each of their chosen subjects at GCSE.
Those entry requirements are reasonable. If A-levels in the physical sciences and maths in particular were more like their previous incarnations, the gap would be even wider - let's not forget that some HE science courses are dropping maths not only because the students arriving from sixth-forms can't cope, but because the lecturers can't hack it either. Not to mention the 3 year courses morphing into 4 so students arriving free from the burden of anything useful can be brought up to scratch (with luck).However...standards aren't falling. No sirree, obviously not.
turbobloke said:
Those entry requirements are reasonable. If A-levels in the physical sciences and maths in particular were more like their previous incarnations, the gap would be even wider - let's not forget that some HE science courses are dropping maths not only because the students arriving from sixth-forms can't cope, but because the lecturers can't hack it either. Not to mention the 3 year courses morphing into 4 so students arriving free from the burden of anything useful can be brought up to scratch (with luck).
However...standards aren't falling. No sirree, obviously not.
From my experience GCSE maths is really easy, you can get a B without tackling any of the even slightly difficult stuff, but A level maths is still hard, I guess I'll find out when my kids get a bit older.However...standards aren't falling. No sirree, obviously not.
RYH64E said:
turbobloke said:
Those entry requirements are reasonable. If A-levels in the physical sciences and maths in particular were more like their previous incarnations, the gap would be even wider - let's not forget that some HE science courses are dropping maths not only because the students arriving from sixth-forms can't cope, but because the lecturers can't hack it either. Not to mention the 3 year courses morphing into 4 so students arriving free from the burden of anything useful can be brought up to scratch (with luck).
However...standards aren't falling. No sirree, obviously not.
From my experience GCSE maths is really easy, you can get a B without tackling any of the even slightly difficult stuff, but A level maths is still hard, I guess I'll find out when my kids get a bit older.However...standards aren't falling. No sirree, obviously not.
turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
What, with no funding? Jog on!
Presumably the students don't fund either drama or music themselves?Music is one of the most costly subjects to a school. Instruments are not cheap, the computers required by the music technology classes are often beyond spec of the DT department (let alone the library) and of course text books often cost more and unlike other departments, you can't just "photocopy" new music! It has to be purchased...
But their budgets are typically similar to subjects such as maths. Who just don't have any significant cost at all.
The moment this eBach is introduced, the more diverse subjects will lose even more funding. DT, Business Studies, the Arts and such will all lose out and this will have a detrimental affect on our children because lets face it - the "classic" and "old school" subjects are very boring. The kids today live in the most aesthetically stimulating period of time known to mankind and our government thinks it's a good idea to make school even less interesting by introducing more chalk boards and reducing the creative subject content across the industry? Wake up!
turbobloke said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What a dull place the UK would be, if when all the medics and engineers and scientists got home from work, there was no TV drama, or theatre, or music, or art galleries. In fact, they'd probably go and work abroad, somewhere where there was some culture.
Twee, but not real world. If I thought that fannying around in a school hall for two periods per week led to high culture in consequence, I'd be all for it. In terms of what emerged in the past, whether pre-Victorian or the post-war period, just how our musical / acting / artistic reputation managed to thrive and survive without all those GCSEs in drama studies and media is most surprising. Still, it's quite evident that modern 'talent' knocks the socks off everything that went before, so better late than never and hooray for leotards in term time.Britain actually is one of the most successful game designing nations in the world. Multiple art and music students end up working within the trade and whilst drama students may not end up working as actors on Eastenders they do end up working for various publication media's.
turbobloke, there are multiple qualifications out there that back when population was so low, it wasn't essential. And to be honest, it still isn't - but you're damn better off having it than not! For example, what about motorsport technology/engineering? We still had world championship winning drivers and teams before GCSE's existed - are you suggesting these courses and other variants too are obsolete?
turbobloke said:
RYH64E said:
Another unintended consequence of dumming down GCSEs, the school at which my brother teaches (maths) requires an A/A* in GCSE maths from anyone wanting to take the subject at A level. The reasoning is that GCSE maths is now so easy, and the gap between GCSE and A level so wide, that experience shows pupils with anything less than an A at GCSE are unlikely to be able to cope. My son's school won't take children into the 6th form unless they have at least a B in each of their chosen subjects at GCSE.
Those entry requirements are reasonable. If A-levels in the physical sciences and maths in particular were more like their previous incarnations, the gap would be even wider - let's not forget that some HE science courses are dropping maths not only because the students arriving from sixth-forms can't cope, but because the lecturers can't hack it either. Not to mention the 3 year courses morphing into 4 so students arriving free from the burden of anything useful can be brought up to scratch (with luck).However...standards aren't falling. No sirree, obviously not.
...but if we go shopping, she can't work out what is cheaper if you buy a pack of 4x440ml tomatoes over 4 individual tomatoes. According to turbobloke and his beloved Ofsted (who lets face it, only have jobs because they criticise education) she should be perfect at maths...
Thing is, I've recently gone back into education. Studying Level 4 maths in my course, our tutor (who hates calculators) can blitz the chalkboard stuff but when it comes to plugging in the laptop to the projector he just can't cut it. This is something a 5 year old can do...So of course this tutor will moan that I don't know the 32nd n'th degree of pi over the square route of purple monkey dishwasher, because he's pissed off he can't even get the projector to work and the college won't buy him a chalkboard!
There is no point in this day and age, training hundreds of people how to write on a chalk board if they can't apply it to modern facilities. With the government essentially writing off all of the "modern" subjects and even some of the old ones which, are now relevant, we are moving backwards and the entire education system will suffer.
It's got to be a case of posting evidence on PH for obvious reasons - as such, as well as from personal experience, there's no doubt at all that maths and the physical sciences have been dumbed down along the GCSE/A-level route. As such, seeing it and then ignoring it suggests we need more History skills on sources and evidence as there are people who appear to ignore Ofqual and the numbers when the picture in plain sight doesn't meet with their rhetoric. Or indeed (perhaps) because of that.
Apart from examining this published evidence including from Ofqual, which is conclusive, one of the types of voluntary work I've done for many years has kept me in contact with the products of the brave new world where A* grades are as plentiful as a prize donor's sperm. At the same time, the best students which schools can produce in these subjects have been short-changed in relation to their capabilities. This is the key issue here. It's not a hit on students or teachers, it's an entirely fitting criticism of a debased exams system presided over by ministers and the exam boards that has let students down badly by failing to provide an approrpriate menu and end-of-course assessment for all, due to damaging egalitarian delusion from the 'all must have prizes' agenda.
If there are still vested interests working overtime to blur the view and claim otherwise, it's pointless now as the drop in standards is too big for even Dynamo or David Blaine to hide using smoke and mirrors.
As to the sterling defences of prancing in the hall or spending school budgets on music tech kit, they could have a point - after all, where would Strictly X Factor on Ice with the Stars be without all those Grade D GCSEs and bare pass BTEC Level 3 Nationals in MusTech...the hit taken by our artistic and cultural reputation would be catastrophic and Simon Cowell would be a broken man.
Then again, there's always the Turner Prize. When in need of cultural salvation, in a real national emergency, break glass. Stick the broken glass in a tank of formaldehyde sitting on an unmade bed in a gallery with flashing lights, job's a good 'un.
Apart from examining this published evidence including from Ofqual, which is conclusive, one of the types of voluntary work I've done for many years has kept me in contact with the products of the brave new world where A* grades are as plentiful as a prize donor's sperm. At the same time, the best students which schools can produce in these subjects have been short-changed in relation to their capabilities. This is the key issue here. It's not a hit on students or teachers, it's an entirely fitting criticism of a debased exams system presided over by ministers and the exam boards that has let students down badly by failing to provide an approrpriate menu and end-of-course assessment for all, due to damaging egalitarian delusion from the 'all must have prizes' agenda.
If there are still vested interests working overtime to blur the view and claim otherwise, it's pointless now as the drop in standards is too big for even Dynamo or David Blaine to hide using smoke and mirrors.
As to the sterling defences of prancing in the hall or spending school budgets on music tech kit, they could have a point - after all, where would Strictly X Factor on Ice with the Stars be without all those Grade D GCSEs and bare pass BTEC Level 3 Nationals in MusTech...the hit taken by our artistic and cultural reputation would be catastrophic and Simon Cowell would be a broken man.
Then again, there's always the Turner Prize. When in need of cultural salvation, in a real national emergency, break glass. Stick the broken glass in a tank of formaldehyde sitting on an unmade bed in a gallery with flashing lights, job's a good 'un.
RYH64E said:
From my experience GCSE maths is really easy, you can get a B without tackling any of the even slightly difficult stuff, but A level maths is still hard, I guess I'll find out when my kids get a bit older.
My son is doing A level maths, having got an A* at GSCE. His GCSE syllabus was pretty much as per my O level from memory, and as for his A level stuff, it's way beyond me. He's also doing A level Chemistry, Biology and English.But my youngest son is far more into music and drama. Also the humanities, loves History. No doubt that's what he'll pursue I guess. And good for him I say. Everyone is an individual. Who wants a nation of clones?
Not too far back:
This would be fine if these debased exams were taken only by middle-achievers and those with less aptitude for science and maths (as I said, we need courses and assessments for all) the crime is that they are tarted up with A* diversions (yet, based on the same massacred syllabus content) to give the appearance of maintaining challenge and standards. This fools nobody except, perhaps, some rose tinted specs wearers and vested interests. Yet there is no criticism of students, teachers, parents or anybody at that level. The dumbing down fails everybody concerned and the fault lies with ministers and exam boards.
In this thread on Friday 21st September I said:
Here's a 'modern O-level' specification (pdf) which is said to 'bring together the modern and traditional approaches to ordinary level mathematics'. Presumably the marketplace for this involves international clients and some independent schools not opting for the iGCSE.
http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/GCE%20O%...
Look in the right-hand column for 'questions will not be set on...' and '...are excluded' as almost all (if not all) of these were set in the past on O-level papers including for example calculation of the angle between two planes or the angle between a straight line and a plane. Linear programming is excluded, so is synthetic division. It's all just a bit too tough.
Even a modern O-level lacks the challenge of previous years, while GCSE specs are no match for the modern O-level.
Modern GCSEs and A-levels don't bare much comparison to previous years. This is why 3-year science and maths courses at uni have had to be turned into 4 year courses, and why lecturers can't cope with the maths in HE science courses ffs.http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/GCE%20O%...
Look in the right-hand column for 'questions will not be set on...' and '...are excluded' as almost all (if not all) of these were set in the past on O-level papers including for example calculation of the angle between two planes or the angle between a straight line and a plane. Linear programming is excluded, so is synthetic division. It's all just a bit too tough.
Even a modern O-level lacks the challenge of previous years, while GCSE specs are no match for the modern O-level.
This would be fine if these debased exams were taken only by middle-achievers and those with less aptitude for science and maths (as I said, we need courses and assessments for all) the crime is that they are tarted up with A* diversions (yet, based on the same massacred syllabus content) to give the appearance of maintaining challenge and standards. This fools nobody except, perhaps, some rose tinted specs wearers and vested interests. Yet there is no criticism of students, teachers, parents or anybody at that level. The dumbing down fails everybody concerned and the fault lies with ministers and exam boards.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 7th October 09:20
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My son is doing A level maths, having got an A* at GSCE. His GCSE syllabus was pretty much as per my O level from memory, and as for his A level stuff, it's way beyond me.
That just isn't the case, for instance calculus isn't studied at all at GCSE. Here's an old GCE paper, have a look and see what you think. http://www.burtongrammar.co.uk/category/life-and-t...
RYH64E said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My son is doing A level maths, having got an A* at GSCE. His GCSE syllabus was pretty much as per my O level from memory, and as for his A level stuff, it's way beyond me.
That just isn't the case, for instance calculus isn't studied at all at GCSE. Here's an old GCE O-level paper, have a look and see what you think. http://www.burtongrammar.co.uk/category/life-and-t...
Compo lawyers, don't get ready for a flood of cases for 'failure to educate'
as standards from GCSE are just as high as O-level 
And here are some sample GCSE papers:
Foundation
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths1f.june12.pd...
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths2f.june12.pd...
Higher
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths1h.june12.pd...
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths2h.june12.pd...
Foundation
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths1f.june12.pd...
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths2f.june12.pd...
Higher
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths1h.june12.pd...
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths2h.june12.pd...
I remember my A-level chemistry teacher (who sat on an exam board) bemoaning the changes over 20 years ago. He was annoyed that GCSEs were not uniformly providing enough preparation for A-level and that changes were having to be made in A-levels to accommodate this.
He complained that one of the exam boards was teaching what he called "social chemistry" - his example was that students were being taught how salt was mined and what it was used to make but didn't know what an ion was. As a result, he was not able to take for granted that students would understand some basic concepts - this was a sixth form college with students from many different secondary schools.
He also complained about the GCSE maths syllabus after I solved a radioactive decay problem algebraically instead of using graph paper. He sighed, and said that was what he used to teach, but it had been removed from the syllabus because you could no longer expect students to understand logarithms. I don't remember whether my exam board's GCSE syllabus included logs, because I studied AO level additional maths at the same time.
He complained that one of the exam boards was teaching what he called "social chemistry" - his example was that students were being taught how salt was mined and what it was used to make but didn't know what an ion was. As a result, he was not able to take for granted that students would understand some basic concepts - this was a sixth form college with students from many different secondary schools.
He also complained about the GCSE maths syllabus after I solved a radioactive decay problem algebraically instead of using graph paper. He sighed, and said that was what he used to teach, but it had been removed from the syllabus because you could no longer expect students to understand logarithms. I don't remember whether my exam board's GCSE syllabus included logs, because I studied AO level additional maths at the same time.
otolith said:
because I studied AO level additional maths at the same time.
That was one of the first acknowledgements of dumbing down and it was quite some time ago compared to the A* diversions. At least it had a sound basis, with appropriate syllabus content rather than dolled up questions on the same surgically diminished menu.Another common defence of the indefensible is the claim that syllabus content has been slashed, but look at the difficulty of the questions. That's another sick joke - the approach today is formulaic, with most of the need for thinking removed. Otherwise for example how would non-maths specialist teachers have a hope in hell of understanding what was going on, never mind the pupils...then again, if we solve the shortage of specialist maths teachers, those emerging from the present system will only be capable of continuing the status quo anyway.
That's if the rose tinted specs / all must have prizes / won't somebody think of the childwen argument is finally recognised as defeated, which it has been. Mullered into a pulp, but like most politically correct dogmas it won't die as the corpse will be propped up and marched around by spin alone.
otolith said:
I don't remember whether my exam board's GCSE syllabus included logs, because I studied AO level additional maths at the same time.
My daughter's Higher Plus GCSE textbook doesn't even mention Logs, I've just checked. So that's something else new for A level. If I spent too much time thinking about ut I'd get really annoyed. Our old GCE (O level) syllabus included both calculus and logs, and we sat O level in year 4 (year 10 today) and AO in year 5 (year 11), what on earth do they do for 5 years at school today? Some of those sample maths papers are easier than old 11-plus maths questions.
RYH64E said:
If I spent too much time thinking about it I'd get really annoyed.
Dealing with the outcomes of the current debased system is annoying too, on behalf of the students it's failing year on year, some of whom feel insulted when the situation is discussed but quite without justification as it's no criticism of them - or teachers - they are the victims.
RYH64E said:
And here are some sample GCSE papers:
Foundation
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths1f.june12.pd...
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths2f.june12.pd...
Higher
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths1h.june12.pd...
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths2h.june12.pd...
You have to be kidding Foundation
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths1f.june12.pd...
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths2f.june12.pd...
Higher
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths1h.june12.pd...
http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/maths2h.june12.pd...
. I can answer most of those questions in my head, I'd get almost a clean sheet I reckon, certainly 95-99% correct answers should be achievable. Some of those questions are almost primary school standard.I first looked at your example of an original (1968) O-Level paper, and thought it was fairly tough; as a former A-Level Maths (with Mechanics) student in the very early '90's, who went on to do a degree in Mechanical Engineering, I reckon I'd have to break out the text books to complete some of the questions. Many of the questions posed were covered only at A-Level, even 20 years ago (I was the second ever GSCE year).
I don't know if it's been mentioned already (not read the whole thread), but O-Levels are still studied, just not in the UK. It seems that schools abroad pride themselves on offering the British O-Level qualifications.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff