GCSE Reforms

[AgnesIO]

New-look tougher GCSEs revealed
Today there will be relatively big reforms for GCSEs. Grading is to move from A*-G to 8-1 (similar to the old O Level style). Furthermore, there will be more emphasis on exams after the two years - with less coursework.


New-look GCSEs for schools in England are to be unveiled, with exams graded from eight to one rather than A* to G.From 2015, GCSEs will move from coursework and continuous assessment to exams at the end of two years.
There will be an emphasis on more rigorous content, such as making sure that pupils studying English read the whole of a Shakespeare play, a 19th-Century novel and more poetry.
There is no sign of a change in name to I-level - as had been suggested.
The format, though, may be familiar to anyone who once took O-levels.
Wales and Northern Ireland are keeping GCSEs, but so far are not adopting the changes proposed for England.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22841266

Thoughts?

[Kardan]

I'm not a fan of the proposed changes to putting the exams at the end of the course personally. And someone please tell me the benefit of changing A*-G to 8-1?

[AgnesIO]

I'm not a fan of the proposed changes to putting the exams at the end of the course personally. And someone please tell me the benefit of changing A*-G to 8-1?

Guess it merely distinguishes between the current GCSE and the new GCSE (and Gove wanting O Levels back...)

[Kardan]

Guess it merely distinguishes between the current GCSE and the new GCSE (and Gove wanting O Levels back...)

Ahh, so when a child gets told they are getting a Level 4 in their Sats, they should get a C at GCSE, which will now be called a Level 5. And a Level 5 Sats, is a B at GCSE, which is now a Level 6.

Well done, you got a 5! So that means you're a 6!

All a bit pointless really... If this does go ahead, I'm sure in 10/20 years we'll go back to letter grading.

[lemons]

I'm not a fan of the proposed changes to putting the exams at the end of the course personally. And someone please tell me the benefit of changing A*-G to 8-1?

I think I read somewhere so that in the future the highest grade can be raised to 9, 10 etc Unlike now

I'm so glad I'm finishing my GCSES this year but I wish there was no coursework, because it's brought some of my grades down a bit especially in English. Plus in English we read about 3 Shakespeare plays and 15 poems wtf is Gove on about?

[Red]

For us it was exams at the end of two years anyway, and I think doing it in modules makes it easier on other people. Also we did Shakespeare, poetry and all that jazz :S I would have also preferred less coursework but I'd imagine it will probably make it more difficult for most people. Don't like the idea of them changing the grading system to numbers :S

[MKR&*42]

Why are they changing to numbering lool. Lettering is fine, that' a silly and unnecessary change (didn't expect any less).

I studied Shakespeare in year 7, year 8, year 9 and year 10 - I can't comprehend that some schools would never teach a whole book on it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

'Deckchairs' and 'Titanic' spring to mind.

[Grig]

This is foolish.

Everyone is moving away from solely assessing on examinations to more continuous assessment, not the opposite way round.

[Kardan]

I think Gove is so out of touch of the education system it's unreal. He's saying that people don't do 1 Shakespeare play or do poetry? Everyone does Shakespeare, I studied 2 plays, Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer Night's Dream (and yes, that meant reading through it all :P), and I'm sure everyone on here has done at least one as well.

And he's saying we don't do poetry? Does he not know of the massive anthology book everyone has to read through and you spend months upon months studying them. It's mad.

Apparently you can get your hands on a guide for the news Maths system for Year 4's, and there's no mental maths or division. Apparently Maths should be more about problem solving rather than... sums and equations. Yeah, Okay. Good luck with that. And people wonder why more and more schools are becoming academies so they can move away from the curriculum.

[Ardemax]

Because Gove knows all about state education, the ****.

[Amberr]

I don't see how making students read through the whole of a shakespeare play over what they do now is better. Also the poetry thing? Have they not seen the size of that dreaded anthology book, I never wanted to read another poem again after GCSE. Changing the letters to numbers as well is just pointless, as Kardan pointed out, there is no benefit whatsoever. I heard on the radio this morning driving to college that they were thinking of changing the name to I-levels or something ridiculous? Unless they were joking I don't know.

[dbgtz]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oHfzDFoVDvk/UEYRaaaY5EI/AAAAAAAAF9M/afSgSxxnk_0/s1600/Stephen-Collins-17-March--001.jpg

Stupid policies.

[Inseriousity.]

I actually think the reason for the numbered system makes sense. If you need higher grades to distinguish between the borderline A*s and the outstanding A*s, having A** could start getting ridiculous. Having 8-1 means you can just add 9, 10 etc. It'd start getting a bit ridiculous if you add too many but on the whole, easier to use numbers.

The changes to the syllabus though are based on sweeping generalisations of the "dumbing down" of education, where if you actually spent any time in a school you'd know are unfounded. Everyone knows, for example, that you'd need to read the whole of Shakesphere or Of Mice and Men to answer the question even if the question itself focused on a particular Act or chapter.

[Chippiewill]

Everyone is moving away from solely assessing on examinations to more continuous assessment, not the opposite way round.
Schools are doing it so they get better grades so they don't get put into special measures by ofsted. Not because its better for the students.

[GommeInc]

I don't understand how changing fro A* to a number system changes anything - they're still just a way to grade results. The cost to change the system just for that seems a waste of resources from the get go.

The education system in this country is becoming worse and worse each year. Just teach core subjects and leave sixth form for the subjects which look into specific areas of a core subject. Art is art, it can incorporate painting, sculpture, photography and art history. Don't break up the subject just to spite the quality of teaching all for the chance students may be interested in too specific a subject area. It's like English being broken up into more than Literature and Language - Drama shouldn't be a subject, it can be taught in English Literature and Language when studying Shakespeare and other related texts.

Is this just all too obvious or have I lost my marbles and a grip on reality? :S

[Kardan]

I actually think the reason for the numbered system makes sense. If you need higher grades to distinguish between the borderline A*s and the outstanding A*s, having A** could start getting ridiculous. Having 8-1 means you can just add 9, 10 etc. It'd start getting a bit ridiculous if you add too many but on the whole, easier to use numbers.

The changes to the syllabus though are based on sweeping generalisations of the "dumbing down" of education, where if you actually spent any time in a school you'd know are unfounded. Everyone knows, for example, that you'd need to read the whole of Shakesphere or Of Mice and Men to answer the question even if the question itself focused on a particular Act or chapter.

But a current A* is already 90% of the marks. Why would we need a higher grade when each grade is done in 10%s?
And what is the point in differentiating between someone that got 90% and someone that got 93%? In what situation would someone even go 'No, you only got an A*, not an A** (or in the new case 8/9). GCSEs are pointless as long as you get 5 inc Eng, Maths (maybe Science in some places) above a C. Seems pointless.

[Inseriousity.]

But a current A* is already 90% of the marks. Why would we need a higher grade when each grade is done in 10%s?
And what is the point in differentiating between someone that got 90% and someone that got 93%? In what situation would someone even go 'No, you only got an A*, not an A** (or in the new case 8/9). GCSEs are pointless as long as you get 5 inc Eng, Maths (maybe Science in some places) above a C. Seems pointless.

I think the key word there is 'current' :P Universities and business leaders have been campaigning the government for a while hence the change. That's what politicians respond to: pressure groups.

[Special]

no point in this i bet when a pupil gets a score of '3' the teacher will just say 'yeah it's the same as a B'

[-:Undertaker:-]

The government can change and move around how the exams are done/taken all it wants, the fact is that while masses of children in our country learn dance, art, music, drama, and media - over in China and the far East they are learning english, mathematics, history, geography, the sciences...

And there can only be one economic winner at the end of it if that trend continues, and it ain't us.

[Ardemax]

The government can change and move around how the exams are done/taken all it wants, the fact is that while masses of children in our country learn dance, art, music, drama, and media - over in China and the far East they are learning english, mathematics, history, geography, the sciences...

And there can only be one economic winner at the end of it if that trend continues, and it ain't us.

Worth a watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNR0AuGnoUg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[AgnesIO]

Worth a watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNR0AuGnoUg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Certainly an entertaining watch haha :L

[Chippiewill]

Worth a watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNR0AuGnoUg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Perhaps entertaining but entirely besides the point he was attempting to make. Something which actually some some consequence would be to take a 30 year old o-level paper and read that out too and also compare them. All this proves is that both parties are idiots.