GCSE overhaul in England made final by Ofqual

[Charl91]

Romantic poetry is fvcking dreadful.

[purpleronnie]

Romantic poetry is fvcking dreadful.

why?

[ADK]

I think I'd rather study Rincewind's poetry.

[MooseBreath]

That's not the issue and this is such a clearly biased viewpoint. THose who know the education system know that he is seriously fecking up everything.

Those who currently know the education system have been there right through the worst decline in education standards this country has seen in the modern era. I'm not sure their opinions are automatically deserving of being held in the highest regard.

[leicsmac]

Those who currently know the education system have been there right through the worst decline in education standards this country has seen in the modern era. I'm not sure their opinions are automatically deserving of being held in the highest regard.

 

Only if you believe them responsible for the aforementioned decline. And that's still a matter of debate. Education has been a political football for a long time, and you wonder how much influence over policy the ones who know about things actually have.

[Rincewind]

I think I'd rather study Rincewind's poetry.

Thanks. Personally I think modern poetry should be included in the studies as it is more relevant to the 21st century. Also more interest would be taken in it by studentsn Not a fan of rap but it does reflect what is happening sometimes.

Maybe a mixture of old and new so comparrisons can be made.

[lcfc81]

What utter bollocks this is. Have you been reading the tripe the Mirror and the Guardian throw out?

Take a look at Goves upbringing, it's more working class than 90% of people.

He had to crawl out of an adopted Labour family out of Aberdeen to achieve something, he deserves huge respect for that.

However he did still go to a private school and he still has no experience of state secondary education, how does his class make him have any more or less experience of this?

[lcfc81]

If the experts know what they're talking about why have standards and attainment gone backwards?

Attainment hasn't gone backwards, that was goves irritation gcse passes went up and up.

Standards are very subjective, unless you compare each exam board and each exam paper it's hard to tell.

Britain maybe has moved down the exam league tables globally (but again it depends which ones you use). This could be due to a multitude of reasons , (e.g other systems improving at a faster rate than ours, the GDP of other countries improving relative to ours, the quality of parenting etc). It is convenient when you want to make radical changes to suggest this is due to decreasing standards, however even if this was a case surely it would be better to look at more successful systems and import ideas? Also surely having a different grading system to Northern Ireland an Wales is very difficult for employees and some attempt to discuss changes with them should be made?

I'm not convinced by some of the changes, think some of the changes will be good, however one thing I am certain of is the time frame for changes is too short and only seems to be serving the best interests of gove.

[lcfc81]

One other thing that seems to have gone unnoticed by the public is the paradoxical policies in gcse. Schools have been accused of gaming the system with maths and English (even though the drive of the previous system was to ensure a base standard, in these subjects, for the majority of pupils, was achieved) gove put a stop to this over the course of days (and released through the media) causing unnecessary disruption for hundreds of students. Then says at a-level students will e expected to take maths and English again and again until they reach the c base standard. It seems strange.

[Webbo]

Attainment hasn't gone backwards, that was goves irritation gcse passes went up and up.

Standards are very subjective, unless you compare each exam board and each exam paper it's hard to tell.

Britain maybe has moved down the exam league tables globally (but again it depends which ones you use). This could be due to a multitude of reasons , (e.g other systems improving at a faster rate than ours, the GDP of other countries improving relative to ours, the quality of parenting etc). It is convenient when you want to make radical changes to suggest this is due to decreasing standards, however even if this was a case surely it would be better to look at more successful systems and import ideas? Also surely having a different grading system to Northern Ireland an Wales is very difficult for employees and some attempt to discuss changes with them should be made?

I'm not convinced by some of the changes, think some of the changes will be good, however one thing I am certain of is the time frame for changes is too short and only seems to be serving the best interests of gove.

Yes they have  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24433320

and the pupils tested all went to school mainly or completely under Labour.

[lcfc81]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/aug/24/gcse-results-2010-coursework

There were 23 years of rises before gove's reforms, it cannot be argued gcse attainment had fallen until gove's changes. (This was eluded to by Trisam in the article)

The artical you link is based on a 'major study', sampling what it describes as a 'snapshot' of

' 166,000 adults taking tests in 24 education systems, representing populations of 724 million people'

(Very difficult to generalise from particularly as everyone in the study was in the education system.)

There is little information on attainment in the article only a comment that scores in england were no better than older generations (not worse), and that when 'weighted with other factors' England was going backwards (a manipulated statistic which hardly sounds objective).

Then it states,

'However, for England, when the results are separated from Northern Ireland, there was a different and unusual pattern, with almost no advance in test results between the 55 to 65-year-olds and those aged 16 to 24.'

Which can equally interpreted as how fantastic the English businesses are at developing its older workers. (Although it contradicts itself in the first quote when it states everyone studied was in the education system? If they are being currently educated how can their score be representative of their 60's and 70's schooling!)

Another thing that is rather alarming is the statement,

'The study shows that there are 8.5 million adults in England and Northern Ireland with the numeracy levels of a 10-year-old.'

Alarming because it is a very sweeping statement from such a comparatively small sampling frame.

The study and article provide no proof of falling attainment imo.

[Webbo]

Surprise surprise. According to the Guardian it's all the Tories fault.

[fleckneymike]

Changing the specification is largely pointless if you're attempting to drive up standards. If the teaching remains the same then the outcomes will scarcely alter. If Gove wants to do something radical then scrap OFSTED. Until teachers are free from judgements based on zero empirical evidence by a system which favours progressive teaching methods then attainment will remain static at best.

[Strokes]

I think the changing of the grading system has had to happen, as it has been devalued and become worthless. Lets face it, a dunce could get straight c's. As for the rest of gove's changes, only time will tell. People don't like change (especially those with cushy little numbers), and will always oppose radical reforms but our children are way below where they should be.

[inckley fox]

I'm not sure what is to be gained from teaching 'Pride and Prejudice', 'Wuthering Heights', 'Jane Eyre' and 'Frankenstein' to a whole generation, as opposed to Orwell, Huxley, Vonnegut or something similarly likely to engage them in literature; unless the aim is to turn English GCSE into a gruelling exercise in endurance. That said, I'm sure 19th Century fiction served Michael Gove very well back in the 80s when he was at private school and Oxford.

 

Ultimately, of course, bombarding our unwitting young with the sort of aristocratic soap opera trash that Austen came up with will have no impact on literacy rates in the UK. There's no link between the choice of literature at GCSE and mastery of the English language. Education in England has, in contrast to many countries, long been about passing exams (at 11, 14, 16, 18) rather than developing skills. Increasing the emphasis on a single final exam is unlikely to help this.

 

Labour recognised the need for more skills-based learning, first with the literacy hour, then later with a proposed move towards a more vocational education. The problem was that they never did anything effective about it; their educational policy was a trial-and-error mishmash. The Tories, on the other hand, are actively moving in the opposite direction. They wanted to introduce an English E-Bacc, in reference to the Baccalaureate, but singularly failed to notice that what they were proposing went against every central principal of the IB. It's an equally shambolic, equally misguided approach to education to that of Labour, failing to address some of the key problems in English education (e.g. classroom management, inclusion, basic literacy and numeracy skills, continuous assessment and so on).

[absolutelegend]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/aug/24/gcse-results-2010-coursework

There were 23 years of rises before gove's reforms, it cannot be argued gcse attainment had fallen until gove's changes. (This was eluded to by Trisam in the article)

The artical you link is based on a 'major study', sampling what it describes as a 'snapshot' of

' 166,000 adults taking tests in 24 education systems, representing populations of 724 million people'

(Very difficult to generalise from particularly as everyone in the study was in the education system.)

There is little information on attainment in the article only a comment that scores in england were no better than older generations (not worse), and that when 'weighted with other factors' England was going backwards (a manipulated statistic which hardly sounds objective).

Then it states,

'However, for England, when the results are separated from Northern Ireland, there was a different and unusual pattern, with almost no advance in test results between the 55 to 65-year-olds and those aged 16 to 24.'

Which can equally interpreted as how fantastic the English businesses are at developing its older workers. (Although it contradicts itself in the first quote when it states everyone studied was in the education system? If they are being currently educated how can their score be representative of their 60's and 70's schooling!)

Another thing that is rather alarming is the statement,

'The study shows that there are 8.5 million adults in England and Northern Ireland with the numeracy levels of a 10-year-old.'

Alarming because it is a very sweeping statement from such a comparatively small sampling frame.

The study and article provide no proof of falling attainment imo.

 

another unbiased and agendaless piece from the guardian.

 

who buys this sh1t?

[leicsmac]

I think the changing of the grading system has had to happen, as it has been devalued and become worthless. Lets face it, a dunce could get straight c's. As for the rest of gove's changes, only time will tell. People don't like change (especially those with cushy little numbers), and will always oppose radical reforms but our children are way below where they should be.

 

 

Loving the condescension and generalisation towards the kids currently studying, thanks for that.

 

Don't disagree with you on the need for change mind you. It can start with the politicians quitting using education as a political football, as ones of all parties have done for years.

 

I'm not sure what is to be gained from teaching 'Pride and Prejudice', 'Wuthering Heights', 'Jane Eyre' and 'Frankenstein' to a whole generation, as opposed to Orwell, Huxley, Vonnegut or something similarly likely to engage them in literature; unless the aim is to turn English GCSE into a gruelling exercise in endurance. That said, I'm sure 19th Century fiction served Michael Gove very well back in the 80s when he was at private school and Oxford.

 

Ultimately, of course, bombarding our unwitting young with the sort of aristocratic soap opera trash that Austen came up with will have no impact on literacy rates in the UK. There's no link between the choice of literature at GCSE and mastery of the English language. Education in England has, in contrast to many countries, long been about passing exams (at 11, 14, 16, 18) rather than developing skills. Increasing the emphasis on a single final exam is unlikely to help this.

 

Labour recognised the need for more skills-based learning, first with the literacy hour, then later with a proposed move towards a more vocational education. The problem was that they never did anything effective about it; their educational policy was a trial-and-error mishmash. The Tories, on the other hand, are actively moving in the opposite direction. They wanted to introduce an English E-Bacc, in reference to the Baccalaureate, but singularly failed to notice that what they were proposing went against every central principal of the IB. It's an equally shambolic, equally misguided approach to education to that of Labour, failing to address some of the key problems in English education (e.g. classroom management, inclusion, basic literacy and numeracy skills, continuous assessment and so on).

 

Spot on.

[ADK]

My personal opinion is that the main problem with education is the teaching staff.

 

You can change the curriculum or the format of exams all you want but it is the teachers that have the most influence.

[leicsmac]

My personal opinion is that the main problem with education is the teaching staff.

 

You can change the curriculum or the format of exams all you want but it is the teachers that have the most influence.

 

Really? When they're bound by masses of legislation, have to be the ones that implement all the aforementioned changes in curriculum and format of exams and have OFSTED looking over their shoulders every few months?

 

The people with the least freedom and influence in the education industry are the teachers themselves.

[ADK]

They still do the teaching, in my opinion there is a world of difference between a competent and experienced teacher and one who just copies off the internet into a powerpoint presentation and then sits at the front drinking coffee and watching Netflix during lessons.

 

The interference by central government is just one aspect of why teaching isn't seen as an attractive career, it's a hindrance to good teachers and does nothing to expose bad teachers.

[fleckneymike]

They still do the teaching, in my opinion there is a world of difference between a competent and experienced teacher and one who just copies off the internet into a powerpoint presentation and then sits at the front drinking coffee and watching Netflix during lessons.

 

The interference by central government is just one aspect of why teaching isn't seen as an attractive career, it's a hindrance to good teachers and does nothing to expose bad teachers.

Would you mind explaining what 'good' teaching looks like and how it can be measured.

Could you also explain what 'learning' looks like and how it can be measured.

[The God Emperor]

I'm not sure what is to be gained from teaching 'Pride and Prejudice', 'Wuthering Heights', 'Jane Eyre' and 'Frankenstein' to a whole generation, as opposed to Orwell, Huxley, Vonnegut or something similarly likely to engage them in literature; unless the aim is to turn English GCSE into a gruelling exercise in endurance. That said, I'm sure 19th Century fiction served Michael Gove very well back in the 80s when he was at private school and Oxford.

 

Ultimately, of course, bombarding our unwitting young with the sort of aristocratic soap opera trash that Austen came up with will have no impact on literacy rates in the UK. There's no link between the choice of literature at GCSE and mastery of the English language. Education in England has, in contrast to many countries, long been about passing exams (at 11, 14, 16, 18) rather than developing skills. Increasing the emphasis on a single final exam is unlikely to help this.

 

Labour recognised the need for more skills-based learning, first with the literacy hour, then later with a proposed move towards a more vocational education. The problem was that they never did anything effective about it; their educational policy was a trial-and-error mishmash. The Tories, on the other hand, are actively moving in the opposite direction. They wanted to introduce an English E-Bacc, in reference to the Baccalaureate, but singularly failed to notice that what they were proposing went against every central principal of the IB. It's an equally shambolic, equally misguided approach to education to that of Labour, failing to address some of the key problems in English education (e.g. classroom management, inclusion, basic literacy and numeracy skills, continuous assessment and so on).

19th century fiction is awesome! how dare you!   *throws hard cover copy of 'the island of doctor Moreau' at inckley fox*

to be fair though school killed any interest I had in reading for a good 2 years after I left. 

[ADK]

Would you mind explaining what 'good' teaching looks like and how it can be measured.

Could you also explain what 'learning' looks like and how it can be measured.

 

Well learning can be measured by exams, coursework and other assessments.

 

As for teaching itself, it is harder to measure quantitatively. As a pupil I felt I could identify the stronger and the weaker teachers. 

[leicsmac]

They still do the teaching, in my opinion there is a world of difference between a competent and experienced teacher and one who just copies off the internet into a powerpoint presentation and then sits at the front drinking coffee and watching Netflix during lessons.

 

The interference by central government is just one aspect of why teaching isn't seen as an attractive career, it's a hindrance to good teachers and does nothing to expose bad teachers.

 

But as fleckneymike pointed out, you're trying to quantify something that isn't quantifiable. Assessment scores for kids don't even come close to the full picture of a teachers competency. Personally I'd much rather teach advanced quantum mechanics to a group of motivated teenagers than try to teach elementary maths to a bunch of kids that simply don't want to be there.

 

The reason the model Gove is trying so hard to ape (the Asian one) works is not because of the teachers, but because of the attitude of the parents and of the societies in general. 

 

Just noticed your most recent reply - what made certain teachers stronger or weaker in your opinion? The element of control?

[fleckneymike]

Well learning can be measured by exams, coursework and other assessments.

 

As for teaching itself, it is harder to measure quantitatively. As a pupil I felt I could identify the stronger and the weaker teachers. 

 

Does the gap being being 'taught' something and when you are assessed matter in terms of measuring learning?

 

Do tests take into account prior learning? What 'learning' are you looking for in the assessment?