[Bettypratchit]

(Original post by AdamskiUK)
That's what I'm thinking. As some poster said, it will probably not impact your chances of employment, but your GCSE will most likely be worth less compared to an O-Level.

That's annoying- 5 years in secondary school for basically worthless GCSEs if the new system takes affect and also 3 years at college! Fun. I hope the Government design a system where they some how make people with present GCSEs and A-levels with a better equilvalent grade.

Also maybe the Government should think about changing the age of when one does their exams because I found that at school years 10 and 11 were only necessary to get my qualifications- what is the point in years 7 - 9 anyway (apart from settling into a new school)?!

[Xiomara]

(Original post by AdamskiUK)
I see. Fair point. Surely you can decide what kind of candidate you are by the end of Year 9 though? It will instil the idea that you have to work hard in the first 3 years. If people don't realise that, then that shouldn't be at the expense of all the other top-quality students who don't get the education that other country's children get.

These are children straight out of primary school? Someone can mess around in the younger years and turn themselves around for GCSE. I think the current system is fairer to be honest, it gives you more opportunity to redeem yourself.

[Pesti]

I doubt they're actually going to change it.

[kf289]

(Original post by Bettypratchit)
Also maybe the Government should think about changing the age of when one does their exams because I found that at school years 10 and 11 were only necessary to get my qualifications- what is the point in years 7 - 9 anyway (apart from settling into a new school)?!

A good example of how education has become a simple case of 'teaching to the test'. School shouldn't just be about passing exams, but of actually learning, and cultivating a desire to learn which will continue throughout life. Sadly the prevailing opinion amongst students now is 'if it's not going to be on the exam I don't want to know'.

[AdamskiUK]

(Original post by Radradrad)
Your first point on how amazing academies have proved to be - From New Statesman

Yet a recent analysis of Department for Education figures by the Local Schools Network pressure group showed how 60 per cent of pupils in non-academy schools attained five A* to C-grade GCSEs in 2011, compared to just 47 per cent in the (then) 249 sponsored academies.
http://www.newstatesman.com/educatio...ools-academies

Your final point -

As I pointed out in my earlier post these reforms will not help weaker students it will destroy their chances of an academic education, throughout their WHOLE life, and jeopardise a great deal of their earning potential, those with academic qualifications earn about 50% more hourly than those with non-academic.

As to your comments about the curriculum you are aware that by removing the national curriculum faith schools are able to teach whatever they want concerning issues such as science, religion and sex education.

Okay. What I may say now may be offensive, but tough.

First off, as stated by the government, academy schools were originally made from lesser-able schools throughout the country. In my local area, there are several cases of 2 schools shutting down and merging to become one academy. They were traditionally, and still are, full of less-intelligent students than average. This means there 5 A*-C rate will be lower than the average because the academies were originally (from when this data was taken) full of weaker students. I'm sure that data will change throughout the upcoming years, or would have done if GCSEs could continue.

In reply to your penultimate point - we don't want everyone to be super-educated. Wealth is generated in the lower echelons of society. These people *RUN* Britain. They are necessary. These people are craftsmen. As I first said, Gove needs to plan this but he has to make sure vocational craft courses, such as engineering, joinery, building and plumbing are all still supported. Make their requirements lower to the point where you only NEED CSEs. Yes, these people will earn less, but that is how society should work. If you inflate boundaries you run the risk of devaluing 10 A*s. Back in the day of the O-Level, 10 As were unthinkable because they were so difficult. They were highly regarded throughout the world. Nowadays, our exams are much less valuable out of Britain. This goes for A-Level, too.

About Faith Schools - Currently, the government is allowing exam boards to bid for who will write up the O-Level curriculum. At least they must be, because what Gove has said specifically is they're bidding to write the O-Level paper. That means there must be some structure set forth by the board. This means that Darwinism will still be taught, but if Faith schools wish to, then they can also teach their way. I don't agree with religion, but at the end of the day I can't force people to see sense.

[jwf13]

To be honest, I don't think many people will actually know the difference between GCSEs and O-Levels. My parents (who did O-Levels), don't really know the difference, and use them interchangeably.

[GuitarWorm]

I think that reverting back to O levels is irrelevant. Why can't they just make GCSEs harder? After all, changing the name of a qualification doesn't suddenly make it harder. Furthermore, I think it's unfair to say that exams are easier then they were X years ago. It immediately undermines all the hard work people put in to get Cs and above. There could be many reasons why more people are passing and I doubt the fact that exams are "getting easier" is one of them.

I also heard that there is going to be one exam board or all the exam boards will merge together. I don't see that turning out well...


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[A.J10]

(Original post by AdamskiUK)
I see. Fair point. Surely you can decide what kind of candidate you are by the end of Year 9 though? It will instil the idea that you have to work hard in the first 3 years. If people don't realise that, then that shouldn't be at the expense of all the other top-quality students who don't get the education that other country's children get.

If I remember correctly, you can mix higher/foundation papers at the moment, so if you're good at one module, but terrible at the other, you can mix n match.

Additionally, I know a lot of teachers who would not have listened to students opinions as to what they could achieve if they bothered and would put them in for a lower paper if not given the chance to show they were capable of better once on the GCSE syllabus. This works the other way of course, there are students who adamantly believe they'll "do better on the day".

[AdamskiUK]

(Original post by Xiomara)
These are children straight out of primary school? Someone can mess around in the younger years and turn themselves around for GCSE. I think the current system is fairer to be honest, it gives you more opportunity to redeem yourself.

O-Level years will start at 15-16 Years of Age - IE Y10 and Y11. This means they'll have 3 years in Secondary school to fix their behavioural/attitude problem. It just means being tougher on people to get better results. Instead of mollycoddling them, you'll give them a basis for life. This is how Britain was run and how it was once successful from an educational standpoint.

[AdamskiUK]

(Original post by GuitarWorm)
I think that reverting back to O levels is irrelevant. Why can't they just make GCSEs harder? After all, changing the name of a qualification doesn't suddenly make it harder. Furthermore, I think it's unfair to say that exams are easier then they were X years ago. It immediately undermines all the hard work people put in to get Cs and above. There could be many reasons why more people are passing and I doubt the fact that exams are "getting easier" is one of them.

I also heard that there is going to be one exam board or all the exam boards will merge together. I don't see that turning out well...

I agree. I don't think a name-change is necessary. Then again, Gove hasn't said he would call them O-Levels yet, just that he wants change. The only problem I see with the exam boards is the fact that EdExcel is the only one that isn't a charity. The rest put it right back into education and their papers.

[AdamskiUK]

(Original post by Bettypratchit)
Also maybe the Government should think about changing the age of when one does their exams because I found that at school years 10 and 11 were only necessary to get my qualifications- what is the point in years 7 - 9 anyway (apart from settling into a new school)?!

In the new system, I think you would use the first 3 years as a way of gauging as to whether you were a CSE or O-Level standard candidate.

(Original post by kf289)
A good example of how education has become a simple case of 'teaching to the test'. School shouldn't just be about passing exams, but of actually learning, and cultivating a desire to learn which will continue throughout life. Sadly the prevailing opinion amongst students now is 'if it's not going to be on the exam I don't want to know'.

Admittedly I suppose I have been a little like that, but I do enjoy what I learn too. It makes me wanna move into A-Level. Controlled Assessments (replaced coursework) are basically jumping through hoops in Science. All you had to do was remember what you were told the day before and draw out a graph and a table you had already practised doing.

(Original post by A.J10)
Additionally, I know a lot of teachers who would not have listened to students opinions as to what they could achieve if they bothered and would put them in for a lower paper if not given the chance to show they were capable of better once on the GCSE syllabus. This works the other way of course, there are students who adamantly believe they'll "do better on the day".

I agree. This would have to be a careful and well-thought out reform. You would have to re-educate teachers, too. Perhaps involve parents more. If parents know what their child is capable of then they should be able to request that they sit the O-Level standard paper and just watch them fail miserably as opposed to just sitting the CSE course.

[Radradrad]

(Original post by AdamskiUK)
Okay. What I may say now may be offensive, but tough.

First off, as stated by the government, academy schools were originally made from lesser-able schools throughout the country. In my local area, there are several cases of 2 schools shutting down and merging to become one academy. They were traditionally, and still are, full of less-intelligent students than average. This means there 5 A*-C rate will be lower than the average because the academies were originally (from when this data was taken) full of weaker students. I'm sure that data will change throughout the upcoming years, or would have done if GCSEs could continue.

In reply to your penultimate point - we don't want everyone to be super-educated. Wealth is generated in the lower echelons of society. These people *RUN* Britain. They are necessary. These people are craftsmen. As I first said, Gove needs to plan this but he has to make sure vocational craft courses, such as engineering, joinery, building and plumbing are all still supported. Make their requirements lower to the point where you only NEED CSEs. Yes, these people will earn less, but that is how society should work. If you inflate boundaries you run the risk of devaluing 10 A*s. Back in the day of the O-Level, 10 As were unthinkable because they were so difficult. They were highly regarded throughout the world. Nowadays, our exams are much less valuable out of Britain. This goes for A-Level, too.

About Faith Schools - Currently, the government is allowing exam boards to bid for who will write up the O-Level curriculum. At least they must be, because what Gove has said specifically is they're bidding to write the O-Level paper. That means there must be some structure set forth by the board. This means that Darwinism will still be taught, but if Faith schools wish to, then they can also teach their way. I don't agree with religion, but at the end of the day I can't force people to see sense.

But so do other schools not have ideally highly intelligent pupils. If we were comparing schools in Hackney vs Hampstead it would make sense but we aren't. However, I would argue this I am completely against the idea of not having a curriculum, whilst I do think the best teachers are those who teach with a sense of irrelevants there are essential things everyone should know for a variety of reasons.

We don't need everyone to be super educated but everyone should have the right to be educated if they want to be. These jobs are essential but these jobs won't go away if your workforce are more skilled it will simply give people more options which, fundamentally, is what a good education gives us. If you have a situation where you force people into careers which they may feel they grow out of they will just get resentful and cannot create a healthy working environment.

You and me both know the value of most vocational courses - whilst plumbers and craftsman is a good career to get into it is a victim of the market and is very unstable. Most other vocational options are very poor and poorly paid.

Your argument that this is how society should work is just you saying that you should be allowed to have all these options and opportunities whilst others should suffer. Under the new proposals, for example, I would never be going to university but my firm is King's College London. Should I have been denied the right to show my potential?

It also benefits the government to have an educated workforce; Many of the workforce have TERRIBLE math skills for example. Furthermore, more qualifications and more skills would get rid of NEETS and dependency.

[AdamskiUK]

(Original post by Radradrad)
But so do other schools not have ideally highly intelligent pupils. If we were comparing schools in Hackney vs Hampstead it would make sense but we aren't. However, I would argue this I am completely against the idea of not having a curriculum, whilst I do think the best teachers are those who teach with a sense of irrelevants there are essential things everyone should know for a variety of reasons.

We don't need everyone to be super educated but everyone should have the right to be educated if they want to be. These jobs are essential but these jobs won't go away if your workforce are more skilled it will simply give people more options which, fundamentally, is what a good education gives us. If you have a situation where you force people into careers which they may feel they grow out of they will just get resentful and cannot create a healthy working environment.

You and me both know the value of most vocational courses - whilst plumbers and craftsman is a good career to get into it is a victim of the market and is very unstable. Most other vocational options are very poor and poorly paid.

Your argument that this is how society should work is just you saying that you should be allowed to have all these options and opportunities whilst others should suffer. Under the new proposals, for example, I would never be going to university but my firm is King's College London. Should I have been denied the right to show my potential?

It also benefits the government to have an educated workforce; Many of the workforce have TERRIBLE math skills for example. Furthermore, more qualifications and more skills would get rid of NEETS and dependency.

I think that the creation of a harder exam such as the O-Level would mean that CSE would have to be inherently harder, too. You could perhaps bump CSEs up to the equivalent of a Grade A at GCSE. For most students, with enough effort, this is obtainable, especially if they enjoy the work they do. This would improve education rates.

The fact that your firm is King's shows just how *hard* you have worked. If you make O-Levels harder but made them more valuable, top Universities and Colleges wouldn't ask for 8 A*s minimum to do Medicine. Under these new proposals, you would have gotten say 3 A*s but that would have been good enough to get into Kings. No longer would you have people getting As at A-Level and that being the norm to apply. It would add a distinguishing factor for the countries' best. Of course, the government tried to do this by implementing the A* grade, but educationalists have argued it has made little difference.

I suppose you're right about tradesmen being valued less than they perhaps should be. Vocational careers aren't for me, but I don't shun the people who do them. I don't think Gove is doing this subtly or cleverly enough, but he's got the right idea. I'm not against giving people more opportunities, but I'm saying that if they don't want to work for it, they shouldn't have it. Let everyone take O-Levels and don't do the CSE if that's the case, but what we must understand is that lower-ability candidates won't be getting Cs, they'll be getting Es and Fs.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by AdamskiUK)
For starters, will my GCSEs pale in comparison to those who have done the harder exams? Will they become more employable? The same goes for when A-Levels inevitably become harder. Are their grade As or Bs going to be worth more than mine?

Both GCSE and A levels are essentially worthless except as entry exams for the next stage. The only way this could possibly matter is if, say, you sat A levels, took a 5 year break, and then tried to apply to university, so that you were dealing with a system set up for the new exam. Although I very much doubt the government will make a radically different qualification that is called the same thing.

I also don't think it's a minor detail that it's pure speculation on your part that they might alter A levels anyway.

[Radradrad]

(Original post by AdamskiUK)
I think that the creation of a harder exam such as the O-Level would mean that CSE would have to be inherently harder, too. You could perhaps bump CSEs up to the equivalent of a Grade A at GCSE. For most students, with enough effort, this is obtainable, especially if they enjoy the work they do. This would improve education rates.

The fact that your firm is King's shows just how *hard* you have worked. If you make O-Levels harder but made them more valuable, top Universities and Colleges wouldn't ask for 8 A*s minimum to do Medicine. Under these new proposals, you would have gotten say 3 A*s but that would have been good enough to get into Kings. No longer would you have people getting As at A-Level and that being the norm to apply. It would add a distinguishing factor for the countries' best. Of course, the government tried to do this by implementing the A* grade, but educationalists have argued it has made little difference.

I suppose you're right about tradesmen being valued less than they perhaps should be. Vocational careers aren't for me, but I don't shun the people who do them. I don't think Gove is doing this subtly or cleverly enough, but he's got the right idea. I'm not against giving people more opportunities, but I'm saying that if they don't want to work for it, they shouldn't have it. Let everyone take O-Levels and don't do the CSE if that's the case, but what we must understand is that lower-ability candidates won't be getting Cs, they'll be getting Es and Fs.

Well if it was sold as a way of making things better for the best students that would be a lot clearer. Whilst I dismiss most ideas of grade inflation, particularly in the Arts where my subject interest lies, the idea of making harder exams and rewarding those who wider read a lot more than the systematic assessment objectives is perhaps something for the best.

However, the options for other students who aren't able to reach these heights have to be thought of, a CSE pass 1, according to some estimates, will be what we would see as a Grade D at O Level, and we all know what Ds at GCSE mean. This could easily be done by reversing the cuts being made to the FE system for A Level courses and the cut on the sly to Level 2 entitlement, which gives everyone a right to a FULL education to GCSE level and the cancelling of the loans system for access courses. This would give the government grounds to claim their policy is fair. There is nothing wrong with saying not now but maybe later for an academic education and opportunity.

On your grades point, whilst all my AS levels, all three of them at this point, were at grade A before applying my GCSEs include 3 As, 2Bs and a C in Maths which I got on my third attempt. The idea of everyone getting incredible grades isn't true. I do agree with you on the numbers though. I think GCSEs would be far better for all involved if you only studied, say, maybe 6 subjects, combining the Sciences and English, to go into more depth. This would be another way of being tougher but less cruel.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by pop101)
Basically the conservative MP who decided to this is basically telling us that in the future, our GCSEs will not be regarded as highly compared to the new O-levels.

He is basically trying to make us (the nation) compete with the likes of Singapore (as he said in the House of Commons) as he strongly believes that we are far behind - which some may people agree on. What he has said also implies that our GCSEs are under rated - GCSE style exams will be done by less able students.

Let's make sure we fill up all the jobs before they graduate then! Haha

[A.J10]

(Original post by AdamskiUK)
I think that the creation of a harder exam such as the O-Level would mean that CSE would have to be inherently harder, too. You could perhaps bump CSEs up to the equivalent of a Grade A at GCSE. For most students, with enough effort, this is obtainable, especially if they enjoy the work they do. This would improve education rates.

The fact that your firm is King's shows just how *hard* you have worked. If you make O-Levels harder but made them more valuable, top Universities and Colleges wouldn't ask for 8 A*s minimum to do Medicine. Under these new proposals, you would have gotten say 3 A*s but that would have been good enough to get into Kings. No longer would you have people getting As at A-Level and that being the norm to apply. It would add a distinguishing factor for the countries' best. Of course, the government tried to do this by implementing the A* grade, but educationalists have argued it has made little difference.

Making the CSE equivalent to the A grade at gcse is a little high. Not everyone can get A at the moment, what makes you think that suddenly they'll do better? I know that the current A/A* students could use more room to breathe but seriously, we have A level for the next level up.

Your second paragraph seems to be jumping around. Are you talking about A levels or GCSEs? Does any university ask for multiple A* at gcse? When talking about university applications, GCSEs are largely irrelevant as long as you got a b in maths/english. Then you go about how saying that 3A* under your proposed system will be good enough to get into Kings; surely at this point you're talking about A level, and 3A* is a bloody brilliant result at A level at the moment.

Could yo clarify your second paragraph? You seem to be swinging from GCSE to A level.

[mangostrawberry]

There's a vast difference between Foundation level GCSE and CSE- at Foundation level you still receive a GCSE just like Higher level, so there's no difference to employers etc, just that the highest possible grade is restricted. I know loads of people who have done badly in their GCSEs and then gone on to receive brilliant grades at A level, but if people are classed as less intelligent at only 14 then surely people will have less motivation to do well later on. Just seems ridiculous to limit people's expectations and opportunities so early on.

[BigDA]

I in all honesty think replacing GCSEs with O levels and CSE is ridiculous. GCSEs haven't got that easy.

I mean I just completed all my last year 11 GCSEs exams and the grade boundaries for all the mocks I did (the 2011 June exams) were incredibly low. I mean for one of my Science exams for 60 UMS marks (Which is a C) You needed 10/55 Raw marks or an equivalent of around 18.2% , You could get an A* on the entire paper without even getting half the answers right with just a small 27/55 in Raw marks.

It is ridiculous to redo the entire system , if anything they could make the easier exam boards toughen up their exams or moderate all exam boards accordingly to stop such low grade boundaries and to toughen up the easier exams.

[Rhubarb1]

I personally think this new system would be very poor. I believe the class system is already a huge factor in our society and this would only enhance it! Because those with O-Levels would be able to go for better paid jobs and so on...

I do, however, agree that it would make the first 3 years of secondary school seem worthwhile to some kids who otherwise would waste time and mess up other students education. But this wouldn't affect many, many pupils who do not care at all from the word go!

Honestly I think that the current system, although not perfect, could be improved to be better. Why not just make GCSE's harder? I think that introducing a new system would create chaos in schools, probably creating a good few years where teenagers don't recieve the quality of education they should.