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

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?

Reply 22

Universities Forum Helper

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.

Reply 23

rxns_00

15

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!

Reply 24

Snufkin

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?

Reply 25

CaptainJosh

Universities Forum Helper

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.

Reply 26

Snufkin

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.

Reply 27

llys

17

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.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 28

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.

Reply 29

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...

Reply 30

CaptainJosh

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.

Reply 31

llys

17

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.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 32

Universities Forum Helper

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....

Reply 33

Snufkin

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.

Reply 34

Mosaab

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.

Reply 35

JustGeorgeJ

16

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.

Reply 36

username1504091

15

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 :colonhash:

like you didn't revise, tf did you expect?

Reply 37

Motorbiker

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

Reply 38

GalGirl101