Tories turn back the clock, it's back to O Levels

ruggedtoast

The announcements on birchings, fagging, work-houses, and transportation to the colonies for those who fail the 11+ are due next month.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9547460/Michael-Gove-to-unveil-tough-new-O-Level-style-qualifications-for-16-year-olds.html

The replacement for the discredited GCSE will be based on a single, more difficult examination which pupils will set at the end of the school year, rather than working on continually-assessed coursework based on the modular structure.

Mr Gove had originally proposed a two-tier system, based on the old O-Levels for brighter pupils and CSEs for the less academically-gifted, but this was blocked by the Liberal Democrats.

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister, said that the changes would "raise standards for all our children," adding that the exam - the name of which is expected to be announced along with further details of the reforms in the Commons later - will: "not exclude any children".

Asked what would be gained from replacing GCSEs with the new qualification, he said: "Firstly give parents confidence in the exams their children are taking, secondly raise standards for all our children in schools in the country but thirdly and crucially not exclude any children from the new exam system."

Mr Gove had originally hoped to introduced in 2014, but the Liberal Democrats successfully argued for a delay until September 2015, meaning the first grades would be awarded until the spring of 2017.

While I'm all for toughening up GCSE exams, which are far too easy and only really serve to show what low expectations our governments have had for state school students; I am not sure how returning to a system which has already proved itself unable to measure the abilities of the lower 50% of most school leavers is going to help.

Coursework, as long as its assessed properly, is a better measure of how someone is going to knuckle down in the average work place than exams, which favour the academic oriented.

FTBFun

ruggedtoast wrote: »

While I'm all for toughening up GCSE exams, which are far too easy and only really serve to show what low expectations our governments have had for state school students; I am not sure how returning to a system which has already proved itself unable to measure the abilities of the lower 50% of most school leavers is going to help. .

Just curious why you think this is the case?

purch

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I am not sure how returning to a system which has already proved itself unable to measure the abilities of the lower 50% of most school leavers is going to help.

Coursework, as long as its assessed properly, is a better measure of how someone is going to knuckle down in the average work place than exams, which favour the academic oriented.

The problem is that the current GCSE system has also proven to be unable to measure the abilities of the less academically able.

CLAPTON

so basically kicked into the long grass until after the next election
one more meaningless announcement with no content.

ruggedtoast

FTBFun wrote: »

Just curious why you think this is the case?

Partly because O levels have no coursework or practical element. Roughly 50% of kids (in my opinion) are not academic and therefore these abilities will no longer be measured.

And also because 'O' levels used normative marking, where every cohort was marked on a bell curve based on that years results rather than fixed criteria.

Depending on the overall cohort you can have only a few marks between a top grade and a failing one, with most people falling in the middle.

There werent many top grades under O levels because the metrics made that impossible.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Partly because O levels have no coursework or practical element. Roughly 50% of kids (in my opinion) are not academic and therefore these abilities will no longer be measured.

And also because 'O' levels used normative marking, where every cohort was marked on a bell curve based on that years results rather than fixed criteria.

Depending on the overall cohort you can have only a few marks between a top grade and a failing one, with most people falling in the middle.

There werent many top grades under O levels because the metrics made that impossible.

O/Ls certainly did have practical content.
It didn't directly contribute (via course) work to the overall marks but questions were asked about experiments and experimental results

given people's abilities are generally respresented by a vaguely bell curve why is it bad that the results reflect this?

nicko33

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I am not sure how returning to a system which has already proved itself unable to measure the abilities of the lower 50% of most school leavers is going to help.

Maybe they shouldn't be doing O Levels at all. They should be learning plumbing, bricklaying, carpentry and the like

Loughton_Monkey

Education is about learning, application of that learning, self development, developing the brain, encouraging people to think for themselves and giving them tools to do that.

Exam results are a mere 'thermometer' reading taken every few years.

Why is the marginal accuracy of the thermometer reading apparently far more emotive than the [extremely mixed] quality of the education itself?

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

O/Ls certainly did have practical content.
It didn't directly contribute (via course) work to the overall marks but questions were asked about experiments and experimental results

given people's abilities are generally respresented by a vaguely bell curve why is it bad that the results reflect this?

Because you're comparing students against one another for that particular year, rather than comparing them to an overall standard that is employed every year.

Its possible for students to do very badly indeed in normative marking and come out with a high grade, and vice versa, depending on how their cohort performs.

The grade boundaries will be different every year. I am not sure if Gove is proposing this but it is basically what made O levels different; otherwise he may as well just take coursework out of GCSEs.

Incidentally guess who profits from this type of marking that inflates minorities grades highly above the majority based on small margins, I can tell you it isn't state school students.

Carl31

nicko33 wrote: »

Maybe they shouldn't be doing O Levels at all. They should be learning plumbing, bricklaying, carpentry and the like

This. there should be a choice, at say year 9, where the first 3 years teach you general knowledge applicable to any world/work related scenario, then the children can opt for a more practical qualification, maybe backed up with apprenticeship, or a more academic qual to move onto further education with.

Generali

Carl31 wrote: »

This. there should be a choice, at say year 9, where the first 3 years teach you general knowledge applicable to any world/work related scenario, then the children can opt for a more practical qualification, maybe backed up with apprenticeship, or a more academic qual to move onto further education with.

The UK used to have something similar but it upset the socialists.

The GCE (O'Level)/CSE was meant to provide qualifications suited to the child's needs and abilities.