The Student Room Group

'Scrapping' of the GCSE: What it means for us.

Scroll to see replies

Michael Gove's statement to the House of Commons on the new English Baccalaureate Certificates - which will replace GCSEs.

Click on the spoiler button at the bottom of this post to read the full statement...here's an abridged version:

"The GCSE was conceived - and designed - for a different age and a different world.

Now that ways of learning have been so dramatically transformed, it is right that we reform our examination system.

We want to ensure modules - which encourage bite-size learning and spoon-feeding, teaching to the test and gaming of the system - go, once and for all.

We want to remove controlled assessment and coursework from core subjects.

We will invite exam boards to offer wholly new qualifications in the core subject areas - English, maths, the sciences, history, geography and languages.

In each subject area only one exam board will offer the new exams.

We plan to call these new qualifications - in these core academic subjects - English Baccalaureate Certificates - recognising that they are the academic foundation which is the secure base on which further study, vocational learning or a satisfying apprenticeship can be built.

Success in English, maths, the sciences, a humanities subject and a language will mean the student has the full English Baccalaureate.

We propose first teaching of new certificates in English, maths and the sciences in September 2015 with other subjects following."


Spoiler

Reply 61
Original post by AdamskiUK
Haha, a while back now :wink:

Whilst I value your opinion, have you honestly seen some of the questions on GCSE papers these past two years? I saw a foundation question and it went along the lines of 'Write out 43,768 in words', for 2/70 marks! If you look at O-Level papers you can see that have been written by Cambridge, these kinds of things are meant to be known alongside your Name, not as part of your course.


Those only appear in the C-G papers (and that would be a grade G question) and as most people don't take that paper you are highly misrepresenting the questions asked in a standard GCSE paper which suggests you have ulterior motives for emitting that information.
Reply 62
In my opinion i think its a good thing, its given the government the control that they lacked, which lead to all kinds of issues regarding regrades and Boundaries etc. It also means everyone's learning the same thing, I got an A* in biology, now if i took the AQA biology exam i doubt i would of passed it let alone an A*. Obviously many are going to be upset as they may be the first students to sit the exam and might not know what too expect, but thats got too happen the first people to sit the GCSE exams probably faced the same problems that todays year 7s are going to face in 2017.
Reply 63
This is not a good thing.

Just for one example, read this: http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/4-reasons-why-goves-gcse-reforms.html
Reply 64
Original post by shooks
Michael Gove's statement to the House of Commons on the new English Baccalaureate Certificates - which will replace GCSEs.



Interesting post. What's you opinion on this?


Don't you think these two parts are impossible:

"and spoon-feeding, teaching to the test and gaming of the system - go, once and for all."


AND


"So even as exams become more rigorous, more students will be equipped to clear this higher bar....
Some will argue that more rigorous qualifications in these subjects will inevitably lead to more students failing. But we believe that fatalism is indicative of a dated mind-set; one that believes in fixed abilities that great teaching can do little to change"


If more than 50% of pupils in my old school couldn't achieve 5A*-C including Maths and English then how would they "clear the higher bar" with an inadequate school and more rigorous exams.
(edited 11 years ago)
I like this bit:


There will be one exam board for these English Bac subjects rather than having different exam boards competing with their own versions.

(BBC News)

Other than that... not so much. I need to read more into it though.
What is the point in changing exams every few years? Everyone is walking around with a flurry of qualifications that 'don't mean anything' anymore. I have just completed my GCSEs and it feels like there has been no point in me doing so. Keep GCSEs.
Reply 67
HAHAHAHAHAHAH came to laugh at all you guys taking the new hard O-levels!
I'm done with my dreadful GCSEs and thank God I'm not in this!

At least you'll be more prepared for A levels when the time comes :/

EDIT: U MAD LIL KIDS? HAHAHAHAHA :biggrin:
(edited 11 years ago)
Success in English, maths, the sciences, a humanities subject and a language will mean the student has the full English Baccalaureate.

Seriously?
I still managed to get a D in Spanish despite "learning" it for 4 years at secondary school.
I'm absolutely awful at picking up new languages.

Isn't this a bit unfair for those like me? :s-smilie:

Although, I'm all for removing exams after the first year.
It allows people to learn stuff in the first year then then pretty much forget about it for the second year.

Although I took the IGCSE (everything assessed at the end of 2 years with the exception of Geography and English coursework) so I may be a little biased :tongue:
(edited 11 years ago)
I agree with reforms to GCSE and making them terminal exams but you need at least foundation tier questions as many pupils maths skills are never going to exceed simple calculations and they will never need trigonometry or calculus. How can every child out of hundreds of thousand show their potential in one single level 3 hour exam? Keep higher and foundation tier and use 2 1.5-2 hour exams, 3 hours is too long. Thought the top questions should be harder so the jump to A-levels is smaller.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Darkphilosopher
Seriously?
I still managed to get a D in Spanish despite "learning" it for 4 years at secondary school.
I'm absolutely awful at picking up new languages.

Isn't this a bit unfair for those like me? :s-smilie:


From the Simpsons:

% Lisa talks to Principal Skinner with the hope of making Miss Hoover's
% class more academically rigorous.

Lisa: It's not my nature to complain, but so far today we've had
three movies, two filmstrips, and an hour and a half of
magazine time. I just don't feel challenged.
Skinner: Of course we could make things more challenging, Lisa, but
then the stupider students would be in here complaining,
furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the
situation.


Looks like Gove should have heeded Skinner's warning.
Reply 71
Original post by Freiheit

If more than 50% of pupils in my old school couldn't achieve 5A*-C including Maths and English then how would they "clear the higher bar" with an inadequate school and more rigorous exams.


I really agree with this ^
At my school, it's about a 50% pass rate of 5A*-C including Maths and English too, and when they introduce these exams, that will really go down..
I also don't like the idea of a 3 hour exam. When I've been doing exams in the past, I found an hour and three quarters really boring, and I found that near the end of the paper, my focus was going, so I don't know how people would cope with a 3 hour one :eek:
i think Michael Gove is an absolute idiot. I think this because the gsce results were increasing every year, so why does he need to change the exams, does he not want students in this country to do well? The E-BACC. This does not give opportunities to everyone because everyone is not academic, so very few people will actually achieve this qualification, so what well happen when they are applying for jobs or to do courses in a-level. why does he need to completely change this , student can already get an e-bacc, so why does he need to change it completely. I have always knew that having the Conservative in government was a horrible idea, i can not believe they even won, so hopefully before this qualification can actually be a law, i hope that the Conservative and the liberal democrats are kicked out and labour comes back in government.
Reply 73
I've been saying for years that they should abolish the higher/foundation tier system. It's just as bad as CSEs/O-Levels at creating disparity. Teachers currently make the choice whether to consign someone to a C grade, that's not fair. Everyone should be given the opportunity to get the top grade. The EBacc will open the system up, one exam, for all students, so anyone, no matter what their teacher thinks can do well if they have it in them, and that's a great plus, and a great step forward. So I'm very happy about that.

I also get the sense that these qualifications will test the upper end a lot harder, which needs to happen. For example, a quarter of kids these days get A/A*. There was a time when A/A* was only for the top students, those days need to return, or we need a whole new scoring system (perhaps with numbers, ie: Grade 1,2 etc) to create grades above that. So what I'm saying is there needs to be a way of telling the difference between a low A and a high A... coz at the moment there seems to be a massive standard deviation when that grade is concerned, and the same goes for the A*. I think Gove alluded to that being one of the focuses of the new qualification so I'm glad on that front too. There really does need to be more rigour at the top. No offense to anyone who took GCSEs, well done if you got your 5 A*-Cs, it just seemed to me that when I did them back in 2010 that ANYONE could get 5A*-Cs so long as they actually bothered putting the work in. There needs to be some element of challenge restored, beleive me - that's what kids need to prepare them for AS and also for the world of work.

Abolition of coursework in core subjects is a good move too. We should be testing student's abilities alone, not the ability for a teacher to tell the student an answer. I know that such a thing doesn't exactly happen in coursework, but it comes pretty darn close, they drop so many hints, they practically tell you what to do if you fail the first time. That ain't right in my belief.

What I want to know is - what will happen in the non-core subjects? They aren't part of the English Baccalaureate... so are they still English Baccalaureate Certificates? Or we will be seeing a brand new qualification for those? If we do, then I won't be too happy with that. But we'll wait and see.
Reply 74
Original post by DanielArthur
What is the point in changing exams every few years? Everyone is walking around with a flurry of qualifications that 'don't mean anything' anymore. I have just completed my GCSEs and it feels like there has been no point in me doing so. Keep GCSEs.


GCSEs have been around since the late 80s- hardly a few years. They were rubbish then and are rubbish now. They've run their course and have become an embarrassment - could there be a better reason to change them?
Reply 75
The main thing that needs to be done is to return to the O level mentality rather than the exact mechanics. With O levels, the standard was such that failure in subjects was commonplace- even for the best students, and very few people obtained more than one or two A grades. This is where we need to get back to. Tens of thousands of children obtaining 9 or more A* grades doesn't tell us anything except that the system has utterly failed.

A system where the average student gets 5 -7 passes (A-C) and a good student gets maybe 2 As, and an excellent student maybe maybe passes all of them (but certainly not at "A") is where we need to be. That would reflect reality.
Original post by Jarred
I also get the sense that these qualifications will test the upper end a lot harder, which needs to happen. For example, a quarter of kids these days get A/A*. There was a time when A/A* was only for the top students, those days need to return, or we need a whole new scoring system (perhaps with numbers, ie: Grade 1,2 etc) to create grades above that.

We have a perfectly adequate top grade: it's called the A* (and, despite your allusion to the contrary, it's actually a whole different grade from the A). Between 7-8% of a cohort achieve this grade. Isn't this low enough?

And why do we need a whole new scoring system that uses numbers rather than letters?
(edited 11 years ago)
If you can be bothered, you can find more information in the consultation document.

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/r/reforming%20key%20stage%204%20qualifications%20-%20consultation%20document.pdf

In my subject (mathematics) the key points are:

Everyone will study the Mathematics (Pure & Applied) EBC. There will also be an optional Additional Mathematics EBC aimed at the most able.

The consultation document says "In mathematics we will be looking to raise the challenge in algebra so that our expectations match those of the highest performing jurisdictions."

The fact that less than 1% of Foundation GCSE mathematics students go on to study A Level mathematics is used as a justification for reform.

A student who attains grades E to U in GCSE mathematics at age 16 only has a 2% chance of improving to a C grade by age 19. Apparently the EBC will address this problem (but it is not clear how).

It is possible that core subjects will be given more curriculum time.

There is a 25% (of what?) shortage of mathematics teachers in the Further Education sector that needs to be addressed.

They are consulting over use of a calculator (trigonometry questions will be a bit boring without one unless a return to tables is on the horizon).
Worst decision ever!!

I would have failed totally as would most people I know!
What about the intelligent kid who in exams has a panic attack due to pressure?
3hr exams for 16yr olds......what??? How is that possible??
They need c.w and modules...let's face it it's more realistic...in the workplace you don't have a stress free 8m to relax and then suddenly 2m of pure stress where you have to vomit all knowledge at someone...

With no c.w we will have an entire generation who cannot write reports, meet deadlines, we would have no academic papers and so little research
It's just ridiculous!!


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Reply 79
Original post by superpig22
Worst decision ever!!

I would have failed totally as would most people I know!
What about the intelligent kid who in exams has a panic attack due to pressure?
3hr exams for 16yr olds......what??? How is that possible??
They need c.w and modules...let's face it it's more realistic...in the workplace you don't have a stress free 8m to relax and then suddenly 2m of pure stress where you have to vomit all knowledge at someone...

With no c.w we will have an entire generation who cannot write reports, meet deadlines, we would have no academic papers and so little research
It's just ridiculous!!


What is ridiculous is that your are seriously suggesting that prior to the introduction of GCSEs, there were generations of people incapable of writing reports and that we had no academia.

Quick Reply