[TheEnigmaUK]

(Original post by James10000)
Why cant gove just accept teaching standards and resources have improved.This is not about public intrest but trying to copy Thatcher.

a new exam style will make students suffer, it will take teachers a few years to adapt and know what to expect in exams. I hated it when I was made guine pig for new curriculums

I believe it's all about money again. The government trying to cut back education. O levels is basically another way of sending less students, especially "less able" ones, to university. This in return means saving money because fewer students will be able to go to University, and will therefore have to work and pay taxes to help contribute towards this joke of a society. They make a U-turn on student fees, and probably regret it now. I wouldn't be surprised if this O level talk is all pie in the sky, as most of their so called "promises" are. Maybe if they did Art apprenticeships, and Media apprenticeships, they would be able to get rid of them degrees along with History and other Mickey Mouse degrees that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

[Macabre]

(Original post by ForKicks)
If I understand correctly, then I agree. There should be the option open to all pupils to do more difficult or more vocational qualifications. To forge a compulsory divide at an early age would be damaging though.

Absolutely. Every child at a young age must recieve an equal education as well as it being a well rounded one, so that they develop along side their fellow pupils of all classes and backgrounds and so that they can make the decisions later on in their education to form their futures.

[techno836]

(Original post by ForKicks)
That's what they are proposing in a way. But you can't make it harder without a greater number failing and having no qualifications to their name, hence the proposal for new lower qualifications too.

Thinking about it, it is actually a rather tricky situation whichever way you look at it!!

I suppose but still then what about a grammar school style with people unable able to go for aprenticeships and BTEC's ??? how about giving them the OPTION

[ANARCHY__]

The system should be gradually progressive. By creating an exam system similar to or a replica of the O Levels, I believe that the gap of knowledge between A Levels and O Levels can be bridged. However, not everyone may be suited to academic pursuits and whilst I agree that everyone should be educated to a governmental standard, I believe that should come at O Levels and no further. Admission to A Levels (and hence, at least directly, University) should be judged based on merit and inclination. There's no need an point in forcing thousands of students of enduring at least another five years more of conventional education when they may well be better serving society and themselves within a vocational or other institution of learning which requires wholly different (but equally valuable) skills.

[CescaBeth]

In a way i'm glad to hear about this. At our school we did what was deemed the 'hardest GCSE's on offer' and when speaking to people who came to my sixth form from other school i can truly see the difference in exam boards. What annoys me is that exam boards are offering exams of different difficulty yet when you go to an employer they dont care about the exam board just if you get certain GCSE's so i believe it should be the same exam board then the results are actually more representative of a person true grasp for the subject and not the fact that one school did course work and a multiplechoice as part of their history exam and we did three solid essay writing exams

[ForKicks]

(Original post by techno836)
I suppose but still then what about a grammar school style with people unable able to go for aprenticeships and BTEC's ??? how about giving them the OPTION

I am all for the option and is what I am for Can't remember the context of the quote but I was probably playing devils advocate

[tanju123]

Tory logic. Taking education back to the 50's will make it more progressive.

[justanotherposter]

In the June 11 AQA maths, you needed 34/120 on the higher paper to get a C, that is far too easy, especially since at A level you'd be expected to be getting about 60% in most subjects to get a C, you didn't even need that in the GCSE maths exam to get an A.

[66310346671011]

The proposal, revealed in a leak to the Daily Mail newspaper

why must it take a tabloid to bring this news? the government isn't open enough even to the lib dems let alone the public... so much for transparency.

as for the the GCSE scrapping, wasn't the original reason for scrapping the O-levels because it was deemed inefficient and unfair? is this going to be a continuing cycle? GCSEs should be made harder and exam boards need sorting out, too many times i've been told "pay for a remark you werent far off an A, your guaranteed to go up a grade", why should I pay for a remark? if virtually everyone has a change in marks why aren't these exams being marked efficiently in the first place? why are there exam leaks? (edexcel s3), why are there mistakes on exams found almost every year? the real issue are the exam boards.

Questions should be more tougher and follow a less common exam format each year, there shouldn't be recycled questions at all, last week I took a unit 5 biology a-level exam to find one question was identical to one i did in a 2005 paper, I knew every single marking point, this is why schools are turning into exam factories.

[Firuza1029]

I'm sitting my GCSE's right now amongst thousands of others and this ridiculous idea of 'GCSE's being a joke and way too easy' pretty much makes it feel worthless and all the hard work we've all put into them:/
I don't mind the fact that they've made GCSE's harder, but changing it to 'O-levels' is so much worse because when it comes to getting jobs or universities, doesn't it mean that they would prefer to have the people with 'o-levels' rather than GCSE's? and we don't even have a proper say

[L1000]

(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!

Really? I did a mixture of GCSEs and IGCSEs, I've found that with GCSEs I was able to just regurgitate from the textbook, whereas with IGCSEs it required more analysis and understanding. These as it was more of a 'stepping stone' to A levels, it would be good to see these exams enforced is all schools.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by L1000)
Really? I did a mixture of GCSEs and IGCSEs, I've found that with GCSEs I was able to just regurgitate from the textbook, whereas with IGCSEs it required more analysis and understanding. These as it was more of a 'stepping stone' to A levels, it would be good to see these exams enforced is all schools.

I agree with the idea of IGCSE's. Unfortunately they are rare in state schools so need to be a lot more available for promising students to take as an option.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by Firuza1029)
I'm sitting my GCSE's right now amongst thousands of others and this ridiculous idea of 'GCSE's being a joke and way too easy' pretty much makes it feel worthless and all the hard work we've all put into them:/
I don't mind the fact that they've made GCSE's harder, but changing it to 'O-levels' is so much worse because when it comes to getting jobs or universities, doesn't it mean that they would prefer to have the people with 'o-levels' rather than GCSE's? and we don't even have a proper say

Employers and unis have the sense to know that you had no choice in doing GCSEs instead of O levels, they aren't stupid. Plus you mentioned university so I'm assuming you are taking A levels, if you pass your A levels, GCSEs are largely irrelevant anyway.

[Dobrzynski]

(Original post by AlexInWonderland)
Do you seriously believe that for 30 successive years, there would be an improvement in GCSE and A Level grades if for no other reason than pupils are trying harder, and teaching is better?

Yes, I do. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

[sputum]

(Original post by Macabre)
I took my GCSE in 2004 and easily got 5 A-C including Maths English and Science with coursework of a poor standard and no revision for exams.

They have been getting easier year after year up until this point where the education secratry even knows that the current system is a joke.

If they have it is not the fault of the GCSE as such but implementation. They should fix that rather than squabble about what 'it' is called.

[AlexInWonderland]

(Original post by Dobrzynski)
Yes, I do. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Because it's too great a stretch of the imagination to believe this would not happen without grade inflation. There is no way kids are innately more intelligent than 30 years ago, probably the average amount of work done in preparation has remained unchanged. Yes teaching has received greater investment; particularly in the New Labour years, but this alone cannot account for the dramatic improvement in results.

(Original post by James10000)
Why cant gove just accept teaching standards and resources have improved.This is not about public intrest but trying to copy Thatcher.

a new exam style will make students suffer, it will take teachers a few years to adapt and know what to expect in exams. I hated it when I was made guine pig for new curriculums

Govt trying to copy Thatcher? Quite the opposite, Gove proposes to undo something implemented under the Thatcher government.
Regardless of one's opinion of Gove's policy ideas, I think he is one of the most genuine and honest members of the cabinet; whose reforms are overtly based upon Conservative ideology but adopting what works. He is afterall undoing something established under Thatcher, the one Tory pretty much all look up to.

(Original post by Firuza1029)
I'm sitting my GCSE's right now amongst thousands of others and this ridiculous idea of 'GCSE's being a joke and way too easy' pretty much makes it feel worthless and all the hard work we've all put into them:/
I don't mind the fact that they've made GCSE's harder, but changing it to 'O-levels' is so much worse because when it comes to getting jobs or universities, doesn't it mean that they would prefer to have the people with 'o-levels' rather than GCSE's? and we don't even have a proper say

Realistically once you have worked for a few years, or got a degree or even A levels, your GCSE grades are irrelevant to employers. These can be looked upon as a device to achieve things in the short term. However, if by making these changes future generations are better equiped for the world of work, that benefits everybody. Yes, we may end up competing with them for jobs down the line, but I doubt the difference will be as dramatic as you suggest.

(Original post by 66310346671011)
The proposal, revealed in a leak to the Daily Mail newspaper

why must it take a tabloid to bring this news? the government isn't open enough even to the lib dems let alone the public... so much for transparency.

To be fair, this was a policy in development, as opposed to being put in action just yet. That Gove has opted to argue his case rather than deny the DM leak just suggests the plans are fairly developed.

[Alex J]

what I dont understand is that some people seem to think the structural changes are good, but the fact that its changing from gcses to o-levels is "a step too far" and they should just do these changes to the existing GCSEs.

effectively, all they are taking issue with is a name change, when that shouldnt really matter at all. what harm does a name change do!?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Alex J)
what I dont understand is that some people seem to think the structural changes are good, but the fact that its changing from gcses to o-levels is "a step too far" and they should just do these changes to the existing GCSEs.

effectively, all they are taking issue with is a name change, when that shouldnt really matter at all. what harm does a name change do!?

I think it is the hints at a compulsory 2-tier system from age 14 that people are objecting to the most.

[419]

I wonder what will happen when everyone still get good grades??

[Jack_Spratt]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
In the June 11 AQA maths, you needed 34/120 on the higher paper to get a C, that is far too easy, especially since at A level you'd be expected to be getting about 60% in most subjects to get a C, you didn't even need that in the GCSE maths exam to get an A.

Must have been a b****r of an exam paper then. People must have found it really hard, or do you think that everyone should have failed it? A levels are standardised in the same way that GCSEs are - UMS?? If it's the case that people could get a C with 34/120, the paper was too hard for everyone. If it was easy then they would be getting a C with 90% because everyone found it such a doddle that most were getting 100%.

If you said that you needed 90% to get an A and 80% to get a B and 70% to get a C (without standardising the raw marks), those who sat the AQA maths paper last year would all have failed because the exam board set the exam too high.