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

antrobus

ruggedtoast wrote: »

...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.

Favour the 'academic oriented'? I thought that was the whole point of bleepin exams in the first place!

chewmylegoff

borntobefree wrote: »

I guess you are over 42 sir? After all, Thatcher got rid of O'Levels because they sucked yet everyone treats them as a long lost national treasure. Go figure?

No, I am 33.

Frankly, I don't think it matters what exams are used to measure "standards", standards will continue to decline (whatever exam results tell you) unless someone addresses the underlying shortcomings within the education system, which increasingly fails to ensure that all pupils are literate and numerate.

I also don't think that replacing one set of exams with another renders the previous qualifications to be "worthless" as you can still write down what qualifications you have and show them to an employer who can take them into account.

Qualifications are only worthless to the extent that a potential employer (or further education establishment) considers them to be worthless. Government cannot render a qualification worthless by replacing it.

ruggedtoast

I worked in an exam board for a while and once had to audit the Keyskills papers that various schools sent in for under 12s. Not for quality purposes, just to check the papers matched the class lists.

I did look through some of them though and was struck by what an immense difference there was between the state schools and fee paying schools. The fee payers, even very young, mostly wrote coherently and lucidly and gave the correct answers to the various problems.

Even the better state schools got nowhere near this level, and the worst ones I actually found fairly heart breaking as the majority of the kids had obviously tried quite hard to answer these questions without ever having been educated to be able ti do so.

Sometimes for the maths questions you got an especially bright kid who would almost get there just by using the working as an example, but what chance would they ever really have if the difference was that stepped at that age.

Its clear that state education is not fit for purpose, but I dont see how giving them a different exam to fail after 12 years of hopeless teaching is going to help.

Pennywise

Forget all the faffing about with the GCSEs etc. We need to bring back grammar schools in every town, together with technical colleges.

The academic can go to the grammar, the non academic can learn a trade or technical skills.

Comps don't help anyone. The less able are still relentless pushed towards exams they are probably incapable of. The gifted aren't stretched. One size doesn't fit all.

That way, the technical schools can concentrate on numeracy and literacy so that we would no longer have 40% of pupils failing the reach the basic standards upon leaving school. Absolutely no point in trying to teach a language or history if the child is barely literate - no point in trying to teach physics if the child is barely numerate - why waste everyone's time trying? Far better to have them coming out of school being numerate and literate alongside some practical skills rather than coming out with a string of E grades at GCSE without practical skills!

sabretoothtigger

They will be bringing back Grangehill next and twirly whirly bars

The main problem with O levels was people forgot the answers by the end of the two year course

chewmylegoff

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Its clear that state education is not fit for purpose, but I dont see how giving them a different exam to fail after 12 years of hopeless teaching is going to help.

i agree, but also it's not simply state education that is not fit for purpose, but also a significant number of parents are not fit to be parents. when i arrived at state primary school i could just about read, write and do very basic maths. my parents also continued to do their part in assisting with my education after i had started school. most children whose parents don't take some sort of responsibility for the education of their child are probably doomed to fail regardless of how good the school they go to is.

this is probably a large factor in why fee paying schools do better - not because they charge people money, but the people who can afford to pay the fees are also more likely to take some sort of responsibility as parents.

ILW

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

They will be bringing back Grangehill next and twirly whirly bars

The main problem with O levels was people forgot the answers by the end of the two year course

Only the less clever ones, and surely that is the whole idea of exams - to work out who is the brightest.

nicko33

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

The main problem with O levels was people forgot the answers by the end of the two year course

They didn't teach answers back then, they taught you how to work out the answer.

olly300

Braveheart100 wrote: »

Just out of interest, how does everyone under the age of 42 feel about being told their qualifications are worthless?

Doesn't sound like a vote winning strategy to me.

(PS I'm guessing not many people posting on this board are under the age of 42?)

Since I've got much higher qualifications like a lot of people under 42 it makes no difference.

What is interesting is people's presumption of the subjects and number of them, you did study to 16 due to the type of school you went to.

olly300

ILW wrote: »

Only the less clever ones, and surely that is the whole idea of exams - to work out who is the brightest.

Having a good memory or practising memory retaining techniques doesn't mean you are clever. The first is genetic luck and the second is a mixture of genetics, personality and upbringing.