GCSE Changes

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22841266

kids :pal:

They had to do something, whether you believe exams are getting easier (they are, clearly) or kids are getting smarter (I'd invite you to look at the success of X-Factor and soaps), an exam in which a quarter of students get the top grade is rather pointless.

[Joker]

Perhaps but by focusing so much on exams at the end of the year may not do some pupils justice. In general the focus seems to be shifting towards learning a whole lot of material for end of year exams (including an entire Shakespeare play) rather than developing your analytical and problem-solving skills. Gove keeps taking about how students should be learning about the names and dates of kings and queens etc, but I thought we wanted to go away from rote learning. This seems to be reinforcing it.

[Syn]

Maths will promote the idea of developing independent problem-solving skills, rather than setting types of questions that can be rehearsed.

This sort of thing should help state school kids compete with the private school kids too. The biggest culprits have been teachers who teach for exams, rather than making sure students understand the work. We've been going through the same stuff for 8 years. "An A is like a trophy" etc. A big change was needed and its great to see Wenger sacked.

[LDG]

This sort of thing should help state school kids compete with the private school kids too. The biggest culprits have been teachers who teach for exams, rather than making sure students understand the work. We've been going through the same stuff for 8 years. "An A is like a trophy" etc. A big change was needed and its great to see Wenger sacked.

:gp:

The system has needed a shake up for years.

I'm not saying anyone does a bad job, but the continual dumbing down of the education system feeds through into society quite vividly, IMO.

[Letters]

To be fair to teachers they are under pressure to deliver results, and results means grades.
So of course they will teach kids to pass exams.
And because there are competing exam boards all of which want to deliver the best results the competitive pressure is to make the exams easier.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

I can get the point of making exams more difficult, and there is obviously an element of grade inflation, lots of people all getting A*s does defy the point of an exam, and I can understand why there is a greater importance of maths and sciences. I don't think most people would argue with that. I also don't have too many qualms with having more essay-type questions over the shorter +1s. Though exactly why kids will need to learn an entire Shakespeare play or poem is beyond me; you'll have great knowledge on that piece and sod all on anything else. And it just reinforces the whole 'Shakespeare-or-nothing' hype in school. It would be nice if someone else got a look in for once.

I just don't get why he has to shift the whole focus on to reciting sheer facts, dates, numbers and repeat them instead of [probably a bit of Brendan speak here] the 'hows' and 'whys'. And I also don't get why he has to shift it from having coursework to just having a long, end of year exam. That's not how life works; go sit in a room and write down everything you know on WW2. The idea coursework is an inherently bad/dumb thing seems silly to me. Not to mention that not every pupil responds to that sort of exam. Seems to be a good way of ensuring those who don't do well at exams (but might at other ways of testing knowledge) fall by the wayside... an effective way to get grades down.

We are obviously trying to emulate the Far East in style of learning, but it seems a little disingenuous in other areas to decry league tables and targets, and then in education base it pretty much entirely on trying to catch up in arbitrary league tables and targets.

As for the whole 1-8 and I-level thing mooted, that's just change for change's sake. And I'm still not sure how spreading free schools and academy status on to every school doesn't just cause the breakdown of a national curriculum, since they don't have to adhere to it. It would be good to see someone tackle the number of exam boards though, all it does is encourage easier questions and easier papers. And it's bloody confusing filling out forms when you have to find 6 different boards for 6 different exams.

And as for Gove generally, on other education issues, well make no mistake the guy is a massive ****.

[Syn]

To be fair to teachers they are under pressure to deliver results, and results means grades.
So of course they will teach kids to pass exams.
And because there are competing exam boards all of which want to deliver the best results the competitive pressure is to make the exams easier.

There is time for both. There is so much time available for these teachers. There is easily time to both teach the material properly so that students understand and then go through exam style questions. I know it's not a popular viewpoint to criticise teachers, but I teach as well and I know schools are filled with lazy teachers who don't really prepare for lessons.

With better examinations (like those proposed) that don't recycle the same questions every year, it's more of a kick up the backside for teachers rather than students. They get paid very well and I think it's fair.

[Joker]

The thing with the international league tables is that you can read what you want into it. The right focus on the successes of the Far East nations, who apparently have a system that is quite regimented, based on learning facts and figures and is very formal. While the left look at the successes of Finland who pursue a completely different system. There's is a complete comprehensive system of education, with no school uniforms, no "gifted and talented" programmes and no exams/homework until you're 16. So based on this you could argue that an egalitarian or a competitive system of education can succeed, but I think local conditions are also important in determining which system is best for a country.

[Letters]

I can understand why there is a greater importance of maths and sciences.
I don't agree with this actually. They were my best subjects but a lot of people are more into the arts and I don't think that's less valid.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

I don't agree with this actually. They were my best subjects but a lot of people are more into the arts and I don't think that's less valid.

I based that mainly on the apparent drain in science talent ie: we won't have any soon. But then I also just read there were massive cuts in high level (Uni) Science funding which makes any move at GCSE pretty much useless.

Although saying that, I had to take maths and sciences anyway, I don't know if that's the case everywhere, so there probably won't be much difference. But I also had to take French. I hated French. Actually I think I only chose about 3 subjects, the rest out of my hands. Bastard school.

[Munchies]

Do they need to get harder ? Sure, I got a C in French and I know fuck all mainly with the help of google translate :lol:.

Coursework needs to get rid of , all forms of it. I knew of loads of people getting their work done for them by someone else, and getting away with it. People at private schools can get more help aswell, rather than in my case having a bitch teacher who never looked at it once and let you get what you got, the way it should be for everyone.

But the grade changes to numbers seems un-necessary.

I personally found A-levels more manageable than GCSEs, mainly because I didn't have loads of subjects I didn't give a fuck about.

[Letters]

This is quite long but worth a watch. English bloke on his observations on education primarily in the US but the points are generally applicable

http://www.wimp.com/escapevalley/

[Letters]

Do they need to get harder?
They clearly need to do something, right now about a quarter of entries get the top grade. Whether they're too easy or whether kids are geniuseseses isn't really that relevant, an exam in which too many people get the same grades renders them useless as a measure of how they're doing.

[Niall_Quinn]

Another round of destabilising the education system, every government gets this in fairly early in the wrecking spree. Keeping the kids, parents, teachers and employers perplexed is the only aim of these "reforms". ****s like Gove and his queer mates couldn't give a fuck about kids, unless they are fiddling with them.

[Xhaka Can’t]

The educational standards have gotton way worser than when I was at school.

[GP]

At least you're time wasnt wasted their.

[Injury Time]

So what's the point of General Certificates of Secondary Education? Is it to give a reasonable basic standard of education for real life or just the need to reduce those going to Uni at an earlier stage? Hmm...

[Letters]

Another round of destabilising the education system, every government gets this in fairly early in the wrecking spree. Keeping the kids, parents, teachers and employers perplexed is the only aim of these "reforms". ****s like Gove and his queer mates couldn't give a fuck about kids, unless they are fiddling with them.
What about the changes do you disagree with?
Do you think things are fine as they are and no change is needed?

[Niall_Quinn]

What about the changes do you disagree with?
Do you think things are fine as they are and no change is needed?

O and A levels were just fine. Far fewer kids going to universities (proper universities, not renamed cooking colleges) was fine. Apprenticeships were fine. Admitting some kids were thick was fine. Scholarships were fine. Government keeping it's snout out of education to the greatest possible extent was fine. Grammar schools were fine (excellent).

Everyone who ever had any hand in this comprehensive, GCSE shit should be lined up against a wall and beaten to death with a sledgehammer, no kidding. What they have done is child abuse. These ****s change things not for the benefit of kids but to try and distinguish their one party/ two faces politics to an increasingly incredulous population. Kids, pensioners, the sick, the poor, these fuckers don't care as long as they can pretend to have a policy. What's the net result? A lower standard and kids in debt before they even start in life.

Politicians, statisticians, pseudo-scientists, unelected and unaccountable busy bodies on the taxpayer's payroll, look at the mess they have created. Isn't that enough justification to end these people?

Of course I disagree with their latest proposal. My rational position in response to the mountain of evidence is to reject everything these ****s say, do or even suggest by default. I have no idea (can't fathom at all) why everyone can't see the same. I have even less clue why parents won't step in to stop the state abusing their children.

[Joker]

But with Grammar Schools, do you really think it's possible to determine a child's true abilities with a test at the age of 11?

[Niall_Quinn]

But with Grammar Schools, do you really think it's possible to determine a child's true abilities with a test at the age of 11?

You can determine a child's (true?) abilities a lot earlier than that. Besides, there was discretion in terms of those eleven-plus tests which were almost always accompanied by interview. And even so, who cares? Just compare the end result from a system that worked and the shit we have now. Do we really need to have a debate about it based on those results? Leaving aside the more sinister implications of the state winding down the education system (which I don't buy into but plenty of senior educators do), let's just say it has turned out to be a bad idea to let bureaucratic, incompetent, commie ****s run our schools. Since when has centralisation of everything ever helped a child in the long term?

[Letters]

OK...so you don't think things are OK as they are. I agree.
But by default you oppose moves which (sound to me) like they'll make things better?
:shrug:
That isn't rational. Unless you don't think the changes will make things better in which case why not?

I'm not sure what you think parents should be doing. Do you have kids? If so what have you done to 'stop the state abusing your children'. If not what do you suggest parents do?

[Niall_Quinn]

OK...so you don't think things are OK as they are. I agree.
But by default you oppose moves which (sound to me) like they'll make things better?
:shrug:
That isn't rational. Unless you don't think the changes will make things better in which case why not?

I'm not sure what you think parents should be doing. Do you have kids? If so what have you done to 'stop the state abusing your children'. If not what do you suggest parents do?

No point asking me what I'd do to stop the state because I'd want solutions that work rather than deckchair shuffles. What I'm saying is this won't make anything better because it will be another cosmetic makeover to serve political purposes rather than the interests of kids. Here's what makes me laugh, apparently all this shit was done in the name of "fairness" so every kid had a chance. And it is culminating in a wicked system whereby in a few decades only the rich will be able to go where any kid (given the will of the kid, the parents and competent teachers) used to be able to go. Irony or design? The only answer is to get the state out of education so I won't ever encourage them when they tinker around the edges of the shit swamp they have created. If you want to see where this end, have a look at Germany. Not by accident that's where our modern education system came from and that's where it will finally die. On a plus side, many Americans seem to be figuring things out and taking matters into their own hands, to stunning effect.

The state is shit, at everything and always. It should never be allowed near children for all the obvious reasons.

[Syn]

NQ homeschooling his kids. Should be a TV show.

[Niall_Quinn]

NQ homeschooling his kids. Should be a TV show.

Me? No.

Vocational teachers in their own community? Why not? The aim is to educate kids is it not? The state fails at everything so why let them near kids? I think it comes back to the lack of personal responsibility favoured by most in all aspects of life. The lowest possible return for the maximum cost seems to be an acceptable norm. And an instant acceptance there can be no other way, that total lack of thought and blinkered vision. Always looking to some, self-evidently corrupted and self serving gang of ****s to lead the way. Should we direct our river of shit two degrees left or two degrees right? It's still a river of shit.

[Munchies]

To add, I went to a state school for secondary, then moved onto a state grammar sixth form.

The difference between both schools was that in the secondary, you had shit teachers along with people who didn't want to be there and so got shit grades as a whole. At the grammar, you still had shit teachers, but because the intake was selective (ie based on 11+/gcses) then they knew that the students themselves could pull it off (either through tutoring or hard work alone) , and so they would often take credit for doing fuck all. Out of all my teachers, I can only say I've had 4 good ones.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Out of all my teachers, I can only say I've had 4 good ones.
Really?

Count yourself lucky. I'd have done anything to have had my Grade 8 English teacher.

[WMUG]

From what I've seen, these changes are fucking dreadful. Getting rid of coursework and putting everything on a few massive exams at the end? It shouldn't need justifying that that's just a shit idea.

Having 8 core subjects? I really fail to see why learning about soil erosion and longshore drift needs to be included in that. History I can see being justified, but from what I've seen, the course has been changed from one of critical thinking to one of rote learning.

One fifth of the English grade being on spelling and grammar? I know I've built up a reputation on here that's led to me choosing my avatar, but to be fair, most of the time I've spent on here has been as a total moron. If you can communicate your ideas effectively, that is much, much more important (I'd say about 10x more important, which is about how the current system divvies it up) than following a massive load of rote-learned rules.

sometimes bad grammar can impede your communication there are a few on here who never use any punctuation or paragraphs or spellcheck and so their meaning becomes lost in one endless runon stentence riddles with spelling mistakes and stuffand that shoud be punished when it makes what your saying unclear but when it's jsut a matter of adding an apostrophe to some words and spielling the odd word wrong well that's fine if you still cinvey a meaningful and interesting idea about a piece of listerature