UK education sixth in global ranking

Radiantsoul

CLAPTON wrote: »

In my view the decline dates from the abolition of the O/L and the introduction of the 'no-one must fail' GCSE.
Once that was done, then it was a given that the syllabus had to be dumbed down so that everyone could pass.

But that dates to 1987, which is quite a lot later than the 1970s that the other poster suggested.

It is hard to tell if the subject matter has been dumbed down. Taking mathematics as an example there has been a shift. You can see a 1988 O-Level maths paper here http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!/doc/3119780/O-level-Maths-1988-Paper-2 and a modern GCSE paper(higher, but you need to sit a higher to get the top grades) here http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/pp4hc.pdf

I am not sure there is such a huge gap betwen them.

The_White_Horse

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

The Tory's taking a wrecking ball to education was all so predicatable. Seriously, they are not to be trusted EVER with education.

Our education system was running fantastically but there were way to many state high schools outperforming the private sector schools so something had to be done. What - can't have too many state school kids getting into Oxbridge!


Low and behold this summers mash up....and more to come.

Anyway, we're half way through the coalition's term - roll on June 2015 - can't come soon enough. Hopefully, that'll be the Tories gone for another couple of decades and we can all get back to educating ALL children properly and not just the kids of the richest.

this is an hilarious joke. i haven't laughed this hard in ages.

zagubov

Radiantsoul wrote: »

But that dates to 1987, which is quite a lot later than the 1970s that the other poster suggested.

It is hard to tell if the subject matter has been dumbed down. Taking mathematics as an example there has been a shift. You can see a 1988 O-Level maths paper here http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!/doc/3119780/O-level-Maths-1988-Paper-2 and a modern GCSE paper(higher, but you need to sit a higher to get the top grades) here http://www.bland.in/GCSE%20Maths/pp4hc.pdf

I am not sure there is such a huge gap betwen them.

Been teaching science since the mid-80s . Very much feel that modern students would struggle with older papers.:(

StevieJ

zagubov wrote: »

Been teaching science since the mid-80s . Very much feel that modern students would struggle with older papers.:(

Why would that be?

a) They are a bit thick
b) The teachers are not as good
c) It is a different syllabus
d) The answers have changed ( e.g. we now know that the moon is not made of cheese, or so we are now told )

Radiantsoul

zagubov wrote: »

Been teaching science since the mid-80s . Very much feel that modern students would struggle with older papers.:(

But is that because the qualification has moved from 3 distinct O-Levels to 2 GCSEs, because the syllabus has shifted(more emphasis on ecology and computing for example), because different skills are tested(perhaps with more use of calculators and less memorisation required) or because the exams are just easier.

neilem

Pearson is a parent company of Edexcel, not the most neutral report...

zagubov

Radiantsoul wrote: »

But is that because
1-the qualification has moved from 3 distinct O-Levels to 2 GCSEs, 2- because the syllabus has shifted(more emphasis on ecology and computing for example),
3- different skills are tested(perhaps with more use of calculators and less memorisation required) or
4- because the exams are just easier.

Partly 1, 2 and 3.

4's not really different from 2 and 3.

It's very hard to compare but it seems there's much less rote-learning now and difficult concepts keep on getting postponed to higher- level study.

kbrumann

National educational rankings are a distraction, international once just useless. There is a league table for everyone, pick the one where you come first. This rankings combine international test results and data such as "graduation rates" between 2006 and 2010.

As it is difficult not to pass GCSEs and pretty much everyone can get three A levels the UK simply has a higher pass rate than countries with stricter grading (e.g. Switzerland, France, Germany).

Radiantsoul

zagubov wrote: »

Partly 1, 2 and 3.

4's not really different from 2 and 3.

It's very hard to compare but it seems there's much less rote-learning now and difficult concepts keep on getting postponed to higher- level study.

I think a lot reflects changes "society" wants to see. Rote learning is less relevant in the computer age, it is interesting to me that some people in this thread struggled to find the report online, or did not even look for it.

The trend to pushing back difficult concepts will probably continue as the UK level of specialisation in three A-Levels is quite unusual. It seems we are going to study more subjects and so the depth will necessarily be less.

GeorgeHowell

You can't blame state sector teachers entirely, though as with any profession there must be good, bad, and indifferent among them.

The primary blame must go to the wooly, leftie, arrogant education so-called experts who have been allowed to hijack strategic thinking about education under governments of both colours for a couple of generations.

A lot of teachers must be demoralised by the chop and change in recommended methods, the inability to impose reasonable discipline, and the ludicrously over-protective and risk-averse child protection and health & safety regulations which put everything into a straitjacket.

A similar bunch of arrogant, leftie, busybody, know-nothings has hijacked management of the criminal justice system over a similar period of time, resulting in a demoralised police force and less protection for the public against crime, with no offsetting benefit in rehabilitation of criminals.

As long as politically motivated idiots who have never had a proper job are allowed to dictate to those who are trying to do a proper job then the decline will continue.