Turn on thread page Beta

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

  • View Poll Results: Should schools pay for retakes if their students fail maths or English GCSE?
    Yes they should
    759
    53.91%
    No they shouldn't
    649
    46.09%

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CaptainJosh)
    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.
    This is bull****. My brother failed English and maths GCSE (he's failed maths 4 times now), but that hasn't stopped him going on to train to be a chef, which he is really good at, one of the best in his class, and doing internships with Michelin starred chefs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    This is bull****. My brother failed English and maths GCSE (he's failed maths 4 times now), but that hasn't stopped him going on to train to be a chef, which he is really good at, one of the best in his class, and doing internships with Michelin starred chefs.
    And being a chef, on an apprenticeship by the sounds of what you're saying, counts as meaningful higher education?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CaptainJosh)
    And being a chef, on an apprenticeship by the sounds of what you're saying, counts as meaningful higher education?
    It's a three year college qualification with the option of going onto a degree after, at the top chef training college in the UK...

    So I would say yes.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by CaptainJosh)
    which is a memory test, not an intelligence test
    Other subjects - yes, but maths and English test ability very well imo. Especially maths!
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by CaptainJosh)
    And being a chef, on an apprenticeship by the sounds of what you're saying, counts as meaningful higher education?
    I think I have demonstrated that you're wrong so why are you continuing to argue your point with other people?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    I think I have demonstrated that you're wrong so why are you continuing to argue your point with other people?
    Because that is the purpose of a debate, and that is beside the point- how have people demonstrated that I'm wrong? All I've been told is that being a chef is equivalent to doing, say, physics at uni.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by CaptainJosh)
    Because that is the purpose of a debate, and that is beside the point- how have people demonstrated that I'm wrong? All I've been told is that being a chef is equivalent to doing, say, physics at uni.
    You said people who fail their GCSES have no hope of passing an A level or progressing into 'meaningful' (whatever that means) higher education - but I did both, therefore you are wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CaptainJosh)
    Because that is the purpose of a debate, and that is beside the point- how have people demonstrated that I'm wrong? All I've been told is that being a chef is equivalent to doing, say, physics at uni.
    At no point did anyone say that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    You said people who fail their GCSES have no hope of passing an A level or progressing into 'meaningful' (whatever that means) higher education - but I did both, therefore you are wrong.
    My dad was similar, failed all his GCSEs and went on to pass his A levels with flying colours, then go to uni to do a degree and masters...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    At no point did anyone say that.
    They implied that. I was talking about higher education in a university and then a cheffing apprenticeship was brought up in relation to my point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    I left school with an F in English and an E in Maths. I'm going to UCL. What were you saying? :rolleyes:
    Do you think this has benefited you in any way? Or would you rather not have taken the exams at all? I ask because I assume that you did not bother to resit (topic), and if you came out with those grades, it seems like school basically just wasted your time.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CaptainJosh)
    They implied that. I was talking about higher education in a university and then a cheffing apprenticeship was brought up in relation to my point.
    You're talking about what I said, which isn't an apprenticeship, it's a 3 year academic course at a higher education institution...

    Which was in response to you saying someone who failed their GCSEs couldn't get a meaningful higher education qualification. At no point was it inferred that it was equivalent to a physics degree, just that it was a 'meaningful' (whatever the **** that means) higher education qualification.

    I mean if the chance to train with the countries top chefs as part of an academic qualification isn't 'meaningful', then I don't know what is....
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by llys)
    Do you think this has benefited you in any way? Or would you rather not have taken the exams at all? I ask because I assume that you did not bother to resit (topic), and if you came out with those grades, it seems like school basically just wasted your time.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If the fault was of the student and its clearly the students fault for failing then the students family must pay in order to flare some discipline and deter the student from being lazy again, otherwise if the school is responsible like there were multiple teacher changes etc then the school should pay for not doing their job to the ideal extent, ELSE if its unclear the school and the students family should share the payment half half.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by GuppyFox)
    Call for school exam failure levy to aid FE colleges



    I think that the school has some responsibility if it can't educate students well enough - I believe that all students of good mental health have the ability to do well if they put the effort in. But this of course means that it's a matter of motivation and this could be the students/parents fault more than the teachers and schools ability to educate.

    What do you think - should schools be funding students who fail?
    I think that it's a difficult one and it there is definitely two sides to this view.
    On one hand people will say (as you have) that if they are failing their maths and english then the school isn't doing all they can to support them to achieve these basic grades, however, other people will argue the people not gaining the grades are the ones who are lazy and don't care.

    I'm in the middle. Of course to do anything these days (the majority of things) the government wants everyone to have at least a C in English and Maths because they are just basic things. People who want to go more, will do more and go further with that studying etc.

    I agree with both points of view. Everyone complains about school and I think that schools could do more to support their students - but at the same time, it's not like they have to budget to do so. So, it's like, a wall they've hit. The government wants one thing but the education sector is constantly changing it's difficult to provide that support. English and Maths is something basic you need and I think everybody gets their chance at sitting that exam, if they fail it the first time I think the school should pay for them to resit, offer them the support to boost the grade and get it so they can move on. I think if they fail it after that, they should seek to pay for it for themselves.

    Now before anyone flies off the handle and starts picking holes in what I've said. I'm already very aware there is a lot of flaws in what I've said. E.g. people who were lazy and didn't care less get another 'free' go but if they don't have that other opportunity they'll end up jobless or something or be complained about even more, some people may not be able to afford to resit after that - I'm also aware of this.

    This is just my view.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    it depends, they should deffo fund students who have consistently shown improvements throughout the year in their grade (eg possibly going up from, lets say a G to a D) because it shows they've put work in. but they shouldn't fund those who just slack off, it's their fault they didn't revise. had lots of tears on my results day from people who throughout the year were working on E's and they opened their papers to see fails like you didn't revise, tf did you expect?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    No. I think the current method described in the article is sufficient.

    A Department for Education spokesman defended the existing arrangements.

    "Post-16 funding is already allocated on a per pupil basis, and we already provide an extra £480 per student, per subject for all those with GCSE English or maths below grade C," he said
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It depends on the situation. If the pupil has had circumstances where they coudnt perform to the best of the ability in the real exams or simply can't afford it, then the school should help in the cost...
    , if the school has continuous bad results, they should also pay for it...
    However, if the student is simply lazy and didn't revise, the school should accept no reponsibilty for paying for remarks as it is not the school's fault...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I really can't say because we don't know why the student failed. Were they stupid? Were they lazy? Were the teachers bad? We can't say because not all situations are the same.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.