Should schools fund those who fail their maths and english GCSEs?

Certainly not, bar some very specific circumstances. As harsh as it sounds, the matter of the fact is that if you can't pass a basic English or Maths GCSE, you have no hope of passing an A-Level, nor of going into any meaningful higher education. I believe that students should be funded to resit if the rest of their grades are high, and mean that they would be able to do well in other A-Level subjects, because it's only their Maths/English which is holding them back. But, overall, if you can't pass a GCSE- which is a memory test, not an intelligence test- then you have absolutely no chance of going to sixth form or university. You could, of course, go to college or get an apprenticeship, so it's not as if it shuts off all options. THis would act as an effective screening filter.

No I don't think it benefited me. I missed most of year 11 because I was ill, my school pushed me into doing my final exams because they felt it was worth getting some qualifications. After I got such bad results they wouldn't let me do A levels and they stopped me from redoing my GCSEs (apart from RE, it was a Catholic school), so in the end I just left and studied at home.

That's absurd. Lazy students would then have a motivation to not revise and fail so they get money. Which is silly.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Schools should only fund it if there is a realistic chance the pupil will do better in the resit. If the pupil is too lazy or not intelligent enough, the school shouldn't waste their money. The child can always come back to education when s/he has sorted his/her priorities out / has proper motivation to learn.

I also think perhaps pupils should not be automatically promoted year-on-year, but failed and held back if they don't pass a year. That would mean schools don't enter pupils for exams they are not ready to take. Never mind resits - it seems kind of pointless to me to enter pupils for exams knowing they will get an E or worse.

The only issue is that those with a disability could be held back meaning they theoretically never leave school?

Your school failed you, then.

BTW I love the moomins and I love your chosen degree. Are you going to pick Swedish as your Scandinavian language?

Certainly not, bar some very specific circumstances. As harsh as it sounds, the matter of the fact is that if you can't pass a basic English or Maths GCSE, you have no hope of passing an A-Level, nor of going into any meaningful higher education. I believe that students should be funded to resit if the rest of their grades are high, and mean that they would be able to do well in other A-Level subjects, because it's only their Maths/English which is holding them back. But, overall, if you can't pass a GCSE- which is a memory test, not an intelligence test- then you have absolutely no chance of going to sixth form or university. You could, of course, go to college or get an apprenticeship, so it's not as if it shuts off all options. THis would act as an effective screening filter.

That's absurd. Lazy students would then have a motivation to not revise and fail so they get money. Which is silly.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I’m yet to pass maths and have finished my AS levels with respectable grades 2 C’s close to B’s and a D which was close to a C

I work in a school in a poor area where a large number of students did badly. We are rated well by Ofsted and I can say 100% that SO much was done for these students and so many opportunities given but most students who failed refused to engage with the massive amount of help on offer. Far more was offered than was offered to me at my high school where almost everyone achieved their 5 A-Cs (in a well off area) so why should next years students suffer from reduced funding as a result of the previous students refusing to work?

Just out of curiosity, what was on offer?

revision sessions every lunch time, every day after school, during the easter and half term holidays (9-3), plus we had teaching assistants in every low ability set, usually 2 TAs for core subjects, so for low ability groups there was often a staff:student ratio of 1:4-1:5... plus TAs did 1-1 work with several students identified as C/D borderline and were available for 1-1 work on controlled assessments/revision, we provided masses of notes, mind maps and key word sheets for students who hadn't bothered to keep up (most of which were chucked straight in the classroom bin on the way out) - the biggest issue was that it really doesn't matter what you provide if a student has very low attendance, walks out of half their lessons and refuses to work/cooperate in the rest of them

Wow. Can I ask (just out of curiosity) - are your TAs well qualified? Also, do you do detailed assessments to identify where a pupil has clear deficits, and then target those areas, or do you provide general revision where all areas are treated equally? On the other hand, maybe at that age, the deficits are just too big to fix in either case.

In bold: Yes, I do wonder how such pupils could be forced to take it seriously (without resorting to corporal punishment or temporary imprisonment). It's quite strange, because I do think revision can be quite satisfying in itself if you have at least a little bit of ambition.