The English Baccalaureate Certificate

[Jon the Hat]

But everyone should be able to pass basic reading writing and literacy skills, that should be the aim of the government to get 100% of the population to be able to read, write and count, and not raise the bar every time we look like achieving that.

This is my point, you have different levels of exams to measure people's abilities, but if 100% of the people surpass the requirements on the course it doesn't make it invalid, it just means that they studied and learnt what was required of them.

Take the driving test for example, if everyone started passing it first time should it be made harder?

Likewise exams shouldn't be made easier because not enough people pass them, all I'm saying is whether you pass or fail should not depend on the level of everyone else taking the exam, only that you are capable to the standard required.

Yes if everyone passed the driving test it should be made harder, because that would be strong evidence it was too easy. Same applies to ever improving GCSE pass rates. There is no evidence whatsoever that kids have got smarter, so exams must have got easier.

[Captain...]

Yes if everyone passed the driving test it should be made harder, because that would be strong evidence it was too easy. Same applies to ever improving GCSE pass rates. There is no evidence whatsoever that kids have got smarter, so exams must have got easier.

Why, you are proving you have the skills to drive safely, why should you have to prove more than that because everyone also is capable of driving safely too?

What evidence is there that students aren't getting smarter? Apart from anecdotal evidence of chavs in a pub.

If you want a system of showing that you are superior that is what higher education is for, what the key requirements are at the point of leaving school is a basic level in the key elements required to get a job reading, writing and arithmetic why are you trying to deny people a right to achieve that level just because everyone else can.

If you can read, write and do basic arithmetic, why can't you pass an exam to prove that, even if other people can do it better than you, you can still do it to a level capable of working.

[Smudge]

It's all very well those in control chopping and changing these things but I hope they realise what the consequences mean at job level.

I know I personally suffered with them messing about with the ONC/HNC when I was studying, they did away with them and where replaced by Technician 1 to 5 certificates, this was later abandon and the ONC/HNC returned. The problem is a I get lumbered with a Tech 5 certificate that hardly anyone knew what it was and job applications always required ONC/HNC I'm convinced it prevented me getting interviews.

It's annoying when you have to continually justify and prove WTF a Technician 5 is?

Funny you should say that, I attained my HNC at South Birmingham Poly. The course moved to Aston University and the year after I qualified, it became a degree qualification. So I was pissed off for a different reason.

[ADK]

Still there are people who fail to pass the present GCSE's (which are easy) my gut feeling is that children who fail to pass these exams have other issues than the exams themselves.

[Jon the Hat]

Why, you are proving you have the skills to drive safely, why should you have to prove more than that because everyone also is capable of driving safely too?

What evidence is there that students aren't getting smarter? Apart from anecdotal evidence of chavs in a pub.

If you want a system of showing that you are superior that is what higher education is for, what the key requirements are at the point of leaving school is a basic level in the key elements required to get a job reading, writing and arithmetic why are you trying to deny people a right to achieve that level just because everyone else can.

If you can read, write and do basic arithmetic, why can't you pass an exam to prove that, even if other people can do it better than you, you can still do it to a level capable of working.

I think you are deliberately missing the point. Your everyone should pass approach makes the exams meaningless.

[Captain...]

I think you are deliberately missing the point. Your everyone should pass approach makes the exams meaningless.

OK go back and read everything I have said, I have not said everyone should pass, I have said that if you have met the pre-set standard then you have passed and you shouldn't be denied that just because everyone else has met this pre-set standard.

And if it so happens that everyone meets the pre-set standard then they have all passed.

That is a good thing. That counts as a success.

You have said with respect to driving test that if everyone passes it that means it is too easy, this is just nonsense, the drivers test is there to prove one thing, you are fit to drive, if you are fit to drive then you should not be denied the opportunity to drive just because you are the worst of a group of people all of which met the standard for domestic driving safely.

[Jon the Hat]

OK go back and read everything I have said, I have not said everyone should pass, I have said that if you have met the pre-set standard then you have passed and you shouldn't be denied that just because everyone else has met this pre-set standard.

And if it so happens that everyone meets the pre-set standard then they have all passed.

That is a good thing. That counts as a success.

You have said with respect to driving test that if everyone passes it that means it is too easy, this is just nonsense, the drivers test is there to prove one thing, you are fit to drive, if you are fit to drive then you should not be denied the opportunity to drive just because you are the worst of a group of people all of which met the standard for domestic driving safely.

No my point was that if everyone can pass then it is too easy, because the fact is not everyone is capable of safely driving.

[Captain...]

No my point was that if everyone can pass then it is too easy, because the fact is not everyone is capable of safely driving.

The fact that everyone can pass, doesn't mean it is too easy, if people pass the exam and are not capable of driving safely then it is too easy.

This is my point about gcses, if people are being passed without having the basic standard of education then there is a problem, but if more people can now reach that basic standard than before then that is a good thing it shows progress, it doesn't mean it is too easy, and our aim should be to have a highly educated work force, not deny people the qualifications they deserve.

[Jon the Hat]

The fact that everyone can pass, doesn't mean it is too easy, if people pass the exam and are not capable of driving safely then it is too easy.

This is my point about gcses, if people are being passed without having the basic standard of education then there is a problem, but if more people can now reach that basic standard than before then that is a good thing it shows progress, it doesn't mean it is too easy, and our aim should be to have a highly educated work force, not deny people the qualifications they deserve.

I fundamentally disagree. If kids are in fact getting smarter, we should raise the bar to ensure they reach the highest level possible at 16. If they the exams are getting easier then standards are slipping and they should be made harder. I believe it is the second, but even if it is the first the idea that we should just let more and more people pass is letting the kids down by not helping them achieve the most they can in their time at school.

[davieG]

I fundamentally disagree. If kids are in fact getting smarter, we should raise the bar to ensure they reach the highest level possible at 16. If they the exams are getting easier then standards are slipping and they should be made harder. I believe it is the second, but even if it is the first the idea that we should just let more and more people pass is letting the kids down by not helping them achieve the most they can in their time at school.

As someone who has been involved in recruiting school leavers it makes it difficult to use exam results as a yardstick of ability if someone a year older has passed and the younger person achieving the same or better 'results' has failed because they've changed or limited the pass mark.

As explained earlier in this topic I've suffered through out my career from this tinkering.

I can't really see the point of exams if you keep moving the goalposts and changing their structure they are only useful for comparing like with like.

[Captain...]

I fundamentally disagree. If kids are in fact getting smarter, we should raise the bar to ensure they reach the highest level possible at 16. If they the exams are getting easier then standards are slipping and they should be made harder. I believe it is the second, but even if it is the first the idea that we should just let more and more people pass is letting the kids down by not helping them achieve the most they can in their time at school.

Why should we raise the bar? Has the definition of being able to read and write changed?

With GCSEs we have grades from E-A* to determine where on the scale they are, we also have their actual mark, and their performance in higher education to determine their true level of competence, but if you are good enough at something, why should it matter that everyone else is as good?

Going back to driving, the driving test should not be made harder because more people are passing, it should only be made harder if it is deemed to not reflect the true challenge of driving, by your logic we should make exams easier if not enough people are passing, and I don't think you would agree with that.

Lets take another example, a first aid course, nobody ever fails a first aid course, should it be made harder? Should they be forced to perform emergency tracheotomies to pass? No, because the standards of the course have been set, and by completing the course and demonstrating you have taken in the contents you pass.

Now what you could do is start encouraging kids to take GCSEs earlier, if they are bright enough to pass and perform well, then why should they wait until they are 16, let them progress quicker, or put more emphasis on achieving higher grades by making entry criteria tougher to get on certain courses.

But you cannot fail someone just because everyone else passed.

[Reynard Bleu]

Whatever they do about examinations I wished more could be done in preparing young people for work, particularly in a commercial environment. Most come armed with the bits of paper hat say I can do this and do that to GCSE, A Level or Degree standard but they struggle with the application in a business environment. I have just started 6 IT Apprentices, they are well qualified and nice kids and willing, but they are finding it difficult to grasp some of the basics of business, e.g deadlines, budgets, feedback, customer care, security and compliance etc.. Yes we will give these skills/experience but I feel they should bring something to the table t. start with.

[Captain...]

Whatever they do about examinations I wished more could be done in preparing young people for work, particularly in a commercial environment. Most come armed with the bits of paper hat say I can do this and do that to GCSE, A Level or Degree standard but they struggle with the application in a business environment. I have just started 6 IT Apprentices, they are well qualified and nice kids and willing, but they are finding it difficult to grasp some of the basics of business, e.g deadlines, budgets, feedback, customer care, security and compliance etc.. Yes we will give these skills/experience but I feel they should bring something to the table t. start with.

I agree with what you are saying, but isn't that what the apprenticeship is for, taking their academic skills and turning it into something you can actually use on a job?

[Reynard Bleu]

I agree with what you are saying, but isn't that what the apprenticeship is for, taking their academic skills and turning it into something you can actually use on a job?

Yes it is of course and we do that, but some of the kids were not even aware of things like the DPA or what the FSA is or when you change infrastructure or an application why its important to consider the effect on the customer? Its not all of them, it tends to be the real academic stars if I am honest. Most infuriating is that their timekeeping has been very poor.

[Captain...]

Yes it is of course and we do that, but some of the kids were not even aware of things like the DPA or what the FSA is or when you change infrastructure or an application why its important to consider the effect on the customer? Its not all of them, it tends to be the real academic stars if I am honest. Most infuriating is that their timekeeping has been very poor.

But for some it is their first job, and these things aren't always obvious if you have never been in a work environment, or even if you have had a job before it doesn't prepare you for everything.

I started out on my IT career by working in customer services, before moving into IT, so I normally have a better understanding of the issues of the users because I used to be one, I have had some much more experienced colleagues who just shut themselves away somewhere and deal with everything remotely, whereas I prefer to get down on the office floor and have a gossip whilst sorting out problems.

[breadandcheese]

With GCSEs we have grades from E-A* to determine where on the scale they are, we also have their actual mark, and their performance in higher education to determine their true level of competence, but if you are good enough at something, why should it matter that everyone else is as good?

I want to tackle this point. It should matter because the moment everyone has the same qualification, it becomes that more difficult to get selected for a job. What differentiates you from the next candidate? A 20 minute interview isn't going to massively differentiate you from an equally likeable person. So as a candidate, you then need that little bit extra to get the position. At the top professions, this can be an Oxbridge degree, a masters (which costs), or more frequently, who your parents know to get an internship or pull strings. Either way, it becomes less of a meritocracy and doors start to shut for those bright kids from poor backgrounds.

This is why in my opinion we need more rigorous exams to differentiate the brightest. I like your idea about printing individual results, so that top universities have a better choice for selection. However, we do need to arrest the decline that has seen Britain fall down the international education tables.

[AdamN]

I want to tackle this point. It should matter because the moment everyone has the same qualification, it becomes that more difficult to get selected for a job. What differentiates you from the next candidate? A 20 minute interview isn't going to massively differentiate you from an equally likeable person. So as a candidate, you then need that little bit extra to get the position. At the top professions, this can be an Oxbridge degree, a masters (which costs), or more frequently, who your parents know to get an internship or pull strings. Either way, it becomes less of a meritocracy and doors start to shut for those bright kids from poor backgrounds.

This is why in my opinion we need more rigorous exams to differentiate the brightest. I like your idea about printing individual results, so that top universities have a better choice for selection. However, we do need to arrest the decline that has seen Britain fall down the international education tables.

Surely that's what grade boundaries are for?

[Captain...]

I want to tackle this point. It should matter because the moment everyone has the same qualification, it becomes that more difficult to get selected for a job. What differentiates you from the next candidate? A 20 minute interview isn't going to massively differentiate you from an equally likeable person. So as a candidate, you then need that little bit extra to get the position. At the top professions, this can be an Oxbridge degree, a masters (which costs), or more frequently, who your parents know to get an internship or pull strings. Either way, it becomes less of a meritocracy and doors start to shut for those bright kids from poor backgrounds.

This is why in my opinion we need more rigorous exams to differentiate the brightest. I like your idea about printing individual results, so that top universities have a better choice for selection. However, we do need to arrest the decline that has seen Britain fall down the international education tables.

Not really for GCSE s, there are 6 bands, E-A*, then your higher education comes into account, plus your personality in an interview, and if employees are still struggling to separate the wheat from the chaf, they can have their own exams as part of the interview process, you could also include people's rank in that exam for that year, but that can be change year on year.

But the point of an exam is not to get a job, it is to prove you have the capabilities to perform at that level, if a job requires a basic level of numeracy and literacy, then you can prove that you have that. It doesn't mean they need they best mathematician in the year, it just means it is a minimum requirement, academic skills are not always transferable to a work place, a salesman could be academically brilliant, but have no confidence in front of a customer, whereas someone who struggles academically but has the gift of the gab, would be better at that job, but he would still need a basic level of numeracy and literacy to be able to complete the deal accurately.

[Guest]

Haven't read people's remarks yet just the OP.

The question should be "what do we want from our Education system?"

Coursework based systems CAN reward sustained constant proof of learning whereas end of year exam based systems reward memory and stress handling.

Coursework systems are open to abuse - favouritism, school league pressures... Exam based are not so locally sitiuated.

As a prof I believe the coursework system is better, I reward work/improvement throughout the year. In Exam based system I spend considerable time teaching how to score well in the exam - cheating the system if you wish.

Neither system fits my beliefs as to what Education should be - I have a far more classical idea where teaching is about improving the person for the community in which they live and for the the person themself.

The exam based system particularly fails the community and the modern world as it too often values knowledge over process whereas Webworld has reduced the need for knowledge - we have access to just in time knowledge, what we need to process - how to think, how to prepare , how to solve.

In the same way teachers in many subjects are now (or should be) facilitators not knowledge databases.

Final thought - mention of a two tier system - what a joke. How can you have end of year exams without a tier system?

There is little point in having an exam (and this would be my argument for a complete C change in Education) if you are not going to have people who pass and Fail or should I say people who are going to have a hgher percentage than others and this percentage is known to everybody.

In an exam based system there should, in my opinion, be NO limit to the number of times you can take the exam ( as opposed to the lower limit that is being suggested) does it matter if you take it 20 times (yes an exageration) if the exam is a test of what you now know?

If an exam based system is being reintroduced then it is important that alternatives like apprenticeships (a wonderful and undervaled form of learning) are put in place alongside for those who do not wish to go the exam based route.

[Guest]

That's not true I spent the last 20 years recruiting apprentices and that totally relied on GCSE grades in fact you couldn't even apply if you hadn't got 5 including Maths & English grade C or above.

Approx 50% of school leavers don't go to University

I think you are correct on the reliance of employees on exam grades. That is the real problem. What does the exam grade REALLY tell you? In hindsight could you have taken someone without 5 GCSEs and trained them within a few months to perform better than someone you chose with 5 GCSEs?

[Guest]

This.

Exams test information re-call and not applied or critical synthesis or deeper rooted comprehension. (They may do given the right approach)

Students in my opinion should be able to choose the summative assessment that best suits their learning style/needs and examinations should be varied in their methodology and be diverse enough to allow the student to demonstrate applied/critical thinking to their field of study.

Agree with what you say but sadly that also relies on teacher's being uniformly good at assessing, not having any bias and not being under pressure from superiors to inflate results.

Sadly that is a pipe dream.

Education and assessment need to be separated but NOT by an end of year exam.

Education should be for education purposes.

Assessment should be for job purposes and ne'er the two shall meet.

[davieG]

I think you are correct on the reliance of employees on exam grades. That is the real problem. What does the exam grade REALLY tell you? In hindsight could you have taken someone without 5 GCSEs and trained them within a few months to perform better than someone you chose with 5 GCSEs?

Well anything is possible but it's hard enough finding the right ones with 5 GCSEs and if you get it wrong you're stuck with them unless they are totally incompetent and you also miss your day release window if you get rid after a few months.

We always gave them an additional test but that was mostly to determine attitudes.

The problem with school leavers is there's often no previous employment history although we would take into account temp jobs/refs and voluntary work. But from a technical aptitude perspective and potential the GCSEs are really all you've got.

Also these people are going to be doing 4 days a week on the job and you have to be careful you're not burdening those supervising and mentoring them with additional responsibilities and alienating them.

[Guest]

What I agree with, is one exam body per subject, it is crazy that people are judged on the same grade despite sitting different exams.

What I disagree with is the idea that only 10% can get the top grade, that is stupid, how can you compare like with like, year on year when you could get an A in one year and a B the next with the same result.

I like what they do in Spanish universities for Doctors, basically everyone sits the same exam/exams, then they get a mark, but they also get a national ranking.

Yeah more than 1 exam body is a joke.

In France we have the bac for end of secondary school/ 6th form and before Uni. The bac is a very different idea though. It groups subjects. You have a science bac for maths scientists, a literature bac for languages, arts, hist etc.. and economics bac. I'm not going further into the differences here but they are completely different to this English bac idea. They have positives and negatives which are not yet relevent to any argument. However for so many jobs in France - not just doctors like you've stated in Spain - they have "concours" competitive exams. police, teachers, civil servants all public workers... It's an exam which everyone who wishes to become a teacher (for example) takes - these teachers already have their teaching degrees or the police already have their necessary university passes but they can't become police or teachers until after the "concours" Every person finds out their position and then if there are 200 jobs the top 200 are selected the others have to do something else until the next "concours" maybe once or twice a year. Some years there are very few jobs others lots and it depends on the concours for that year as to whether you get a job.

This is another area where government interference has watered down the meaning and status of apprenticeships, I've seen some of them where they involve 1 or 2 years on the job training and frankly and with due respect they maybe ok for hairdressing but i'm talking 'proper ' apprenticeships which last for 4/5 years and involve day release.

The ones I've been involved with in mechanical, electrical and construction engineering do not pay minimum wages in fact they paid very good rates based on the rates for skilled engineers and part of the same grading scheme.

As an ex-engineer and Senior Manager it was the most rewarding aspect of my career and being in new product develop it was an interesting career anyway.

Proper apprenticeships are the real way forward in Industry. On the job learning (with day release for theoretical study) is far better than school. More and more, longer and longer "internships" are being included in French Education. that's needed in England. And I must say for my Teaching degree in England I did a lot of "in class" teaching starting with a couple of weeks in year 1 and ending with a whole term in year 4.

Inital "work experience" doesn't need to be paid, but internships and apprenticeships should have a sliding salary, starting at national minimum wage and increasing dependant on the "responsibility" and output of the job being undertaken taking into account the experience and training being given.

Yes it is, that is exactly the point of education, to get everyone up to the required level of education, i.e. a pass.

You don't teach a class with the objective of 10% to fail, you teach it to get everyone to pass.

It may be the point of education but should it be? IMO we need a restructuring (which will never happen) of schooling from birth to death. there should never be an end to education and learning but this isn't just about maths and english. From birth education begins - parents and family bear the brunt for the first few years. That's good but also bad. Parents, brothers, grandmothers don't have the training for some of the education that a 2 year old needs, missing father figures, working parents etc... all complicate this. "Early school" years should be targetting self and others - personal life skills, cooperation, community living, manners, cleanliness etc... Then we move onto the need to read and write and the more traditional "education". But circumstances, maturity, learning curves etc... all differ. Forget a traditional year on year progression in all areas of education, flexibility is needed. some kids will need to repeat whole years others some parts of the year. Let's NOT put everyone up to the next year in every discipline every year. And lets widen the idea of education. and lets widen where and how we teach. lets move into the community and not stay 100% in the classroom for all teaching. Let's not only use "teachers" lets use nurses, social workers, bakers, policemen, directors...

I could go on for hours (and probably you think I have already) but skipping the area of secondary school already mentioned what first time mothers and fathers wouldn't have benefitted from "parenting education" as a normal progression when the first baby is being planned. Or relationship classes, or finance management for shopping bills and christmastime .... Retraining for people who change jobs or where industries just need less people, education for retirement to improve your standard of life and that of everyone around you. The use of older , near retirement people for knowledge and skills trasnfer to younger people.

Is there anyone of you who can say that you wouldn't have benefitted from something like this and also give value for the education with which you have been given?

Whilst I would agree that is the ideal, it's my feeling that instead of getting everyone up to scratch, the scratch line has been lowered to make it more accessible. Statistics (and I know, lies and damned lies, etc) have been trotted out to show that UK standards have slipped internationally (or other nations have surpassed us at best). There is in general, not just in education, a zeitgeist that not only is it unacceptable to fail, it is also unacceptable to fail someone. The word "criticism" has taken on a negative connotation and any offering of criticism is spurned or derided.

Not everyone can be good at everything, but everyone is good at something. To my mind that is one of the jobs of an education system. If the system can't find a child's strengths and weaknesses after 13+ years of schooling, then it is failing. As it stands, 99% of kids come out sparkling in all subjects, which just papers over the cracks*.

*That's hyperbole by the way, don't ask me to provide facts and figues to support my statement - they don't exist.

Yeah everyone deserves a basic minimum, everyone deserves the time and effort to get them to a certain level but others deserve the opportunity to progress higher in some areas. we shouldn't hold people back but that doesn't mean not helping those who are educationally challenged. We need to re-organize. No matter how you try to avoid "elitism" and personally I only want to avoid the notion of elitism NOT the fact that some people are great at somethings and not at others, you will fail. Individuals know who is better than them at something or many things. we have to make this a positive not a negative. We are all bad at some things .

[Guest]

No you don't do that, and that is not what I said.

If you are teaching Key stage one reading, or whatever it is called now, you aim to get every child in the class to the level of being able to read at that level, it is not an impossible level for all children to achieve, but some may not be able to achieve it, but that is the objective of the class. If they all achieve that level then it is great. success is not determined by others failures.

Why? Why should some people have to fail to make an exam valid?

Lets simplify it to a Maths exam with 100 questions, because maths is simpler to get a right or wrong answer, this to prove a basic level in arithmetic.

Everyone who takes the exam one year gets 90-100%, same questions every year, same difficulty, no cheating, are you seriously saying that those that got 90% should fail, even though they have clearly proved they have mastered the basics of maths?

I am not saying everyone should pass every exam, this is not about making people feel better or smarter, it is about a fair representation of the ability of the candidate that can be measured year on year.

If Key stage 1 is a target I have no problem with that. My change is that for some students they can reach that in 3 months others it may take 3 years we need to change the system to accommodate the learning. If it has been reached move on, maybe some will reach key stage 25.

as for "Failing" of course we don't have to fail anyone. 1 out of 100 does not have to be called a fail. but in real life people will see that as a fail whether we call it a fail or not.

I work with a lot of language exams - like the TOEIC. No-one can fail the TOEIC it's an exam out of 990 points. But when company DHR see the score they know 750+ English is good 550 - 750 the person won't be leading any English projects. 350 I can get someone better suited to the work I have in mind. No fail but no Job.

[Guest]

But everyone should be able to pass basic reading writing and literacy skills, that should be the aim of the government to get 100% of the population to be able to read, write and count, and not raise the bar every time we look like achieving that.

This is my point, you have different levels of exams to measure people's abilities, but if 100% of the people surpass the requirements on the course it doesn't make it invalid, it just means that they studied and learnt what was required of them.

Take the driving test for example, if everyone started passing it first time should it be made harder?

Likewise exams shouldn't be made easier because not enough people pass them, all I'm saying is whether you pass or fail should not depend on the level of everyone else taking the exam, only that you are capable to the standard required.

I think you have combined two different arguments and given them one answer.

I agree that there must be a certian level which you aim (and succeed) in getting the public to. Reading and writing, speaking and understanding especially. If they don't they should be given special help until they do. But this doesn't have to be in "mainstream" education and I agree that the bar need not be moved - unless society changes greatly.

But the "world" intelligence in some educational areas (not necessarily practical areas) has increased exponentially over the last few decades so for these areas we DO need to continually lift the bar. A level of scientific understanding acceptable 40 years ago is not acceptable now for example. Think of it like inflation. A house is the same house but the price for it has gone up.

A practical exam like driving a car is not the same. Sure there are advances and changes in real needs but the skills themselves ar relatively unchanged.