Return of the O-Level: Gove plans to scrap "dumbed-down GCSEs and National Curriculum"

[muriel_volestrangler]

This is from the Mail, but it seems to be their exclusive, so I've linked to them, even though I tend to distrust them. The BBC seems to have separate sources confirming the basics. "Dumbed down " is the Mail's wording, so I've put that in quotes.

The most radical shake-up in school exams for 30 years will see dumbed-down GCSEs scrapped and rigorous O-levels brought back.

Leaked documents seen by the Mail reveal Education Secretary Michael Gove has drawn up a blueprint which would tear up the current exam system as well as abolishing the National Curriculum.

From September 2014, pupils will begin studying for ‘explicitly harder’ exams in English, maths, physics, chemistry and biology.
...
The new exams will ‘meet or exceed the highest standards in the world for that age group’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162369/Return-O-Level-Gove-shake-biggest-revolution-education-30-years.html

It also says a CSE-style simpler exam will be brought back.

It strikes me as an exercise in nostalgia.

[potone]

1. It might be a good thing.

They have greatly damaged their university system by abolishing tenure and making every program geared to its contribution to the economy. If this indicates a return to their formerly high academic standards, I'm all for it! On the other hand, I hope that this will not mean a return to the days when only a small percentage of the populace gets to go to university.

[non sociopath skin]

2. The Conservatives started working on the latter project some time ago.

It's interesting that they should seek to further the project by abolishing the Conservatives' GCSE and the Conservatives' National Curriculum.

Perhaps the ultimate aim is to reduce parliamentary costs by doing away with the need for an opposition.

W.S. Gilbert, you should be with us at this hour ...

The Skin

[T_i_B]

3. It is bizarre

I wonder if Gove is just tinkering with the system for the sake of tinkering with the system.

What gets me is how the press give him a free pass, presumably because he's one of their own. The Daily Telegraph are particularly bad for fawning over him.

[Nihil]

11. You're running late Skin ...

> Perhaps the ultimate aim is to reduce parliamentary costs by
> doing away with the need for an opposition.

There hasn't been one of those for quite a while.

The occasional "voice in the wilderness" doesn't count as an "opposition" to HMG
and elections are just a game of musical chairs these days as to which colour
is nominally to blame^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H in charge.


As you say, Gilbert got it right ...

When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Even the Grauniad has quoted the Mail as its source

Urgent question on Gove plan to scrap GCSEs: Politics live blog.

11.49am: Here is a summary of the key points on Michael Gove's statement.

• Gove said that he would soon be publishing a consultation paper on reforming the examination system in England. He refused to comment on any of the details in the story about the government's plans in the Daily Mail, which says pupils will start studying for the new O-level-style qualifications from September 2014. But he said the government would proceed carefully.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/21/aung-san-suu-kyi-parliament-live

I don't see how this would disadvantage anyone. Either children, regardless of class, have the intelligence to pass such exams or they don't.

[non sociopath skin]

5. Really? So why do you think the same party got rid of the system thirty years ago?

Parental pressure, that's why!

Wait till the first group of parents in "Middle England" are told that their kids are going to take exams that aren't worth the paper their written on and watch the skin and hair fly!

The Skin

[LeftishBrit]

6. It's not as simple as your last sentence suggests

Passing school exams is not just a matter of intelligence; it's also a matter of what you've been taught, and to what extent you've been able to consolidate it. Pupils in better-funded schools are likely to do better; and if a middle-class child's school instruction is not adequate (and often even if it is), the parents are far more likely than poorer parents to be able to compensate for it by home teaching and often paying for extra coaching.

To some extent this is true of any exam, but the problem is likely to be increased when changes occur every 5 minutes. Moreover, if the aim is to replicate the exam system of 30 years ago, then children of better-educated parents are particularly advantaged, because their parents are more likely to have experience of doing well in similar exams.

Moreover: even apart from the issue of social disadvantage, what is the whole point of all this obsession with targets, and testing for the sake of testing, and constantly changing the goalposts, which has been a problem with governments of both parties since at least Kenneth Baker's tenure as Education Secretary?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Here's an FT article about the idea to bring back CSEs:

This matters: one would expect it to lower aspirations among children put onto the CSE track – which would presumably happen at the age of 14. If a child gets moved onto the scheme who otherwise would be aiming for a C at GCSE, they may just stop trying.

This could happen, to an extent, when pupils only sit the so-called “foundation papers” for GCSEs now. But children taking such papers can still get a C at GCSE, and they do not have a qualification on their CV which suggests to employers that teachers thought they were low-ability.

Furthermore, schools do not have perfect foresight. Schools may struggle to place children with accuracy. This is not to belittle teachers: the lines are indistinct. Every child from the 29th to 48th percentile gets an average grade of “D”.

If that were not hard enough, children are moving targets – particularly in the early teenage years. There is a lot of movement between standardised tests. One third of the bottom quarter of children at the age of 11 break out of that grouping by the age of 16.

This uncertainty would, again, weigh on poorer children disproportionately. More than one in five poorer children get results that put them in the 25th to 40th percentiles at GCSE by average grade. They could more easily be dragged into the CSE net by accident than their richer peers.

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2012/06/21/social-mobility-and-o-levels/

[dipsydoodle]

9. Maybe let the children provide some input

Here's a link for example of the closest I could find to the O Level Maths paper I sat in 1960 which to me was easy as falling off a log. http://www.btinternet.com/~mathsanswers/html/o_level_papers.html

I just downloaded them and they're safe.

Use the 1957 one as an example - the later one, 1962 differs but not sure why. I could still pass that 1957 now. By the age of say 14 I'm guessing the kids could figure whether they'd want to sit maths at CSE or O Level.

Since the subject has been mentioned elsewhere here - at that time my parents were far from well off not helped by the fact that at the age of 15 I suddenly had a new sister soon to be followed by another brother.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. I don't think children would make a good decision

it's been shown that people are very bad at estimating their own ability. Asking a 14 year old to do that, when they haven't seen how people develop their ability at that age, would be even worse than teachers doing it.

And the idea of an exam for which the top grade is still widely looked down on does seem spectacularly pointless. It says "the teachers thought they weren't that good at 14; at 16, perhaps they got better, but we don't know; or they didn't get the top grade, in which case our fears were confirmed".

I think I could handle the 1957 paper, except the 'history of mathematics' section - we never studied anything remotely like that in school, and I'd only be able to suggest bits of relevant information from what I've picked up since. Was anyone here taught anything like that at school? Perhaps that was in there to help the marks of the less mathematically inclined ...

[dipsydoodle]

13. I don't know what the history section was either.

We definately didn't have that - just the first three individual papers. That other paper may just relate to that examining body.

I forgot to mention - I don't agree with multiple choice answers in examinations, as became normal ,and certainly not the use of a calculator in a maths exam.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Multiple choice should be rare, I think

It helps keep exam costs down, but I wouldn't say it's suitable for maths, where there should be marks for the working.

Calculators I'm fine with - at least some of those 1958 papers needed log and trig tables, and they're no more of an aid than those. Practically everyone has a calculator with them these days, in the form of a mobile. It would be good for everyone to have some mental arithmetic skills, but you'd need a 'live' exam for that, not a written one.

[LeftishBrit]

22. Agree on all of this

School needs to prepare you to live in the modern world, and that includes the intelligent use of a calculator. As you say, mental calculation is also important, but can't be adequately tested in a written exam.

I agree about multiple choice being inadequate for most purposes. It is very overused in American schools and universities, and many people worry that it encourages superficial learning.

[LeftishBrit]

21. I agree. Especially if you throw in the influence of peer pressure.

Last edited Sat Jun 23, 2012, 03:38 AM - Edit history (1)

14 is a bad age to make such decisions.

I could have handled most of that 1957 exam as a youngster, and much of it still now if I was given enough time to do it. I am sure we did quite a few similar problems in school in the 70s. Although we did SMP maths, we also used more old-fashioned books - the names 'Parr' and 'Durell' come vaguely to mind in this context. That is, I could probably do the arithmetic and algebra sections; I've forgotten much of my geometry. On the other hand, I didn't do history of mathematics at school, but could probably do that bit now, because I've needed to learn the basics of that for other reasons.

[dipsydoodle]

10. David Cameron 'not aware' of Gove GCSE plan, says Clegg

David Cameron was among senior ministers kept in the dark about Michael Gove's plans to scrap GCSEs in England, Nick Clegg has suggested.

The deputy prime minister has vowed to block the education secretary's plans, which were announced in the Daily Mail.

Mr Gove was summoned to the Commons to explain the plan to bring back O-levels and create a single exam board, which he says will raise standards.

But the Lib Dems say it will create a "two-tier" education system.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18547842

[non sociopath skin]

14. What a ridiculous, pathetic shambles this "Coalition" has turned out to be.

Disagreeing with a government is one thing but fearing its crass incompetence is another.

The Skin

[T_i_B]

15. This is actually the thing that annoys me most about this

If you are planning to overhaul the education system then leaking details to the Daily Fail without even bothering to let your bosses know what you are up to is a pretty shite way to go about it.

It would be nice if the Lib Dems could grow a bit of a spine on this one (I know it's asking a lot of people like Clegg but there you go) as it's the sort of massive overhaul that should at the very least be a major plank of a partys platform at the next general election rather then something tossed out of hand mid-parliament.

[dipsydoodle]

16. Seems to be a constant cycle

of the left hand being unaware of the right hand.

[non sociopath skin]

18. Ah, but ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18547842



The Skin

[LeftishBrit]

7. Indeed, an exercise in nostalgia

And seriously: what sort of government is it, where Ministers only find out about the policies by reading the Daily Mail? One could say that Clegg deserves to be thus humiliated, but the country doesn't deserve it! If Cameron and Gove won't even inform, let alone consult, their own Deputy Prime Minister, how does one expect them to consult and inform the teachers who will actually be expected to 'deliver' all this? Oh, that's right, they won't.

[dipsydoodle]

19. Nostalgia's

not what it used to be.

[LeftishBrit]

20. Or as I always say..

Things ain't what they used to be - and they never were!

[non sociopath skin]

23. I rather like Loudon Wainwright on the subject

"The good old days are good and gone now/ That's why they're good - because they're gone"

The Skin