GCSE exams at end of year 11

[Looking for help]

I have to say I am not particularly impressed with this constant changing from one format to another at the whim of the government. My older son sat 10 GCSEs all in one go. The next one did modules in Science, the next one did modules in Science and Maths and now the youngest will be back to the old way. In the space of 5 years there have been so many changes to the formats, it is ridiculous.

Are the A Levels to remain the same, or will they also be terminally assessed ?

I'm not sure that sitting a lot of 11+ exams will make a difference to how the same student will react to a 2 year course in say Science or French, Snowdrops, although I am not an expert.

[moved]

Just one resit for the current modular maths, being taken by years 10 and 11.

[ourmaminhavana]

I'm very pleased that modules are going and hope, like Amber, that there will be more rigour, although I feel for pupils- and their parents- who are in the middle of all of this and agree that there have been far too many changes.
PS I was at a meeting where we were told that English departments lost SEVEN weeks of teaching through assessments.

[aargh]

I understand what you're all saying (about the number of exams in a short time period) with reverting back to the old exam system, but I wonder, how does this compare with the children who sit for the 11+ and end up taking goodness knows how many papers by the time they've sat 2 x 11+ (VR, NVR, Maths and English) then sit for say 1/2/3 independents?

I would say this is not the best system either! Think of the stresses which built this forum If there was a system which fed the brightest into Grammars by using accumulated evidence, that would perhaps be a better reflection. Think of those going to their appeals backed by the academic evidence from their Primaries, because that one exam did not reflect their DCs capability.


I still believe modules give a better assessment of a child's capabilities. Many university courses run modules for this reason.
I had 4 modules for each year of my course. Each of these was assessed using an ongoing accumulation of assignments. Every piece of work we did during our learning contributed to our final grade.

Couldn't Secondary schools adopt a similar cumulative scoring? This would avoid the missed teaching to which OMIH refers and lower the stress levels, because the work the DCs are doing as part of the learning would all be contributing.

The flaw seems to me to be one of execution rather than theory.

I agree with LFH, there is far too much Government interference, mostly because each Gov thinks it needs to make an impression by creating a jazzy new initiative rather than letting a system start to work (or listening to the professionals). There is also a failure in Gov to understand the basic logic that you cannot necessarily improve grades year on year, because you have to let those DCs go and pull up a new set each year so when grades don't improve they make the mistake of thinking the system is deeply flawed.

[Rob Clark]

Well education’s an easy target isn’t it? For the ‘something must be done’ brigade.

Since the country is broke, it’s pretty difficult to tackle the economy or the NHS, but education – you don’t have to throw loads of money at it, all you need is some whizz-bang consultants such as McKinsey to produce a report which is a mixture of the bleeding obvious and the totally meaningless, and you can make changes.

The education minister can thus be seen to be doing something (and is unlikely to still be in office by the time his changes take effect), the government can point to ‘developments’ and everyone is happy – except our DCs who are the guinea pigs and our poor teachers who have to implement yet another rash of ill thought-out measures.

[phaedra]

I fullly agree with Amber's comment too. On the topic of spreading GCSEs out and doing several early - well it's fine for Maths, provided you go on with Maths/further Maths in year 11 and there is some argument for doing a language early if you are at a good standard (but carrrying on with it).

However the more competitive universities want to see GCSEs completed at one sitting, not over two. This is because they don't want to see endless resits (though the odd one or two is fine);to see that children can cope with a heavy workload and because it is not good for children's education (as distinct from qualification gathering) to finish with an important subject at 15. Schools which encourage half to be taken in Year 10 and half in year 11 (apart from exceptions in line with those mentioned above) are concerned more with league table standing than their pupils' education in my view.

[Amber]

Rob- yes!
When I mentioned McKinsey on another thread I was shot down in flames, but I do find it deeply troubling that policy is made based on 'research' carried out by highly remunerated 'consultants', who one week are working in academia and the next have quadrupled their salaries to go and find evidence to support the latest scheme dreamed up by ministers. Ultimately they are accountable to no-one and respected academics can say what they like but because they deal in proper, peer reviewed, thorough study, they cannot compete with the high profile, s e x y stuff churned out by McKinsey et al. Robin Alexander, whose credentials put him in what I consider to be a very authoritative position to comment on the state of our education system, spoke several years ago of 'policy-based evidence' ( as opposed to 'evidence based policy'- the official line) saying that '

under our now highly centralised and interventionist education system those who have the greatest power to prescribe pedagogy seem to display the poorest understanding of it, and the discourse becomes mired in the habitual bombast, mendacity and spin of policyspeak.

Leaving things alone does not make headlines and does not contribute to the profile of politicians anxious to make their mark. It is an artefact of our adversarial political system that once in office, education,as you so rightly say Rob, becomes an easy target. And yes, our children and their unfortunate teachers are the ones who pay the price.

[Rob Clark]

However the more competitive universities want to see GCSEs completed at one sitting, not over two.

phaedra, do you have any direct evidence that this is the case please? At DD’s school they take split GCSEs so I actually called the admissions departments of several universities to ask them whether this was an issue, and they all said it wasn’t (I have this on record, force of professional habit )

I do find it deeply troubling that policy is made based on 'research' carried out by highly remunerated 'consultants'

Don’t get me started on ‘consultants’, Amber. Let’s face it, consultants are never going to recommend the status quo are they? Or say ‘let’s leave it a bit longer and wait and see’. Or ‘we’ve talked to the experts and this is what they say…’

[Amber]

Don’t get me started on ‘consultants’, Amber. Let’s face it, consultants are never going to recommend the status quo are they? Or say ‘let’s leave it a bit longer and wait and see’. Or ‘we’ve talked to the experts and this is what they say…’

Yes, consultants who don't recommend action often find that they are not consulted again, with attendant implications for their finances.

[phaedra]

Rob, I quickly googled and immediately found this on the Russell Group info page (pre-16 quals section) http://russellgroup.org/Informed%20Choices%20final.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I haven't looked further for evidence to show you, though you might find some if you want more.

It states that a number of institutions ask for qualifications taken in one sitting but does not name the institutions. It's a greyish area as many universities may well not be concerned, and others will be loathe to state this categorically as it is not helpful to widening access: it makes people anxious or makes them feel their application is compromised and so universities might miss out on fantastic applicants on the basis of the policy at the school they attended, which they do not want.

The universities you contacted might well not be worried but offical advice from universities does not necessarily reflect their exact preferences - they do not have control over what schools do. It's true to say they try to look at applicants as individuals, complete with the variety of educational backgrounds they come with, so if you are generally happy with your child's school, I really wouldn't be concerned - I'm sorry if my commnent made people unnecessarily anxious. It is, I think, fair to say that school high in league tables tend not to do much of this, except in the kinds of instances I mentioned. I am sure you can find lots of exceptions though, with good reasons for these exceptions.

http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-refor ... e-changes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This, from Ofqual, discusses forthcoming changes to the Key Stage Four curriculum which will ensure that GCSEs are studied for a full two years. this does not mention university entry but is trying to be concerned with best educational practice and the implication arising from the changes, I feel, supports my earlier point.