Michael Gove exposes the exam scam

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8255960/Michael-Gove-exposes-the-sham-of-rising-GCSE-results.html
Michael Gove exposes the sham of rising GCSE resultsTelegraph View: The Education Secretary deserves credit for revealing the truth behind the headline results tables.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01644/gove_1644236c.jpg



In each of the past 23 years, the pass rate in GCSEs has risen; last year's results showed that almost seven out of 10 papers were awarded a Grade C or better. The reality behind this apparently dazzling educational success story was exposed yesterday when, for the first time, league tables were published showing attainment levels in serious subjects – the so-called English Baccalaureate core disciplines of English, maths, a science, a language and a humanity, which will in future form the nucleus of the syllabus. The tables make shocking reading. While the proportion of pupils achieving A* to C grades in five subjects including English and maths rose to 53.4 per cent, the percentage achieving those grades in the Baccalaureate subjects was just 15.6 per cent. In other words, just one pupil in six achieved decent grades in worthwhile subjects. The yawning gap between those two percentages is filled by soft subjects requiring minimal academic ability.

The results confirm what many have suspected for years – that schools have been cynically playing the system by encouraging pupils to take non-academic subjects in order to inflate their results artificially and improve the school's standing in the league tables. This is a confidence trick, and one that has betrayed generations of children. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, who took the brave decision to publish the new data, rightly laid responsibility at the door of the last government. He said Labour's obsession with centralised target-setting had encouraged "many great schools and great heads to offer certain non-academic subjects rather than more rigorous subjects".

The consequence has been the systematic devaluation of the schools and examination systems. Employers have no worthwhile measure by which to gauge the calibre of potential recruits. The decline in the teaching of science and languages means that the number of teachers in those subjects has dwindled. As for the poor pupils, they find themselves armed with exam qualifications that are barely worth the paper they are written on. This dumbing down of the education system comes just as our competitors, particularly in Asia, are investing heavily in education of the most rigorous standard.

This has been a policy failure on the grand scale and it is to Mr Gove's credit that he has finally revealed the truth behind the headlines. In doing so, he has naturally incurred the wrath of the educational establishment, a strong indication in itself that he is doing the right thing. He has also set himself the most daunting of tasks, for it now falls to him to lead the restoration of this discredited system.

Well done to Mr Gove (the Education sec) for exposing something many of us knew but is something which Labour supporters kept harping on about as 'it just shows what Labour has done for education' - i'm not Gove's biggest fan but this is some welcome exposure of yet more fraudulent statistics from the last government.

And would you believe people in Oldham look likely to elect a Labour MP?

Thoughts?

[Ajthedragon]

Pretty bad I guess. Still, my school never made made take any 'bad' subjects. Mine in fact forced me to do a Language, which I am awful and getting an E at.

[AgnesIO]

Just out of interest, how do you define a 'worthwhile' subject?

[Jacob]

Just out of interest, how do you define a 'worthwhile' subject?

Yea I hate the way that they have put that out. They also use the term 'soft subjects' which annoys me because they say that it doesn't require academic ability. I don't think they are looking at it from a students point of view. Yes, some of the subjects are not traditional but I believe that education has moved away from that. I've always seen head teachers and teachers promote these so called 'soft subjects' to us and now they're saying that they don't like them in a way... our school also gave us no warning whatsoever about these subjects when we were choosing them. Therefore now a lot of students in our school are coming out with a big disadvantage.

[Mrs.McCall]

I hate that too. This is so ridiculous, some people aren't good at Maths, English and Sciences. They're good at other stuff. Doesn't make it any less worthwhile. What... an idiot.

[dbgtz]

I hate that too. This is so ridiculous, some people aren't good at Maths, English and Sciences. They're good at other stuff. Doesn't make it any less worthwhile. What... an idiot.

Personally I can see maths as being the only subject which is vital to most, if not all jobs. Only basic english is really needed which most people would have learnt, and science is only needed for science related jobs.

Anyway, this explains so much.

[Fez]

If anything new ICT skills and adaptation to new business environment skills are most necessary to education.

This video sums up my views on the current system of education:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

[iBlueBox]

Well are school takes exam results really weird wanting to get high.

Like we got our exam results on friday. And 59% of the year got A-C in English. But 44% got A-C in maths. But like for the people who didn't get A-C theres still time to get them till like summer.

[Catzsy]

This is the relevant passage:


The results confirm what many have suspected for years – that schools have been cynically playing the system by encouraging pupils to take non-academic subjects in order to inflate their results artificially and improve the school's standing in the league tables.

What it means is that it is the number of GCSE's and in what one has to be cynical about not that the standard in academic subjects has fallen. I am sure employees, further education colleges and Universities can see this. Anyway what happens if someone isn't academic these days? Maybe a GCSE in what they are good in cannot be a bad thing. Why should pupils who are good at more 'hands on subjects' be left on the scrap heap? We need the skilled and semi -skilled trades. Horses for Courses I guess. Luckily Labour did win the byelection, convincingly.

[Conservative,]

My school only forces us to do: Science, English, Maths & ICT - which is fair imo, considering we have to do 3 of those anyway. We're not forced into doing a language or humanities or arts. I think the way the system is is quite frankly awful. :\

[AgnesIO]

Maths - really important IMO. Although, most of what you learn in Maths is pretty pointless. For example, when will you need to know the ninth angle of about 6 triangles and a straight line stuck together?
English - Very Important. If you can't read or write you won't be getting a job at anywhere better than a shop.
Science - Never understood this. Why is it so important? I don't need to know half the stuff that happens.
Humanities - An important subject. I think it is essential that people understand the world around them.
ICT - Important in the mordern world to know basic things. But I always found my old ICT lessons seriously boring. I knew it all already, and having a teacher that said 'Now.. use the left button on your mouse and press 'My computer'.. ok?? Next....' - I learnt NOTHING in the four years of ICT I did.
Languages - Pretty important, as being able to speaking a second/third language can come in useful for potential career opportunities. I just wish we didn't have to do either German or French.

Now for the so called 'Soft subjects'. Although people class these as pointless, I think they are really important. Not everyone is an academic genius - and if you want to go in to, say Sport Coaching, what use is dissecting a flower going to be to you? Personally, I always have been a really academic person - but if they had removed subjects such as Music, which is my passion, or PE, I would HATE school. I have never enjoyed school, but if you removed those I probably wouldn't go in for half the days.

[ifuseekamy]

Oh yers, I'm sure the professional footballers earning his annual wage in a week are sorry for not being daft geeks.

[Inseriousity.]

The debate over soft vs hard subjects really annoys me too as it's all completely subjective. Some maths genius who can work out the value of x using the quadratic equation isn't necessarily going to be good at writing essays or playing an instrument... and vice versa. I view English and Maths as absolutely essential. I think ICT would be an important skill to have although I personally have doubts whether the current curriculum is really teaching that but that might be down to the rubbish IT teachers I had in my school!

I think the more underlying issue here is the constant targets that teachers/headteachers are finding themselves under. If they need to get 60% A*- C or they lose funding or they're put in special measures (whatever the current system is), they're going to cut corners and the only people this really has a negative impact on in the long run are the students pigeon-holed into subjects they don't really want to do.

[Ajthedragon]

This is the relevant passage:



What it means is that it is the number of GCSE's and in what one has to be cynical about not that the standard in academic subjects has fallen. I am sure employees, further education colleges and Universities can see this. Anyway what happens if someone isn't academic these days? Maybe a GCSE in what they are good in cannot be a bad thing. Why should pupils who are good at more 'hands on subjects' be left on the scrap heap? We need the skilled and semi -skilled trades. Horses for Courses I guess. Luckily Labour did win the byelection, convincingly.

How does Labour winning a by-election good for the 'skilled trades' jobs which they killed by making excessively high minimum wage laws causing most trade jobs to go overseas.

[Conservative,]

Maths - really important IMO. Although, most of what you learn in Maths is pretty pointless. For example, when will you need to know the ninth angle of about 6 triangles and a straight line stuck together?
English - Very Important. If you can't read or write you won't be getting a job at anywhere better than a shop.
Science - Never understood this. Why is it so important? I don't need to know half the stuff that happens.
Humanities - An important subject. I think it is essential that people understand the world around them.
ICT - Important in the mordern world to know basic things. But I always found my old ICT lessons seriously boring. I knew it all already, and having a teacher that said 'Now.. use the left button on your mouse and press 'My computer'.. ok?? Next....' - I learnt NOTHING in the four years of ICT I did.
Languages - Pretty important, as being able to speaking a second/third language can come in useful for potential career opportunities. I just wish we didn't have to do either German or French.

Now for the so called 'Soft subjects'. Although people class these as pointless, I think they are really important. Not everyone is an academic genius - and if you want to go in to, say Sport Coaching, what use is dissecting a flower going to be to you? Personally, I always have been a really academic person - but if they had removed subjects such as Music, which is my passion, or PE, I would HATE school. I have never enjoyed school, but if you removed those I probably wouldn't go in for half the days.

Arts are not soft subjects as far as I'm concerned. The only subjects I'd call "soft" (no offence to anyone who takes them) are business studies, media studies & film studies. But Music is pretty "hard" considering you have to play an instrument at grade 2-3 standard to pass, be able to read and write in musical notation and know several confusing and strange terms.
Drama is not "soft". You often have to write several thousand word essays and then write your own scripts for the performance as well as lighting and sound cues, then perform - difficult for most people - let's ask an education department employee to do it - in front of peers and teachers, knowingly being filmed.
Art - requires skill and precision. I am no fan of art and was quite happy to drop it but it does require, to get a good grade at least, lots of attention to detail.

I agree with most of your summaries. I love maths and I find it incredibly easy but as you said a lot of it is pointless. The stuff that interests me the most is algebra though, not sure why. Same with English, it's important to be able to read and write, but really, do we REALLY need to know how John Steinbeck used the power of dreams in of mice and men? No. Science is for knowing how our bodies work, and if you want to be a doctor it is incredibly important. However I do agree that chemistry is awfully dull and I hate it - see no point in it. But basic science (ie; how your body works etc.) is important. ICT is also important as you said because of our modern world. It's just really irritating how the curriculum thinks most kids haven't touched a computer. When in reality, 90% are on one every day.


Oh yers, I'm sure the professional footballers earning his annual wage in a week are sorry for not being daft geeks.

Actually, quite a few professional sports men ARE clever. David Beckham for example, is fluent in Spanish and French. I can't remember where or which footballer, but I read a current international player is a trained lawyer. Admittedly there are the dumb ones, but you can't criticise them for being good at their job.


The debate over soft vs hard subjects really annoys me too as it's all completely subjective. Some maths genius who can work out the value of x using the quadratic equation isn't necessarily going to be good at writing essays or playing an instrument... and vice versa. I view English and Maths as absolutely essential. I think ICT would be an important skill to have although I personally have doubts whether the current curriculum is really teaching that but that might be down to the rubbish IT teachers I had in my school!

I think the more underlying issue here is the constant targets that teachers/headteachers are finding themselves under. If they need to get 60% A*- C or they lose funding or they're put in special measures (whatever the current system is), they're going to cut corners and the only people this really has a negative impact on in the long run are the students pigeon-holed into subjects they don't really want to do.

I agree, personally I am very good at Mathematics and most other academic subjects, but my friends really struggle in those things. However I am awful at art, cannot draw for my life yet they are predicted A*'s etc. in those subjects so really it's down to the person.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just out of interest, how do you define a 'worthwhile' subject?

One which takes more intellect and effort to achieve grades in, for example Travel and Tourism is easy to pass whereas Maths and especially the Sciences take much effort to achieve good grades in - even with the top band of students.


I hate that too. This is so ridiculous, some people aren't good at Maths, English and Sciences. They're good at other stuff. Doesn't make it any less worthwhile. What... an idiot.

Well it does, lets be honest. Mathematics, the Sciences, English, History and Geography are far more superior to Travel and Tourism, Media and Photography - most people who are capable of the first subjects I mentioned are perfectly capable of the bottom subjects I mentioned - but not the other way around.

Some people aren't academic and thats that - but its a travesty that they are unable to work which I will explain below.


This is the relevant passage:

What it means is that it is the number of GCSE's and in what one has to be cynical about not that the standard in academic subjects has fallen. I am sure employees, further education colleges and Universities can see this. Anyway what happens if someone isn't academic these days? Maybe a GCSE in what they are good in cannot be a bad thing. Why should pupils who are good at more 'hands on subjects' be left on the scrap heap? We need the skilled and semi -skilled trades. Horses for Courses I guess. Luckily Labour did win the byelection, convincingly.

If they aren't academic then they are not academic and it is as simple as that - they should go and get a job in shops.. but the sad thing really is (which I explain below) that these jobs are now in short supply, thanks to overburdening regulations and taxation which force many to simply close down. But carry on voting for it, you may change your mind when you end up in their boat one day.


How does Labour winning a by-election good for the 'skilled trades' jobs which they killed by making excessively high minimum wage laws causing most trade jobs to go overseas.

This is spot on. You see, Labourites don't understand that Labour has (along with the European Union) made it so hard and expensive for small businesses to hire people that they simply do not hire staff anymore, many small businesses have closed anyway thanks to countless regulations & high taxation coming from Brussels and Whitehall which they simply cannot take the burden of - and thus they are replaced by corporations such as Tesco who now often get into bed with government and local government and you know what thats called don't you when corporations and government get into bed with one another? fascism - it is very dangerous when the two get into bed with one another. The other thread which I posted which shames Labour's economic record strangely has no replies from Labour supporters or Tories for that matter, as always.

But often when you explain these things to them, they react as though you are talking to a brick wall.

[Catzsy]

How does Labour winning a by-election good for the 'skilled trades' jobs which they killed by making excessively high minimum wage laws causing most trade jobs to go overseas.

I was replying to Dan about his prediction on who would win the byelection. I did not say that
because Labour won it was good for the 'Skilled trades' jobs.

@ Dan - are you serious? Non-academic people should go and work in shops? Retail is quite specialised in it's own right. There is a great deal of skilled trades that non-academic people can do with the proper education and training or are you just writing them off. Shame on you. Labour is the best party for me and luckily I have had the benefit from them of my education.

[JamesT]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8255960/Michael-Gove-exposes-the-sham-of-rising-GCSE-results.html
Michael Gove exposes the sham of rising GCSE resultsTelegraph View: The Education Secretary deserves credit for revealing the truth behind the headline results tables.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01644/gove_1644236c.jpg




Well done to Mr Gove (the Education sec) for exposing something many of us knew but is something which Labour supporters kept harping on about as 'it just shows what Labour has done for education' - i'm not Gove's biggest fan but this is some welcome exposure of yet more fraudulent statistics from the last government.

And would you believe people in Oldham look likely to elect a Labour MP?

Thoughts?

The Education system in this country is a joke for several reasons.
Firstly, as it's free, a lot of students do not respect it and believe messing about/swearing at teachers is the cool and clever thing.
Secondly, they cannot be bothered with education as the lovely benefits system will take care of them: so forget education.
Thirdly, getting paid to go to college? Seriously? I laughed when I found out I will be paid £30 a week just to go to college. It's a waste of money for the government and I am glad that it will be stopped. Students do not need £30 a week for "books etc". Yes, they do need it for travel and maybe food, but that can easily be sorted by paying for students weekly bus pass instead.

The reason why Asian countries have one of the best Education in the world is because the students there understand the importance of education, they understand how competitive the world is, they have a desire to succeed, education is not free there.

And lastly, this grade system is ridiculous anyway. It should be done via percentage as it is more accurate. I could get 70% in all my results and get a B, while someone who gets 79% would still be classed as a B grade, while someone with 80% would get an A. Percentage is more accurate and a fairer reflection of grades - even for college.


I hate that too. This is so ridiculous, some people aren't good at Maths, English and Sciences. They're good at other stuff. Doesn't make it any less worthwhile. What... an idiot.

In all honesty, for most people, if they are not good at Maths, English or Science, its because of laziness or a lack of interest in those subjects, nothing else. I learnt English 11 years ago. Before that I hardly knew it. I didn't even know what fart meant. However, I managed to get B's in my GCSE's for English - so it's about trying hard.

They may be good at other stuff - but that is likely because they enjoy those subjects more. And GCSE Maths, English and Sciences are looked at when you apply for college and university. For my degree, if you didn't have a minimum B in GCSE Maths and English - forget it, you cannot apply. This is the reason why those three are considered the main core worthwhile subjects.

Subjects such as Business Studies and ICT are useful at school but very easy to get A's in at high school. Bloody hell I didn't attend the first 4 months of lessons and still managed to get an A as its common sense stuff.

I may sound like I am boasting a lot, but it's the facts. Those three subjects are the main core ones.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@ Dan - are you serious? Non-academic people should go and work in shops? Retail is quite specialised in it's own right. There is a great deal of skilled trades that non-academic people can do with the proper education and training or are you just writing them off. Shame on you. Labour is the best party for me and luckily I have had the benefit from them of my education.

Well you may believe their spin, but it is just a shame the politicians don't believe their own spin hence why most of the top Labour brass sent their children to grammar-schools-in-all-but-name (areas with expensive catchment areas, David Cameron used this tactic also) and private schools.

Another example of failed leftist education schemes came out the other day; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347213/Labours-24m-showpiece-school-closes-2-years.html

[AgnesIO]

The Education system in this country is a joke for several reasons.
Firstly, as it's free, a lot of students do not respect it and believe messing about/swearing at teachers is the cool and clever thing.
Secondly, they cannot be bothered with education as the lovely benefits system will take care of them: so forget education.
Thirdly, getting paid to go to college? Seriously? I laughed when I found out I will be paid £30 a week just to go to college. It's a waste of money for the government and I am glad that it will be stopped. Students do not need £30 a week for "books etc". Yes, they do need it for travel and maybe food, but that can easily be sorted by paying for students weekly bus pass instead.

The reason why Asian countries have one of the best Education in the world is because the students there understand the importance of education, they understand how competitive the world is, they have a desire to succeed, education is not free there.

And lastly, this grade system is ridiculous anyway. It should be done via percentage as it is more accurate. I could get 70% in all my results and get a B, while someone who gets 79% would still be classed as a B grade, while someone with 80% would get an A. Percentage is more accurate and a fairer reflection of grades - even for college.



In all honesty, for most people, if they are not good at Maths, English or Science, its because of laziness or a lack of interest in those subjects, nothing else. I learnt English 11 years ago. Before that I hardly knew it. I didn't even know what fart meant. However, I managed to get B's in my GCSE's for English - so it's about trying hard.

They may be good at other stuff - but that is likely because they enjoy those subjects more. And GCSE Maths, English and Sciences are looked at when you apply for college and university. For my degree, if you didn't have a minimum B in GCSE Maths and English - forget it, you cannot apply. This is the reason why those three are considered the main core worthwhile subjects.

Subjects such as Business Studies and ICT are useful at school but very easy to get A's in at high school. Bloody hell I didn't attend the first 4 months of lessons and still managed to get an A as its common sense stuff.

I may sound like I am boasting a lot, but it's the facts. Those three subjects are the main core ones.

No, no no. Students do not mess about because it is free, they mess about because their is no punishment for messing about (oh noes a 5 minute detention). Where as Asia? Getting hit by your parents if you mess about. Charging would just make more people take out benefits in this lazy country.

However I agree with getting paid to go to college. I never will, and never would have got £30 for going to College (I wouldn't have got anything). And let me tell the stupid government; my parents wouldn't give me it either.

Being paid to go to college is a joke.

[Robbie]

UMS is a joke. Not read the thread just thought I'd mention my hatred of the UMS system (dunno if they have it at GCSE?) HURR DURR LETS MOVE THE GOALPOSTS