[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Even if the GCSEs are not broke I still have a problem with them.
It is this...

The aim is to teach children to high standards - not just to pass the GCSE. Now say in a maths class, in the final year you will be teaching quite "difficult" subjects like geometry, algebra, equations and the like. Out of thirty pupils in your class at least 30% have not even got to that stage. How do you teach the bright ones and help the average ones without ignoring the dim ones?
And how do you design an exam that can test all?

Well... the danger is that the exam has to be set at an average level, otherwise half the class will be looking at the questions like a foreign language. Unfortunately, the follow on from this is that the teaching can also be set at an average level, maybe not intentionally, as the aim is "just" to pass the exams . If the bright ones get A+ no need to do any more - is there?

No, that's not really how it works.

Most schools are banded, setted, streamed, etc. So you might have 5 sets, each of a different level. With GCSE you have different tiered papers. The higher tiered papers cover a broader range than the lower tier, so (for example - I'm not a maths teacher) your geometry questions will only appear on the more difficult paper (if that's the most difficult thing they do).

So your less bright pupils - the ones sitting foundation tier - are in a different class, and don't hold back the brightest kids.

Having two tiers of one paper is quite different to 'O' Level/CSE, where you would have two completely different courses.

Pupils who are of middle ability can leave the choice of what tier to sit right up to the day of the exam. Some put on a last minute spurt. Again, this flexibility is completely absent if you go for 'O' Level/CSE.

But the idea that you have the brightest pupils, capable only of a grade F, in the same class as someone you're trying to stretch to get an A*...well, it just doesn't happen. Or at least, if any schools are still stupid enough to try this, they only have themselves to blame.

Cliff, absolutely no offence to you, but this is the problem with the whole debate, and this is why Rasczak is so wrong. We have people debating the issue who really don't know the first thing about the system.

In this thread we've had people saying GCSEs have to go because kids can copy coursework off the internet. Totally impossible, as we've seen. We have people in the general public who think there's coursework, modular exams, re-sits, and A* pupils being taught in the same class as grade G pupils.

It's just a woefully uninformed debate.

And Rasczak wants education policy driven by Daily Mail readers who want us to go back to the 1950s. We need people in the classroom telling us what’s going on.

Universities know what ‘A’ Level is lacking, so let the lecturers and 6th form teachers sort that out. Many secondary schools have 6th forms, so teachers teach both GCSE and ‘A’ Level, so they can sort that out.

But they can’t sort it out if they’re constantly told what to do by people who have never set foot in a classroom. And if there’s a problem with the education system, it’s because that’s what has been happening for too long. Anyone who believes it’s because we have teachers who don’t know or care about teaching is deluded.

Steve W

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

And Rasczak wants education policy driven by Daily Mail readers who want us to go back to the 1950s. We need people in the classroom telling us what’s going on.

No, I want an education system that is credible and useful to employers and believe, based on my own experiences as an employer a few years back, that this can be achieved by:

1. Setting high standards and assessing them with rigorous exams that are credible to people outside of the educational establishment.

2. Teaching and assessing children in core subjects (English, Maths, History, Foreign Languages) that will be useful to them both in life and in the context of their citizenship of the United Kingdom, Europe and the World.

3. Having competent and effective teachers who know their subject, don't have to resort to hyperbole, have an excellent grasp of English/Maths and are able to teach all perspectives with an open mind.

I don’t think any of that is too much to ask - and clearly neither does Gove as he is working towards all three. I could also add it would be nice to have teachers/an educational establishment that was a little bit more dynamic rather than regarding ANY tweak of the system as a personal attack against them.

[logiciel]

Originally Posted by Pecker

But the idea that you have the brightest pupils, capable only of a grade F, in the same class as someone you're trying to stretch to get an A*...well, it just doesn't happen. Or at least, if any schools are still stupid enough to try this, they only have themselves to blame.

I thought that not only does that happen, bu that it was exactly what was meant to happen in our enlightened education system.
I thought that schools that did not, not only try it but do it all the time, would have the DofE down on them like a ton of bricks.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

No, I want an education system that is credible and useful to employers and believe, based on my own experiences as an employer a few years back, that this can be achieved by:

1. Setting high standards and assessing them with rigorous exams that are credible to people outside of the educational establishment.

2. Teaching and assessing children in core subjects (English, Maths, History, Foreign Languages) that will be useful to them both in life and in the context of their citizenship of the United Kingdom, Europe and the World.

3. Having competent and effective teachers who know their subject, don't have to resort to hyperbole, have an excellent grasp of English/Maths and are able to teach all perspectives with an open mind.

I don’t think any of that is too much to ask - and clearly neither does Gove as he is working towards all three. I could also add it would be nice to have teachers/an educational establishment that was a little bit more dynamic rather than regarding ANY tweak of the system as a personal attack against them.

I can see no reason that we can't do that under GCSE, and I see no reason that a switch to 'O' Level/CSE would ensure any of that would happen.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by logiciel

I thought that not only does that happen, bu that it was exactly what was meant to happen in our enlightened education system.
I thought that schools that did not, not only try it but do it all the time, would have the DofE down on them like a ton of bricks.

My understanding is that schools are free to set (or not) as they see fit.

If a school teaches all mixed ability and the exam grades suffer, this'll be picked up by OFSTED. If a school teaches mixed ability and succeeds...well, good luck to 'em.

Steve W

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I can see no reason that we can't do that under GCSE, and I see no reason that a switch to 'O' Level/CSE would ensure any of that would happen.

Steve W

Can we change the terminology to Single and Dual tier?

Constant use of GCSE is certainly confusing me, as I don't know which aspect we're talking about.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I can see no reason that we can't do that under GCSE, and I see no reason that a switch to 'O' Level/CSE would ensure any of that would happen.

Steve W

Because the GCSE brand is tinted with all the factors stated...

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

Can we change the terminology to Single and Dual tier?

Constant use of GCSE is certainly confusing me, as I don't know which aspect we're talking about.

How are you confused?

Their are single and dual tiered GCSEs, so I'm not sure how helpful that is.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Because the GCSE brand is tinted with all the factors stated...

Once more, and I'll speak up for the hard of hearing/understanding, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A NAME CHANGE.

Steve W

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Once more, and I'll speak up for the hard of hearing/understanding, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A NAME CHANGE.

If only you listened rather than shouted. The solution requires more than just a name change - that would simply not be accepted as credible by those whom it needs to convince (i.e. employers).

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Pecker

How are you confused?

Their are single and dual tiered GCSEs, so I'm not sure how helpful that is.

Steve W

You've mentioned your pretty much happy to change all the bits of GCSEs (coursework, modular exams, exam boards ...) and also change the name.

What part of GCSE do you want to keep? that is what is confusing me.

[neilios]

I do think something has gone wrong somewhere,i recently attended a group interview for enrolment to a access to healthcare course.Within this interview we had to do a couple of english tests.
Out of a class of around twenty ,3 got no correct answers,quite a few more got just over half right.
Bearing in mind these students are going to be aplying for uni,and some already have A levels,gcse's, whats going on?????

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

You've mentioned your pretty much happy to change all the bits of GCSEs (coursework, modular exams, exam boards ...) and also change the name.

What part of GCSE do you want to keep? that is what is confusing me.

Gaz, I thought I'd made that obvious.

We need to stay away from a system which offers completely different courses (as we had, and would have again with 'O' Level/CSE) to pupils from the age of 14.

Without question, this would happen with any return to a 2 tier course system. We need one course with different tier exams (if necessary).

Ultimately, that's what GCSE was.

GCSE is not about coursework (I've worked to terminal exam assessment for over a decade).

It's not about multiple re-sits (my pupils have been allowed only one re-sit, and that for only one half of the course).

Let's be clear, in direct response to your post, there is no more 'coursework'. There are no more re-sits.

End of. Gone. That's the current GCSE.

No, GCSE vs 'O' Level/CSE is about whether you teach pupils of different abilities completely different courses, deciding which they take at the end of Year 9, aged 14. That is, and always has been, the fundamental difference between the two.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by neilios

I do think something has gone wrong somewhere,i recently attended a group interview for enrolment to a access to healthcare course.Within this interview we had to do a couple of english tests.
Out of a class of around twenty ,3 got no correct answers,quite a few more got just over half right.
Bearing in mind these students are going to be aplying for uni,and some already have A levels,gcse's, whats going on?????

In a way, this means very little unless we know the standard of the tests. I mean I could be a KS2 SAT exam, in which case it'd be pretty dire, or it could be an Englush Lit degree paper, in which case no one would be surprised.

But let's not get away from the issue. How would returning to 'O' Level help solve this?

Steve W

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Gaz, I thought I'd made that obvious.

We need to stay away from a system which offers completely different courses (as we had, and would have again with 'O' Level/CSE) to pupils from the age of 14.

Without question, this would happen with any return to a 2 tier course system. We need one course with different tier exams (if necessary).

Ultimately, that's what GCSE was.

GCSE is not about coursework (I've worked to terminal exam assessment for over a decade).

It's not about multiple re-sits (my pupils have been allowed only one re-sit, and that for only one half of the course).

Let's be clear, in direct response to your post, there is no more 'coursework'. There are no more re-sits.

End of. Gone. That's the current GCSE.

No, GCSE vs 'O' Level/CSE is about whether you teach pupils of different abilities completely different courses, deciding which they take at the end of Year 9, aged 14. That is, and always has been, the fundamental difference between the two.

Steve W

Thanks Pecker, you've finally made your position clear, up until now I honestly didn't know what it was.

So this is the tiered thing as I mentioned, but as you've cleared up what you mean by GCSE I'm happy (can actually frame an argument).

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

In a way, this means very little unless we know the standard of the tests. I mean I could be a KS2 SAT exam, in which case it'd be pretty dire, or it could be an Englush Lit degree paper, in which case no one would be surprised.

But let's not get away from the issue. How would returning to 'O' Level help solve this?

I'm sure neilios can clarify in his specific example but, in the vast majority of cases, employers do not test English Literature - they tend to be more interested in whether their potential employers can use/understand English Language. I would have thought that obvious, but clearly not. Regardless his example highlights one of the key issues - an employer having to conduct their own literacy tests because they cannot trust or rely on the quality of the GCSE.

So your question - how would returning to point is returning to an 'O' level style exam - is answered succinctly by saying a tough exam which filters the exceptional, good, average, below average and weak would be of great benefit to employers. My perception - along with many others it would seem - is that GCSE in its current form doesn't do that.

[Cliff]

The reason that Gove and others are saying that we should go back to the GSE/CSE type system is pretty clear to me. The employers are complaining that kids from school might have passed their GCSEs but have a poor basic education. That might be a lack of basic English writing skills, arithmetic or science. In the 'olden' days if you got an English O level it was a standard that could be relied on. Although there was always pressure for schools to do well, and rightly so, there was not the grade inflation. The examining boards had high standards and respectable pass was a C and a good pass was a B. An A was exceptional! God knows who invented the A* ( maybe everybody was getting As so they had to invent an off the scale grade!

If, as you say the GCSE can be two tiered so the bright kids have something to get their teeth into then maybe the exam is fit for purpose. However, this does not fix the issue of kids coming out of school not knowing the 3 Rs. That means changes to the curriculum.

If that is done and classes and exams become harder, the GSCE has to be renamed as grades in the future will not be the equivalent of the grades today.

[neilios]

Originally Posted by Pecker

In a way, this means very little unless we know the standard of the tests. I mean I could be a KS2 SAT exam, in which case it'd be pretty dire, or it could be an Englush Lit degree paper, in which case no one would be surprised.

But let's not get away from the issue. How would returning to 'O' Level help solve this?

Steve W

It was a group of of words that sound sound similar when spoken,such as "access" and "excess" these had to be placed in the appropriate box with the correct meaning,so relatively simple test of english language and use,nothing particulary testing,but some failed to even understand the test and when questioned by the tutor they felt it was a difficult...Some of these students will be the next generation of midwives,nurses and paramedics...
My partner is an assesor and mentor in her postion at work, she feels the current generation of new student staff has dipped remarkably over the past 7 yrs,she often uses the word "thick" in conversations about her latest victim...

This example of course does not support a return to o level which i feel is not the problem,employers must take responsibility for training staff themselves....

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by neilios

This example of course does not support a return to o level which i feel is not the problem,employers must take responsibility for training staff themselves....

Training for the job. Yes.

Teaching them basic communication skills. Absolutely not. Our education system should be giving people the basics.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Cliff

The reason that Gove and others are saying that we should go back to the GSE/CSE type system is pretty clear to me. The employers are complaining that kids from school might have passed their GCSEs but have a poor basic education. That might be a lack of basic English writing skills, arithmetic or science. In the 'olden' days if you got an English O level it was a standard that could be relied on. Although there was always pressure for schools to do well, and rightly so, there was not the grade inflation. The examining boards had high standards and respectable pass was a C and a good pass was a B. An A was exceptional! God knows who invented the A* ( maybe everybody was getting As so they had to invent an off the scale grade!

If, as you say the GCSE can be two tiered so the bright kids have something to get their teeth into then maybe the exam is fit for purpose. However, this does not fix the issue of kids coming out of school not knowing the 3 Rs. That means changes to the curriculum.

Cliff, my personal opinion is that there's little wrong with GCSE that a bit of tweaking to the structure won't fix, but you're spot on to discuss the curriculum.

You can keep a structure, but totally change the outcome by offering a tougher curriculum, changing the grade boundaries, and making the marking a little harsher.

I promised earlier in the thread to give an example, and I'm sorry I haven't done this yet. I'll try a little later today if I get chance.

Originally Posted by Cliff

If that is done and classes and exams become harder, the GSCE has to be renamed as grades in the future will not be the equivalent of the grades today.

That shouldn't really be a problem. Under 'O' Level a CSE Grade 1 counted as an 'O' Level Grade C, then under the first year of GCSE a C at GCSE = old 'O' Level C and/or CSE C.

One more thing, we currently have a teacing body in pretty good shape. It's started to takle a few knocks in the past 2 years, but that's come from about the best it's ever been. The staff are up to it, and the pupils are capable, if they're both given the chance to get on with it.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Okay, you might need to pull up a chair and be a little patient, but I'll tell you about a few changes to the Religious Studies GCSE over the last 10 years or so, and how it might be changed again.

The change is in regards to the most difficult 'Evaluation' questions, which are the ones which separate the A*/As from the other passes (Bs and Cs). They come in the form of a quotation, which must be discussed, so for example:

=====================

"Killing a human being is always wrong"
Discuss *

=====================

* At GCSE it doesn’t just say 'Discuss', but more of that later.

Okay, when I started teaching the old SEG course there would be two of these questions on the paper, worth 10 marks each - a total of 20 marks out of 100.

A good answer would have an opening paragraph setting up the discussion, 3 or 4 paragraphs each making points agreeing with the quote, 3 or 4 disagreeing, then a paragraph with a personal conclusion at the end.

I always told my classes that the conclusion shouldn't be a 'toss of the coin'. They should make some attempt to say why they come down on one side rather than the other.

About 10 years ago we changed to the EDEXCEL course. Now we had 5 sections, each with its own evaluation question. In 4 of the sections the question was worth 4 marks, and in the 5th it was worth 8, a total of 24 marks out of 100 (a little more than with the SEG course).

The difference was, with a 4 mark question, pupils were expected to come up with just four points (two for, one against + 1 in the conclusion, for example). For the 8 mark question they were expected to write something along the lines of Introduction, 3 arguments for, 3 against, conclusion.

So, they were still expected to evaluate, but show fewer arguments. They needed the same evaluation skills, but less depth. However, this depth was then taken up elsewhere in the paper, usually in the 'Understanding' questions, so no real change as such.

After a few years we were told that 'toss of the coin' conclusions were allowed, as long as the content of the body of the essay supported said conclusion. So your 4 paragraphs could be two arguments for, one against, then a conclusion saying "Because of this I agree with that it is always wrong to kill a human being", or the opposite, of course.

Now, the EDEXCEL GCSE changed structure in 2009. We now have 4 sections instead of 5, with the total exam being out of 80. All 4 'Evaluation' questions are worth 6 marks. So, that's a total of 24 out of 80 - the highest proportion yet. But now under the quote it says:

(i) Do you agree? Give reasons for your opinion. (3)
(ii) Say why others may disagree with you. (3)

So now you have two mini-essays worth 3 marks each. Three points are required on each side, which means you need a little more depth.

But your conclusion comes at the start (which irks me more than it should) and simply amounts to “Yes I agree. One reason for this is…”

Okay, back to the topic of how hard GCSEs are/can be.

I don’t think any of this amounts to the Religious Studies GCSE having massively eroded standards. It’s a fairly small, gradual change. It should also be noted that the standard of evaluation required on the old SEG paper was about the most demanding academic standard in GCSE at any subject, and arguable a bit too much. Even ‘A’ Level has (and always has had) only a very small proportion of marks given over to evaluation. I mean this in relation to humanities/English academic standards, which are obviously different to scientific/mathematical ones.

But the important point is that it would be the easiest thing in the world to take the current question structure, and change it to:

"Killing a human being is always wrong"
Say whether or not you agree, ensuring you look at all points of view. (6)

Then only give marks of 5 or 6 out of 6 for those who’ve concluded comprehensively, rather than on a ‘toss of the coin’.

So changing GCSE to something with a sharper edge would be a piece of cake. Only very minor tweaking required to the paper. Very minor sharpening up of the marking structure. And teachers teaching evaluation a little more thoroughly. Pretty much every Religious Studies GCSE teacher has a degree in theology (or similar) so they should know this inside out, and many will already be teaching this at 'A' Level anyway.

As for returning to ‘O’ Level, all I can say is this. I say my ‘O’ Level in Religious Education in 1981. And there were no ‘Evaluation’ questions at all. I had a 2 hour paper in which I had to write 4 essays. Today pupils have to sit two 90 minute papers, and write far more in that time.

'O' Level was a far, far easier exam than the current GCSE.

Steve W

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

As for returning to ‘O’ Level, all I can say is this. I say my ‘O’ Level in Religious Education in 1981. And there were no ‘Evaluation’ questions at all. I had a 2 hour paper in which I had to write 4 essays. Today pupils have to sit two 90 minute papers, and write far more in that time.

'O' Level was a far, far easier exam than the current GCSE.

And how about for the important subjects rather than RE?

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

And how about for the important subjects rather than RE?

I think any subject that requires comprehension, understanding, discussion and then calling on the student to draw up some reasoned conclusions is all part of education. Nothing wrong with a broad knowledge on all things in life.

Wandering off a bit from the subject....

I do find it rather disappointing that RS has been watered down to what sounds like "humanities".
I am not religious myself, but I would expect Religious studies to be about the Bible and the premise that God exists in a Christan context with references to other religions as well?

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by Cliff

I do find it rather disappointing that RS has been watered down to what sounds like "humanities".
I am not religious myself, but I would expect Religious studies to be about the Bible and the premise that God exists in a Christan context with references to other religions as well?

I would expect RS to not be just about the bible or chrisianity.

And I'd much rather the students explored how religion interacted with real world issues rather than focus on the contents of religious texts.

[Pecker]

We certainly do that.

The GCSE course is issues-based, looking at debates about war & peace, crime & punishment (including the death penalty), abortion, euthanasia, drug & alcohol use/misuse, cloning & genetic engineering, and so on. We look equally at different Christian views, Islamic views, and non-religious views.

Pupils can take any stance they like in their answers, as long as they can support them, but they must show they've looked at different points of view, so even a fundamentalist Christian would have to show they understood atheist points of view.

But this thread isn't about justifying RS as a subject. I just wanted to show from my own background how GCSEs in general can be tweaked very slightly to change standards.

Steve W

Steve W