Entering GCSEs Early

[daveg]

As the best result will count from those taken in the same series, I suspect that the poor blighters will end up taking an igcse and a gcse a few days apart.

The statement from the DfE makes it quite clear that they would do so at their peril.

Where exams are taken at the same time, in the same series, the best result will continue to count. Schools will want to think carefully about whether this is in the best interests of their pupils. The Department for Education will continue to collect data on entry patterns, and will share that data at a school level with Ofsted.

That's an iron fist in an iron glove. What the DfE are saying is that if schools want to behave like teenagers, and respond to being told to stop abusing the system by finding another way to abuse the system, they can, but bad stuff will ensue. And they're also saying that an Ofsted inspection will ask "is your entry policy in the best interests of your pupils", and schools will need to be able to justify it in terms other than league table hacking.

Gove's blocked the obvious abuse (early entry) and left open the opportunity for schools that want to make what amounts to a request for a hostile emergency inspection to do so.

[mystery]

I was talking to some of the teachers at ds1's school about this today, and they're saying they'll still look to enter some of the more able ones for one non core subject early where possible - e.g. GCSE statistics for the able mathematicians, maybe PE for some of their high achieving sportsmen who are already performing at grade A/A* level on the practical side, perhaps a non curriculum "interest" subject like astronomy for some, so that they've had a feel for what doing a GCSE feels like, without the pressure of doing lots at once at the same time as getting used to revision and exam technique for the first time.

That does not sound unreasonable.

[mystery]

The publication of performance data benefits parents and acts as a spur to improve performance. We will publish more such data than ever before.

That was 1997 - Schools White Paper (Excellence in Schools) - New Labour. Since then it has just got worse and worse with successive governments putting more and more emphasis on data, 'standards', performance measurement and the like.

'We', meaning M. Gove, are turning to the Far East because 'we' have a deluded idea of the value of children and childhood and have confused it with measurability and outcomes - it is easier to justify our delusion by invoking apparently relevant policies from other lands which are far enough away for people not to know in any detail what goes on. It is excruciatingly sad and no one seems to want to stop it.

I am lucky as I do not know anyone who has suffered from this during their childhood over that period of time. My stepson's school improved considerably during this period of time, partly due to a new head. The previous one might possibly have been out on his ear if there had been more data available during his reign. The stats do not necessarily demonstrate which reign was better but the earlier head was, by all accounts, more likely to have been a blight on childhood than the second.

Data is certainly not the be all and end all but some people are going to compare it these days whether governments promote this or not. It has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it is better than a completely secretive system. Also, it quite often enables inequalities to be looked at.

[daveg]

Data (...) has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it is better than a completely secretive system. Also, it quite often enables inequalities to be looked at.

It is interesting that some people look at teachers engaged in wholesale fiddling of the system, and conclude from that that if the incentives were different, those same teachers would act purely in the interests of their pupils. The loss of moral compass is a one-way journey, and people who are willing to adopt the "I was only obeying orders" or "they made me do it" approach to educational policy are unlikely to become enlightened angels just because the orders are different. Historically failing schools were only known to the middle classes, who either taught or had friends who did and therefore could access the grapevine; a return to those days would not promote the reduction of inequality.

The "equivalent to 4 GCSE" non-qualifications which were offered, of course, purely because of their educational excellence, suddenly became less educationally excellent when the league table equivalence was altered. The schools discussing changing exam timings over the next six months are openly admitting that the practice of November entry was not in the children's best interests (if it were, why would yesterday's announcement change it?) It's hard to conclude from this that senior management in teaching is over-burdened with concern for their pupils.

[Guest55]

It's hard to conclude from this that senior management in teaching is over-burdened with concern for their pupils.

I object to this gross generalisation. Many schools do look out for the interests of their students; for me it is the moral purpose that brought me into teaching.

[daveg]

I object to this gross generalisation.

I was unclear. The "from this" was meant to imply "in schools that do early entry." I did not mean to imply "all". I obviously ended up doing so, and for that I apologise. What's it that politicians say? "I misspoke". Sorry.

However, although clearly not all, the cap obviously fits more than a few heads (in both sense). The removal of the perverse incentives for early entry have been met with howls of protest from head teachers.

Brian Lightman, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the change would pile "pressure and stress" on to students.
He said: "We have repeatedly warned about the damaging effects of piecemeal changes to the qualifications system. It is grossly unfair to make changes like this when courses are already under way. This is adding pressure and stress to students in the most important year of their education. Whatever the rights and wrongs of early entry, students, teachers, parents and employers just do not know where they are in the context of constant tinkering with examinations."

If early entry were in the best interests of their students, yesterday's announcement would have no effect: schools would carry on doing precisely what they do already, knowing it to be in the best interests of students. The only reason why a head would suddenly change their exam entry policy and withdraw pupils from Nov 2013 sittings (causing stress, etc) would be precisely if they were not acting in the students' best interests in the first place. Why would a student even need to know about this change, if the head's motives were benign? Who, exactly, is piling "pressure and stress" onto pupils in this case? "Grossly unfair" to whom?

[Amber]

What's it that politicians say? "I misspoke". Sorry

Do they? Politicians usually say something like 'what I want to make absolutely clear is...' and then continue by wriggling, evading and deflecting a question, and making nothing at all absolutely clear. I certainly don't think I have ever heard one utter the 's' word, at least not in personal terms. If a politician stood on your toe s/he would say it was a legacy of bad shoes left by the previous administration.

Data is certainly not the be all and end all but some people are going to compare it these days whether governments promote this or not. It has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it is better than a completely secretive system. Also, it quite often enables inequalities to be looked at.

Well I am not so sure that provision of data does anything to prevent 'secrecy' - it can be used as a smoke screen to obscure the real issues. If we have a tick-box culture of measuring everything, even things which were never designed to be measured, we risk losing sight of the human values which were originally intended to underlie education. As for inequality - the more we celebrate 'diversity' (academies/free schools/selective and independent schools/top tables/top sets etc) the more we perpetuate inequality. We can't be promoting it on the one hand and sucking our teeth over it on the other.

for me it is the moral purpose that brought me into teaching.

And me. And the reason I left teaching is largely because I felt I could no longer operate by that moral purpose - it had been stripped from me by successive edicts and data-driven reforms.

PS - good to see you back daveg

[Rob Clark]

If we have a tick-box culture of measuring everything, even things which were never designed to be measured, we risk losing sight of the human values which were originally intended to underlie education

Indeed. And furthermore we run the risk of starting to see the measuring as an end in itself whereby the aim becomes to measure something rather than to use that measure to effect changes, or even decide if changes are required.

DD's school (secondary modern) does split GCSEs – half in Y10, half in Y11. Why the school thinks this is a good idea when none of the local GSs do the same, goodness only knows but I'm pretty certain it doesn't benefit either the stronger or the weaker elements of the cohort. Maybe a small proportion in the middle get more Bs and Cs that way, which maybe benefits the school's league table standing in the '5 A-Cs' category… Or maybe I'm overly cynical

[magwich2]

It just gets worse - now it seems that there is a new statistic looked at by the best universities. They want to work out the proportion of A* grades. So, better to have 8A* than 10A* and 2 As. Ridiculous!!!

[mystery]

So whoever thinks up these universities' admissions policies is not very good at maths. Has anyone written to the correct person to ask them why they think this is a good measure? Perhaps it is someone who did not scrape a C at GCSE.

I don't think that just because a lot of people are not great at statistics that it is not a good idea to publish them. I thought we were talking mostly about GCSE and A level results in "performance tables" with a bit of extra data chucked in if you are lucky re. free school meals, levels on entry, special needs, boys versus girls, English as an additional language etc. If the DfE didn't do them, even more newspapers would do their rubbish ones with half the schools missed out and no contextual information. And all the DfE is doing is compiling public data into one big spreadsheet. People can read what they want, or don't want, into it.

Schools have websites and on there the opportunity to write something along with their results. So, when I look at the academy my children would automatically go to and see that a lowish percentage of children who arrive there with level 5s make expected progress in Maths and English I find it curious - I then look to see if there is any reason for this --- maybe the school will tell me why when I go and look round ---- if I can't see a good reason I'll steer clear. It was useful to me. I don't know how I would find out otherwise. It's a long bus ride away. I don't know anyone who goes to the school. I don't know anyone who teaches there.