http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...rder-exam.html
NB: PLEASE either read the WHOLE POST or read SPECIFIC points and comment about those points. "Tl;dr" posts and its similarities, WILL be reported.
An exam board running the International GCSE has been told courses will not receive funding to be taught in the state sector unless they are changed to follow the National Curriculum.
It comes despite the fact that the IGCSE is already favoured in up to 700 private schools – around half the senior schools in the United Kingdom.
The Conservatives have pledged to introduce IGCSEs in state schools, but the move has been resisted by the Government.
Nick Gibb, the Tory shadow schools minister, said: “It is important that pupils who attend state schools can take qualifications available in the private sector. We should not allow this divide to continue, particularly when there is a view that the IGCSE is a more rigorous exam.”
The Telegraph understands that the courses will not receive funding unless they are changed to follow the National Curriculum.
But Cambridge International Examinations – one of two boards offering the IGCSE – said it would not do this because it would compromise the fact that courses were currently offered in at least 100 other countries.
It puts the Government at odds with both the exams watchdog, Ofqual, which accredited 15 of the courses in February, and the Tories.
Kevin Stannard, director of international curriculum development at CIE, said: “Because of the fact that we serve 150 other countries, we cannot simply change [the syllabuses] to fit in with the [English] programme of study, even though they might seem like relatively minor changes.”
The Government said IGCSEs in English could not be taught in the state sector because they did not require pupils to be taught Shakespeare and other classic authors, as the National Curriculum stipulated. In maths, the IGCSE was barred from state funding because it did not include a non-calculator paper. In physics, it was not included because it did not include compulsory questions on topics including the solar system. In history, it offered the flexibility not to teach Edwardian England.
Dr Stannard said: “We have got a letter... that said that... the syllabuses in the subjects for which there is a National Curriculum programme of study have to map onto those programmes of study absolutely completely without any gaps.
“That’s a problem for us. For subjects in the National Curriculum, they are sticking to the view that they are not mapping entirely on to the national curriculum programme of study.”
Dr Stannard said the letter was “constructive” and that the DCSF wanted a “dialogue” on the issue. But it was difficult for CIE to simply change its syllabuses to make them compatible with the national curriculum, since the exams were taken worldwide and other countries needed flexibility over what they taught, he said.
The number of privately-educated pupils taking the IGCSE is reported to have almost trebled last year to 40,000. In March, Manchester Grammar School announced plans to opt out of GCSEs on a wholesale basis.
IGCSEs allow pupils to bypass coursework and are assessed in end-of-year exams. Changes to mainstream GCSEs from next month, putting more emphasis on exams taken in smaller modules, are also thought to be driving more academic schools towards the more traditional IGCSE.
Dr Stannard added: “Our main concern is that this does raise the question of equality in terms of access to the qualifications.”
Earlier this year, Jim Knight, the former Schools Minister, said that IGCSEs was not superior to GCSEs and that independent schools were free to opt for them. He highlighted the fact that the IGCSE did not include the compulsory study of Shakespeare or other classic authors, while in maths it did not feature a non-calculator test.
This is going to be somewhat similar to my other thread about the ill-informed Times article; however, in this case I will not point out the flaws in the Daily Telegraph, but more of the Labour party.
1.
"An exam board running the International GCSE has been told courses will not receive funding to be taught in the state sector unless they are changed to follow the National Curriculum."
Why should the iGCSE be changed to follow the National Curriculum? It is not even the NC was a good policy - it restricted what schools were supposed to do with their time and of course, the KS3 Sats fiasco. I'm a believer that if state schools have the freedom to develop their own curriculum to the needs of their students of different abilities, the education would improve greatly. Not results - education. School is about getting an education, to develop yourself into a person; not getting as much passes as you can to make the school "look good" on league tables. In fact, iGCSEs are fine as they are - in terms of content etc; there was no news articles of the iGCSE being "dumbed down" in contrary to GCSEs. And it's not like the National Curriculum helped the hundreds of thousands of 16 year olds leaving school without the necessary 5A*-C including GCSEs. Is this what Labour wants? "Factories" that produce 5Cs for every person to make their policy look good? Because, frankly, Tony Blair's priority was "Education, education, education", yet his party did not fufill that - and if anything, made it worse. iGCSEs could be a change for state schools - Labour are not realising that just because it doesn't conform to their National Curriculum?! I've never seen an article that praised the NC, more like condemn it. The Sats fiasco and many school leavers not having the basic English and Maths skills are, indirectly, why the NC fails. The NC should be revised; in fact not even have one. This is one of the reasons why independent schools do so well, regardless of resources etc - they have the ability to teach what they want to their students, rather than being controlled to the Government and conformed to the ideology that "one size fits all" policy works. It doesn't.
2.
"It comes despite the fact that the IGCSE is already favoured in up to 700 private schools – around half the senior schools in the United Kingdom. "
Private schools have generally done well, in addition to grammar schools. Why can't the Government follow suit with these schools and introduce the iGCSE in state schools that want to do them? Surely the iGCSE is a positive thing, in contrary to the Labour's failure of the Diploma. Yes, only 12,000 have started them, and even then the results were "not good". It has been deemed as a fail - has iGCSEs? No. Why can't Labour stop being so close-minded that their schemes and policies are the best? Because their not. 50%+ of school leavers without 5Cs including English and Maths just proves that. I mean, 1 in 2 doesn't have these basic skills to equip them throughout their life; the Labour education has failed them. And to think they are dismissing the iGCSE. If Education was the number one priority, they would offer this qualification into state schools. It's wrong for the Government to control what exams state schoolers should or should not do; not everyone in the country can conform to Labour's idea of the perfect school leaver - one that has gained 5C including English and Maths. True, the iGCSE is likely not to benefit the under-achievers, but with record numbers of over-achievers, surely this is a reform for the top state schools. In the worst state schools, instead of pumping money into them that's not going to benefit anyone, they should improve the damn education! By the way, I may have been ambigious with what I mean by "state school" - in this case, the top state schools that have students who will do potentially well in this qualification. Because this is not a good reform for the stereotypical "inner-city" state school. Something different needs to be done with these "type" of state schools. But regardless, the Government is wrong to "ban" this qualification in state schools that want them. As my last few sentences have implied, all state schools are different - there are good state schools, and then the bad state schools. The "bad" state schools needs something done with them in order to improve the standard of education, but for the good state schools, this is an idea to help the over-achievers that need these type of qualifications to properly stretch and challenge them.
3.
"The Conservatives have pledged to introduce IGCSEs in state schools, but the move has been resisted by the Government."
This statement says something about the Tories, however I am still sceptical of the word "pledged". Are the Tories (or more like Cameron) just saying this to get in charge? To be honest, regardless if this may be true or not, the other option is that Labour would resits introducing iGCSEs in state schools. At least the Tories pledged, whereas Labour are just not moving from their sadistic position. Maybe we need a Tory reform because 12 years of Labour has done much to improve education overall. Yes, every year there are the infamous stories that "grades are at an all time high", "record number of As" - but is this really a proper indication of the education provided by the state? No - the reasons are obvious as we all know. The first part of the statement really could be the start of the education reform in this country, but will the Tories produce the results (no pun intended)? Who knows. Because it could be a matter of years before the Tories introduce what they have pledged. And even then the iGCSE is a short term scheme to improve standards in state schools. Still, better than we are at the moment...
4.
"Nick Gibb, the Tory shadow schools minister, said: “It is important that pupils who attend state schools can take qualifications available in the private sector. We should not allow this divide to continue, particularly when there is a view that the IGCSE is a more rigorous exam."
True, but actions speak louder than words. If the Tories really wanted to stop this divide, they should do something about it now, not after they be elected. I've "backlashed" at Labour for the past paragraphs, but the Tories are not at all perfect. In fact Government really is a place of "fake promises". They say they will do something - they don't. Note that I agree with what Mr Gibb says - it is important we should not deny state schoolers the same qualifications as private schoolers. We should not let this divide continue. Yet, just a few weeks ago, Mandelson was talking about "social mobility" with the two grade upgrade. Doesn't this show that Labour is hypocritical - "We want social mobility! But we won't let state schoolers do the iGCSE. It does not conform to the National Curriculum". That's basically what they're saying. It's important that we don't let this divide continue - but are Labour or the Tories doing anything about it, rather than saying things. By the way, "there is a view that the iGCSE is a more rigorous exam". Well, that says something about the standards Labour are putting. Why are they dismissing are qualification perceived to be harder? It will make their league tables poor? Get a grip Labour; you are failing the under-achievers, the over-achievers are lacking standards and the average kid is just left behind. One size does not fit all.
5.
"The Telegraph understands that the courses will not receive funding unless they are changed to follow the National Curriculum. "
Same as first paragraph, but to be honest, why should they be changed? They are fine as they are. Why should the Government stroll in and just say "we are not introducing them unless they conform to the NC". Labour really needs to take a good look of themself before "badmouthing" other qualfications. Take the "failure" of the Diplomas as an instance. In fact, why not look at GCSEs themselves - top students are having their efforts feel worthless, "failed" students - well that speaks for itself. I find it so "arrogant" (for want of a better word) that Labour can just say that something's wrong with the iGCSE [does not conform to the NC] yet their schemes/systems are providing a good standard of education in this country. You could even see Labour's impact of their education non-academically. Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and under-age drinking in the civilised world. Education is not just about academics, it is what it says on the tin - about education.
6.
"But Cambridge International Examinations – one of two boards offering the IGCSE – said it would not do this because it would compromise the fact that courses were currently offered in at least 100 other countries."
Exactly. Why should they? This is probably one of the worst things the Government could say about education. Not only would they change the iGCSE syllabus (which is "alright" as it is), they would be disrupting countless number of students across the globe. The Government has no right to even think that when their system is a failure to be honest. The clue is in the name - International General Certificate of Secondary Education. I'm glad CIE have gone against the Government. Labour do not know what they are talking about and its effects - especially internationally.
7.
"It puts the Government at odds with both the exams watchdog, Ofqual, which accredited 15 of the courses in February, and the Tories."
Bad odds. Actually, something about Ofqual - 10 years they had a chance to sort out something. Ofcom - many years to sort out the "bad" state schools in the long term, rather than pumping money into them and not doing anything.
8.
"Kevin Stannard, director of international curriculum development at CIE, said: “Because of the fact that we serve 150 other countries, we cannot simply change [the syllabuses] to fit in with the [English] programme of study, even though they might seem like relatively minor changes."
Damn right. Especially, when it's for the worse... That's all I've got to say on this statement. I mean, why the hell should the iGCSE should be reformed to Labour's "failed" ideology? Reform the education in this country - not the qualifications. In fact the Government can develop new qualifications all they like, e.g. the Diploma, it's not going to help.
9.
"The Government said IGCSEs in English could not be taught in the state sector because they did not require pupils to be taught Shakespeare and other classic authors, as the National Curriculum stipulated. In maths, the IGCSE was barred from state funding because it did not include a non-calculator paper. In physics, it was not included because it did not include compulsory questions on topics including the solar system. In history, it offered the flexibility not to teach Edwardian England."
I'm sorry - and? What about the option that you could scrap the NC once and for all, introduce the iGCSEs as they are, and let the state schools teach Edwardian England so they wish - without the means they need to be tested on it? Why does Labour believe everything taught in their state schools should be tested? Give the state schools the freedom they need - instead of controlling them on what they teach and what qualifications they are allowed to set their pupils. It's not like the NC has done good for state schoolers - in a general sense. Also, "it offered the flexibility not to teach Edwardian England"; the Government doesn't give state schools the freedom to teach what they want! They are practically shoving Othello and "What is the closest star to Earth?" questions into the throats of state schoolers.
10.
"Dr Stannard said: “We have got a letter... that said that... the syllabuses in the subjects for which there is a National Curriculum programme of study have to map onto those programmes of study absolutely completely without any gaps."
“That’s a problem for us. For subjects in the National Curriculum, they are sticking to the view that they are not mapping entirely on to the national curriculum programme of study."
How is it a problem? Sorry, there is a problem - the National Curriculum, as proved by this doesn't allow freedom into other topics. I.e. restricting what students learn, restricting the fact everything taught has to be tested... The Government is enforcing such a strict Curriclum that does not do any good if I'm honest.
11.
"Dr Stannard said the letter was “constructive” and that the DCSF wanted a “dialogue” on the issue. But it was difficult for CIE to simply change its syllabuses to make them compatible with the national curriculum, since the exams were taken worldwide and other countries needed flexibility over what they taught, he said."
Exactly! Why the hell should the iGCSE conform to the National Curriculum, just because of the fact it's not compatible? They shouldn't.
12.
"The number of privately-educated pupils taking the IGCSE is reported to have almost trebled last year to 40,000. In March, Manchester Grammar School announced plans to opt out of GCSEs on a wholesale basis."
What does this imply? GCSEs simply can't equip the top state schoolers. iGCSEs are preferred over what Labour are offering. In this sense, it's a "better" qualification.
13.
"IGCSEs allow pupils to bypass coursework and are assessed in end-of-year exams. Changes to mainstream GCSEs from next month, putting more emphasis on exams taken in smaller modules, are also thought to be driving more academic schools towards the more traditional IGCSE. "
So you could say in iGCSEs there wouldn't be chance of plagarism if some schools bypass coursework, in the contrary to GCSE coursework - where there is every chance that the work could not be the pupil's own work. In addition the iGCSE is linear - what courses are supposed to be, not this routine of "memorise, pass, forget". That's not what education is about - yet the 2009 GCSEs, a supposed "reform" of the current GCSEs, is modular? It is actually not surprising academic schools are driving towards the iGCSE. But what about the academic state schools that want to change from Labour's controlled curriculum? They can't as they are not following the national curriculum. So it's a catch-22. If Labour had it there way, you either follow the National Curriculum and do GCSES based on the National Curriculum, or do the iGCSE that was changed to be based on the National Curriculum. I think that sentence speaks for it itself... So yes, it would be a "waste" of funding if Labour did it this way - but if they didn't change it, it would be a different matter.
14.
"Dr Stannard added: “Our main concern is that this does raise the question of equality in terms of access to the qualifications."
Yes it does Dr Stannard. Labour's top priority of the Blair era was "Education, education, education". And then there's Mandelson chanting out "Social mobility! Social mobility! Social mobility!". What a surprise Mandelson hasn't commented about this; the fact it goes against his ideology that the country needs social mobility in this country. It does, not denying that; the gap between the poor and rich is getting larger and larger. Remember what I said about government in general not meaning what they say? Here's one - Lord Mandelson of the Labour party. If he cared so much about social mobility he would speak out against the Labour Party's idea that they are "banning" iGCSEs in state schools - regardless if he is from the Labour party. Politics is not about glamour, I think that speaks for itself - it's about change for the better! If Mandelson really cared about equality between schools and the right for state schools to offer the same qualifications as private schools he would damn speak out! He's a hypocrite! The two point grade system is positive discrimination against private schoolers, if you get down to it, yet he's not realising that the Labour is denying state schoolers the same "rights" as private schoolers! All state schools want is for the Government to sort out education. Sort it out then! Unbelievable. Honestly, Mandelson thinks he got away with it. Not from my view - he didn't!
15.
"Earlier this year, Jim Knight, the former Schools Minister, said that IGCSEs was not superior to GCSEs and that independent schools were free to opt for them. He highlighted the fact that the IGCSE did not include the compulsory study of Shakespeare or other classic authors, while in maths it did not feature a non-calculator test."
Why are grammar schools opting out of GCSEs to iGCSEs if they weren't superior to them? OK, to make things fair, I won't use the word "superior" - I would use the word "better". Because honestly, why would a school change to a qualification that's more worse than what they have now? They wouldn't that's just stupid. But they would change for the better Mr Knight. No modular exams is just one reason why iGCSEs are seen as better than GCSEs, in fact the introduction of modular exams is one of the many factors that made the A-levels "dumbed down" in favour of the IB, the Pre-U... What can I say? On another point "independent schools were free to opt for them" - and for state schools? Mr Knight, you're saying the obvious; of course independent schools can opt to do them, they are independent of the Government whereas state schools are not. And I'm sorry "he highlighted the fact that the iGCSE did not include the compluosry study of Shakespeare or other classic author,s while in maths it did not feature a non-calculator test". Well, I highlight the fact in the language iGCSEs you are not allowed to bring in notes for the oral exams; and in maths there is not formulae given in the booklet. However knowing formulae is not saying that one is more intelligent than someone who does GCSEs, but it does say how, now I won't use the word harder but, rigorous that the fact an iGCSEer needs to remember formulae rather than a GCSEer which is included in the exam paper. Because that's trying to say the GCSE does not discriminate from those who knows the formulae, on the contrary to the iGCSE. And btw, the iGCSE doesn't have a non-calculator paper - maybe that's because the advanced questions needs a calculator?
Discussion about GCSE exams and courses. Study for IGCSEs or O Levels? Then this is also the place for you.
Useful Resources:
"GCSEs: Labour "blocks" harder exam" - (Long post)
