GCSEs to be replaced with 'I levels'

I don't think we should give up on them, but it needs to be made clear to them that if they are not willing to learn or at least try to, then they should face consequences such as being excluded from class ect.

I have also never encountered the need for art or R.E but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't have learnt it. It develops other skills such as building imagination or being able to develop arguments. Also, relating to Child B, it means that he has no concept of problem solving just the ability to add up change efficiently, in the real world we have calculators for that. Also how about if Child A wants to go on to study something like the sciences? He will be limited as sometimes stuff like physics requires logic ect. and not just arithmetical skills.

Making GCSEs more difficult would get students ready for A-level, which I believe is a massive step from GCSEs, and it puts it into context for the less performing students that they should really consider whether they want to go further in education.

What would be the point in learning just basic arithmetic? It's not the only thing that's useful in maths in everyday life. Instead I think teaching standards should improve, 50% of students getting 5 C's shouldn't mean we will stick them in foundation so maybe next year we can have 80% because the quality of education hasn't improved. As a society we should be better educated at things, and its not like the government are asking you to do subjects you hate for the rest of your life, you just have to do your best and move on. Also probably going to get hate but whatever; half the people that aren't achieving 5 C's aren't even trying, if I walked into a set 6 in my school the day before an exam, most kids would be on their phones not even listening to the teacher, the others would be truanting. If they don't give a damn about their lives I don't think we should bother helping them.

Unpopular opinion number 2. GCSEs are actually too hard. Only 50% of pupils actually get the benchmark 5 Cs, does this mean that half the country are dumbasses? You could look at it that way or you could look at it from the angle that perhaps not everybody is academically inclined and trying to force everyone to the same academic standard is only going to cause disappointment and failure in people's lives. I know one guy who got all Gs in his GCSEs, he went to college to do music production and now he is doing really well. He makes money from his tracks and he attends De Montfort University. But according to the government and their standards he is an unemployable retard.

My recommendations are to split higher GCSE and foundation GCSE into two completely separate qualifications. The first one is the basic level that employers should be forced to accept. It will have no poetry or algebra, just the bare minimum spelling, grammar, arithmetic etc. As for stuff like history it should have a really watered down overview of what happened in WWII etc. Shelf stackers don't need to know the details of the Soviet polititcal system. In the higher one it will have all the detail necessary for higher education. Kids won't have to make tough decisions over which one to choose because they would be allowed to move between qualifications just like how you can move up and down a set currently.

You may ask what is the difference between this foundation qualification and good old foundation GCSE? The difference is that Foundation GCSE still tries to teach everything but a really dumbed down version. Therefore it ends up teaching a lot of useless information and not teaching anything rigorously. One of the exam questions for geometry on a foundation maths paper was "draw lines of symmetry on a rectangle". Seriously what is the point? May as well forget geometry altogether and spend more time on arithmetic.

5 C or above is not 'THE' Benchmark , it is 'A' benchmark

the reason it is focused on is primarily 2 fold

1. it is the historical (minimum) performance for a Grammar School pupil / represents a correlation with the before O level ' School certificate'

2.it is the gateway to direct access to level 3 study in the vast majority cases - whether that is A levels, AVCE, Advanced GNVQ, NC/ND or a level 3 or 3 to 4 Apprenticeship

it's also a benchmark which displays a full range of values from the lowest of the low sink estate ex secondary modern with 5 A*- C figures in the teens through to the highest performing Grammars and private / Public schools with 98% + 5 - A*-C

as i said in a previous post we need to consider a terminal vs progression prep version for some subjects at GCSE - i.e. a 'numeracy' focused maths qualification whicvh it is possible to get a decent grade in without all the preparation for A levle / STEM further study in the normal Maths GCSE

What the **** are you talking about? English please.

At a guess, is it I for Introductory?

What is I levels, i dont even know what that is? Intermediate Levels?

You really do not see an issue with a student being an 8 at the end of KS3 and a 7 at the end of KS4?

You do not think that will cause any confusion for parents and/or students?

i don't think they will be confused.

You're not really getting it. Rather than teach a watered down version of all R.E just teach the core. Giving someone a calculator does not make one good at maths. There's more to maths than adding numbers you know. I said in my first post that if the child does well enough they can move up to the other qualification. It's basically foundation and higher GCSE with the sets determining which one you do they key difference is rather than the lower sets getting a low GCSE grade saying they did everything but a really watered down version they get a separate qualification that shows they are still well versed in the core disciplines.

I agreed with your point up until you said that we shouldn't bother helping people in set 6. Yes, the majority do not want to learn and don't give one about the subjects. But a lot of them have various reasons and they shouldn't all be tarnished with the same brush. When I did my GCSE's I did all Higher Papers and was predicted A's and B's. All apart from Science. I was awful at the subject and didn't do well in my year 9 tests which determined what set I was going to be in. Therefore, I got put in one of the bottom sets for Science and the teaching was appalling, I didn't yearn a single thing all year and the teacher gave up on the whole class, he would sit there drinking his coffee while we were given text books to go through, I had to self-teach the subject and even then I only got a D. Perhaps the government should be worrying about the lower sets and the teaching standards.

Then you probably do not have the experience that I do dealing with students and parents