[iheartdjokovic]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
The fact of the matter is, some people simply are less able. There is no point putting someone into a class that they will fail in.

People need to be educated according to their ability, not according to some sort of egalitarian ideal.

I fail to see how social mobility will be affected. We're not talking about giving the working class an inferior education here - we're simply aiming to give people an education that is appropriate to their level of ability so that they maay achieve something worthwhile. It is surely better someone passes a qualification at a different level with a respectable grade, rather than take a course they can't pass.

I'm not denying the fact that some people are cleverer than others, I just think that it is not a good idea to put a cap on what people ae able to achieve when they are 14 years old. So many people I know only really realised that education was important when they were about 16 and close to taking GCSEs; this then allowed them to work as hard as they could and get the grades they were capable of. However, I think that there is a huge risk that people, when put into the 'CSE stream', will decide that they're simply not good enough and not even bother trying.

I guess I don't really mean social mobility, more just mobility in general. The way I see it, the proposed system is trying to split people at the age of 14 into two groups; those who are 'clever' and will carry on to do A-levels and higher education and those who will take their CSEs and feel that higher education and A-levels are closed off to them, on the basis of some tests that they did when they were 14. Maybe I'm just being idealistic, but I like the idea that everyone has the same opportunities and it's the way that they treat these opportunities which separates them.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Flyteryder)
Look at the opinion polls. For the last year when asked if there was an election tomorrow, who would you vote for, over 40% say Labour and 30% say Conservative, with the numbers increasing in Labour's favour every week/month. If this trend continues to 2015 the Tories have no chance.

And again, you're just assuming it will continue. Three years is a long time in politics.

If the economy recovers, there will be no reason to vote out the Tories for most people. Arguably, the numbers are only so dire at the moment because the recovery has been held back by the Eurozone crisis and weak growth in the domestic construction sector.

The OBR and the IMF predict the UK will return to growth later in the year.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by fortransexual)
how would employers be able to differentiate between people who had done badly with the gcse system and those who had done well with the O level if the name was the same

There already exists a tougher GCSE called the IGCSE. It's just state schools don't offer these qualifications to their talented students. I imagine it is a cost thing ultimately.

[iheartdjokovic]

(Original post by fortransexual)
how would employers be able to differentiate between people who had done badly with the gcse system and those who had done well with the O level if the name was the same

Maybe they could change the name to something other than O-level but to be honest, they change the difficulty of A-levels and GCSEs all the time, such as with the introduction of modular exams etc so I don't really see why they would change the name this time.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by iheartdjokovic)
I'm not denying the fact that some people are cleverer than others, I just think that it is not a good idea to put a cap on what people ae able to achieve when they are 14 years old. So many people I know only really realised that education was important when they were about 16 and close to taking GCSEs; this then allowed them to work as hard as they could and get the grades they were capable of. However, I think that there is a huge risk that people, when put into the 'CSE stream', will decide that they're simply not good enough and not even bother trying.

I guess I don't really mean social mobility, more just mobility in general. The way I see it, the proposed system is trying to split people at the age of 14 into two groups; those who are 'clever' and will carry on to do A-levels and higher education and those who will take their CSEs and feel that higher education and A-levels are closed off to them, on the basis of some tests that they did when they were 14. Maybe I'm just being idealistic, but I like the idea that everyone has the same opportunities and it's the way that they treat these opportunities which separates them.

I simply don't accept that everyone should have the same opportunities regardless of ability. We're not talking about making a small group of elite students that will go to university - the top three quartiles will take O-Levels. Only the bottom quartile will take the CSE. Arguably, these people would not fare well in higher education - it would be a waste of taxpayers' money, and of their own time that would be better spent working.

[L1000]

As someone who has just sat their GCSEs, I found that it was just learning, you did not have to understand anything, but you would do fine if you just learnt and was able to reiterate everything from the textbook.

With the O-levels, I think they are trying to overcome this problem. As it would divide those who actually have the knowledge and understanding, rather than able to memorise the textbook.

[The Doggfather]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
And again, you're just assuming it will continue. Three years is a long time in politics.

If the economy recovers, there will be no reason to vote out the Tories for most people. Arguably, the numbers are only so dire at the moment because the recovery has been held back by the Eurozone crisis and weak growth in the domestic construction sector.

The OBR and the IMF predict the UK will return to growth later in the year.

It doesn't make a difference anyway, if they go ahead, the reforms are supposed to come into practice from September 2014 onwards so even if Labour are re-elected, there won't be a u-turn.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Only the bottom quartile will take the CSE. Arguably, these people would not fare well in higher education - it would be a waste of taxpayers' money, and of their own time that would be better spent working.

There needs to be an element of choice I imagine though. As the syllabus would be different between the O Level and CSE, you would have to set the tier at least a year before the exams. I know for one that my predicted grades a year before GCSE's were on average 3 grades lower than what I achieved. A lot can change in that time!!

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by ForKicks)
There needs to be an element of choice I imagine though. As the syllabus would be different between the O Level and CSE, you would have to set the tier at least a year before the exams. I know for one that my predicted grades a year before GCSE's were on average 3 grades lower than what I achieved. A lot can change in that time!!

I don't think choice is appropriate. People will either pick the easier option because they don't want to work hard even though they are quite capable of doing so, or will want to take the harder classes when they will struggle in them.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by L1000)
As someone who has just sat their GCSEs, I found that it was just learning, you did not have to understand anything, but you would do fine if you just learnt and was able to reiterate everything from the textbook.

With the O-levels, I think they are trying to overcome this problem. As it would divide those who actually have the knowledge and understanding, rather than able to memorise the textbook.

I would say that current GCSE's are more about exam technique/knowing the system and the old O Levels were about regurgitating textbooks in one exam. Both aren't great, but you can hardly expect great depth and understanding from a 16 year old!

[kingkongjaffa]

(Original post by DeathByBSOD)
Back to 2000BC.

Why do people like may and gove exist? I have lost faith of humanity yet again.
Leave the system as it is...

but the current system it terrible.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by ForKicks)
I would say that current GCSE's are more about exam technique/knowing the system and the old O Levels were about regurgitating textbooks in one exam. Both aren't great, but you can hardly expect great depth and understanding from a 16 year old!

I think this is part of the problem; why not?

I think you're vastly underestimating their ability.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I don't think choice is appropriate. People will either pick the easier option because they don't want to work hard even though they are quite capable of doing so, or will want to take the harder classes when they will struggle in them.

But a year before the final exam is no reflection of ability to take the exam. It would be a bit harsh to adversely effect a child's life opportunities because they weren't too bothered about exams at the age of 14. I know many people who, like me, were predicted terrible grades a year before and then aced the exams.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I think this is part of the problem; why not?

I think you're vastly underestimating their ability.

Mainly because they learn 10 subjects only to get a feel for what they like, so they can narrow choices for A Level and then again to degree. Wanting a high understanding and knowledge of 10 subjects is somewhat high expectations!

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Mainly because they learn 10 subjects only to get a feel for what they like, so they can narrow choices for A Level and then again to degree. Wanting a high understanding and knowledge of 10 subjects is somewhat high expectations!

Frankly, half the subjects taught in schools are pointless. There is no value in RE, PE, Art, Media etc.

Students should only bother with English, Maths, Science and possibly one subject of their choosing.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Mainly because they learn 10 subjects only to get a feel for what they like, so they can narrow choices for A Level and then again to degree. Wanting a high understanding and knowledge of 10 subjects is somewhat high expectations!

Also, what is wrong with high expectations? We were once one of the greatest countries in the world. We will never regain that place without high expectations.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Also, what is wrong with high expectations? We were once one of the greatest countries in the world. We will never regain that place without high expectations.

I am not saying you can't have high expectations, but in order to properly develop an understanding of a subject, the amount of depth can't be covered by 10 subjects. Having said that, I have a feeling we are both talking about our own highly subjective opinion on what counts as good understanding

[morecambebay]

It will be a disaster. A lot of teachers are nowhere near good enough to handle it. I dont think gove really understands just how terrible some of them are. If I look back at my school teachers, I can pick out at least 5 that struggled with the gcse material they were teaching, they quite simply wont understand harder stuff.

I heard he is scrapping the national curriculum as well. Some teachers will use that as an excuse to sit on their ass and show videos all day everyday, others will use it as an excuse to teach propaganda. There still have to be some basic standards in place. Are they even going to check that what is being taught is true? Objective?

All that will happen is that things will splinter. A childs education will either be fantastic, or fantastically bad. The 'fantastically bad' educations will go to the poor kids and the social divide will get even greater.

[MrBlueMo0n]

I'm still not entirely sure what's going on. Do they get A*s or is back to As?

Aside from this, I don't like the way that they are saying that GCSEs are getting easier.

[iheartdjokovic]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I simply don't accept that everyone should have the same opportunities regardless of ability. We're not talking about making a small group of elite students that will go to university - the top three quartiles will take O-Levels. Only the bottom quartile will take the CSE. Arguably, these people would not fare well in higher education - it would be a waste of taxpayers' money, and of their own time that would be better spent working.

Hmm, well I guess we just fundamentally disagree then. No hard feelings