An overhaul of GCSEs in England has been announced by Education Secretary Michael Gove to help pupils in England "compete with the best in the world".

 

From 2015, GCSEs will move from coursework to exams at the end of two years and will be graded from 8 to 1, rather than A* to G.

 

"We need to reform our examination system to restore public confidence," Mr Gove told the House of Commons.

 

Labour's Stephen Twigg attacked "shallow" changes lacking in evidence.

 

Mr Twigg accused Mr Gove of "cutting back on re-sits, while affording himself a fourth attempt at GCSE reform".

 

Mary Bousted, leader of the ATL teachers' union, said the constant change in exams was turning pupils into "Mr Gove's guinea pigs".

 

Head teachers' leader Russell Hobby said the plans for a "more rigorous exam to the existing GCSE contain merit" but warned against an over-hasty implementation. "We need to take time to get any new assessment system right."

 

Wales and Northern Ireland are keeping GCSEs, but so far are not adopting the changes proposed for England.

 

Ofqual head Glenys Stacey says: "We want to see qualifications that are more stretching for the most able students, using assessments that really test knowledge, understanding and skills."

 

There is no sign of a change in name to I-level for the English exams - as had been rumoured.

 

The reforms will initially apply to a group of core subjects - English language and literature, maths, physics, chemistry, biology, combined science, history and geography.

 

 

Hundreds of thousands of pupils will begin studying these revised GCSEs from autumn 2015 and the first candidates to take the exams will be in summer 2017.

 

Apart from exceptions such as practical experiments in science, there will be a shift towards results depending fully on exams taken at the end of two years. It will mean removing the 25% of marks in history, English literature and geography that are currently allowed for controlled assessments.

 

Grading will be by numbers rather than letters - with 8 at the top and 1 at the bottom. The pass mark will be pushed higher, with claims it will compare with the highest-performing school systems, such as Finland and Shanghai.

 

But the National Union of Teachers said Finland used a high level of the type of student assessment being removed from exams in England.

 

The new GCSEs will push for a more stretching, essay-based exam system, reminiscent of O-levels, taken by pupils until the late 1980s.

 

Mr Gove told MPs that previous course specifications "were too vague" and had caused "suspicion and speculation that some exam boards were 'harder' than others".

 

History will require more study of British history. Pupils will have to write an in-depth study of a 25-to-50-year period within a range of eras stretching from 500AD to the present day.

 

There will be a less prominent world history section and pupils will be asked to study a theme such as changes in politics, religion or culture across the medieval, early modern and modern eras.

 

In English literature, exam questions will be designed to ensure that pupils have read the full work.

 

The course content will include at least one play by Shakespeare, a selection of work by the Romantic poets, a 19th Century novel, a selection of poetry since 1850 and a 20th Century novel or drama.

 

For both English language and literature, digital texts are excluded.

 

Maths will promote the idea of developing independent problem-solving skills, rather than setting types of questions that can be rehearsed.

 

Education Minister Elizabeth Truss said: "We do need to start competing against those top performing countries in the world, because for too long we've pretended that students' results are getting better, when all that's been happening is the exams have been getting easier."

 

Brian Lightman, leader of the ASCL head teachers' union, said his greatest concern was about the proposed syllabus changes. "Simply making exams harder does not guarantee higher standards or mean that students will be prepared for a job. The curriculum should stretch and challenge the highest achieving students but it must also engage and motivate those who struggle at the other end."

 

This is the latest stage in Mr Gove's drive to reconfigure the exam system.

 

Last year, Mr Gove announced plans for the scrapping of GCSEs and their replacement with English Baccalaureate Certificates, with each subject to be set by a single exam board.

 

This re-branding was scrapped, with GCSEs to be retained but reformed instead.

 

NUT general secretary Christine Blower said the the government's approach was "rushed".

 

"If you did this by consensus, by actually talking to the profession and understanding how best to examine things, we would be in a much better position."

 

Chris Keates, leader of the Nasuwt teachers' union, attacked the government's claim that the GCSE was a "broken qualification" and said it had "proved itself to be a robust and reliable qualification".

 

She accused the government of driving an "inaccurate and ideologically-driven media attack on the qualification".

 

The latest plans will be put out to consultation over the summer, with a timetable that will see exam boards producing courses to be accredited by Ofqual for teaching in autumn 2015.

 

The prospect of different forms of GCSEs in England, and Wales and Northern Ireland has raised the question of how they will be distinguished from each other.

 

The CBI said employers would want to be "crystal clear about the differences to eliminate any confusion".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22841266

 

So, what does everyone think of these reforms?

I think that it would be much more ideal if teachers divided pupils into doing the old GCSEs (for the non-academic pupils) and the doing the new GCSEs (for the more academic and intelligent pupils).

Grading 8-1 with 8 being the top is going to be ridiculously confusing for cross-border employment as the Standard Grades are marked 1-8 with 1 being the top grade available.

 

 

I doubt this would even take it to the same level as the Scottish education system, never mind Finland! Removing 'controlled assessments' is a good start but cutting back on resits really should be cutting out. You shouldn't get a second chance to take an already easy as hell exam! You get one chance up here and if you fail....tough tits, you should have worked harder.

Why shouldn't there be resits? I wouldn't have passed English Literature if I didn't retake the exam that the examining board unfairly marked and was widely reported in the media last summer. :/

I think that it would be much more ideal if teachers divided pupils into doing the old GCSEs (for the non-academic pupils) and the doing the new GCSEs (for the more academic and intelligent pupils).

What would be the point of that? Someone who did the old GCSEs would be viewed the exact same way as someone who got a bad grade on the new GCSEs (in much the same way as Foundation level Maths limits you to getting a C at best), all for the additional administrative effort of having two systems.

 

As it goes, I'm not really that fussed about a lot of the changes - I don't see anything objectionable in having a more stringent grading system which allows for easier discernment between results, for one, or having just a single exam board. Coursework is largely conducted effectively under supervised exam conditions for a lot of subjects anyway (languages, History, et al so far as I can recall) so I don't see the point in having it as distinct from examinations in those cases. Given the new examinations are intended to assess deep knowledge (i.e., the extent to which someone is fluent at the subject and has taken in the material) then I don't really see the claim that some students 'just aren't suited to exams' - deep knowledge is deep knowledge, you've either taken it in or you haven't. The equivalent would be testing most people on here about Lady Gaga albums or whatever - it isn't something you just forget because of the pressure of exam conditions.

 

Getting rid of resits I'd disagree with - given the point of an exam result is to demonstrate that someone's taken in the ability to process the information by the end of school, it strikes me as arbitrary to have a cut-off point. At the very most they should be cut back to permit just one resit if it has to be reformed. I'd like more vocational alternatives, but then, this isn't what this reform's about so complaining about that would be uncharitable.

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by Kanduälska

Coursework is largely conducted effectively under supervised exam conditions for a lot of subjects anyway (languages, History, et al so far as I can recall) so I don't see the point in having it as distinct from examinations in those cases.

 

Aren't you talking about controlled assessments? They're the ones that are done under supervised exam conditions...

Why shouldn't there be resits? I wouldn't have passed English Literature if I didn't retake the exam that the examining board unfairly marked and was widely reported in the media last summer. :/

The exam board fucking up is hardly the same as flunking and then getting to resit now is it. Also, the marking didn't look that unfair to me tbh. Plus they would have just been remarked up here, and you'd be reissued your certificate. No need to resit at all.

Aren't you talking about controlled assessments? They're the ones that are done under supervised exam conditions...

Yeah. The article says those forms of coursework are being cut out in favour of exams, no?

 

(I'm not sure if they're specified as distinct from coursework, but they weren't for me at least. I don't see much point to coursework either though - almost everybody cheated when it was given as take-home for us, which strikes me as making a bit of a mockery of it all. It may not be the same for everyone, but the principle that that can happen...)

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by Kanduälska

The exam board fucking up is hardly the same as flunking and then getting to resit now is it. Also, the marking didn't look that unfair to me tbh. Plus they would have just been remarked up here, and you'd be reissued your certificate. No need to resit at all.

 

I'd say that changing the grade boundaries and not telling anyone about it is pretty unfair. And I'm not in Scotland, so remarking it would have cost me money just for a fairer exam result that should have given in the first place.

 

Yeah. The article says those forms of coursework are being cut out in favour of exams, no?

 

(I'm not sure if they're specified as distinct from coursework, but they weren't for me at least. I don't see much point to coursework either though - almost everybody cheated when it was given as take-home for us, which strikes me as making a bit of a mockery of it all. It may not be the same for everyone, but the principle that that can happen...)

 

Oh yeah, it does. Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said.

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by Griff

Getting rid of resits I'd disagree with - given the point of an exam result is to demonstrate that someone's taken in the ability to process the information by the end of school, it strikes me as arbitrary to have a cut-off point. At the very most they should be cut back to permit just one resit if it has to be reformed. I'd like more vocational alternatives, but then, this isn't what this reform's about so complaining about that would be uncharitable.

The way I see it, resits give those pupils an unfair advantage to take more knowledge in and better prepare for the exam. My University caps resit grades at a D3 for third year, and I think 1st and 2nd years too, so you can't use the resits to gain a higher mark and thus a better degree classification. Obviously there are no resits for 4th (final) year.

 

Uni is the only place I've come across proper resits. You can resit an end of unit test at Higher Still level here (aka NABs) but they are irrelevant to the SQA and are used by the school to test your knowledge of the unit. Some schools, like mine, will only allow you to sit the final exam if you pass all the NABs. I think there is two resits available in that, but it in no way reflects on your final grade.

 

I just don't think it's fair to allow some to resit when others, who didn't fail, are stuck with their low mark. Unless you do what we can do at Higher Still and sit the entire course again, coursework and all, in an attempt to better your grade the following year.

The whole education system needs reforming, education is meant to be a pathway into the world of work and more and more people are leaving school ill equipped for the world of work.

 

What is the point in knowing about kings and queens or every line of Hamlet but not knowing how to write a cv or manage money?

 

The company I work for tried to recruit a young person they could train up in the marketing department, 48 applications, many with people with some good exam grades but in life skills, constructing a readable cv and covering letter they were bloody useless, we finally took on a young guy from Latvia.

 

Schools should put less emphasis on bullshit like English lit and more teaching kids life skills, communication skills, business and financial skills etc to prepare them for the world of work.

 

Also kids should be allowed to leave school at 14 to learn a trade at college, what is the point in forcing kids who don't want to learn to do GCSE's? They will just disrupt those that do want to learn, let them leave at 14 provided they learn a trade like building, plumbing, mechanics or whatever.

 

Gove's reforms are a start but just papering over the cracks.

I just don't think it's fair to allow some to resit when others, who didn't fail, are stuck with their low mark. Unless you do what we can do at Higher Still and sit the entire course again, coursework and all, in an attempt to better your grade the following year.

This is what I'd permit for all, regardless of whether they'd failed or not they could have the option to resit.

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by Kanduälska

Yeah. The article says those forms of coursework are being cut out in favour of exams, no?

 

(I'm not sure if they're specified as distinct from coursework, but they weren't for me at least. I don't see much point to coursework either though - almost everybody cheated when it was given as take-home for us, which strikes me as making a bit of a mockery of it all. It may not be the same for everyone, but the principle that that can happen...)

 

Also, going back to this, when I've been doing my GCSEs for the last two years, they told us that coursework had been scrapped by the government for controlled assessments. I think it's been like that ever since 2010 or 2011...

I'd say that changing the grade boundaries and not telling anyone about it is pretty unfair. And I'm not in Scotland, so remarking it would have cost me money just for a fairer exam result that should have given in the first place.

Grade boundaries change all the time! The SQA told us that they are subject to change, like if the paper turns out to be ridiculously easy the boundaries will be moved up to account for that, providing the marks coming in actually reflect that.

 

I'm saying the SQA would remark and reissue if it was found to be their error at no cost. If it was people moaning about 'unfair' marking that turned out to be perfectly within the guidelines your school could submit an appeal based on your prelim (mock) grade, other wise....tough tits.

In that case, if take-home coursework has been scrapped in favour of controlled assessments, which are now being scrapped in favour of exams then I'm not sure I see what the fuss is!

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by Kanduälska

This is what I'd permit for all, regardless of whether they'd failed or not they could have the option to resit.

Provided it was marked on the certificate, and thus had to be declared to Universities and Employers, that it was a Resit/2nd sitting grade then that's fine! All our uni's say "on first sitting" meaning they won't accept a resit grade when it comes to giving you an offer.

Really the whole marking thing is the eternal dilemma of grade inflation - do you want a similar proportion of people to be getting the same grades, or a similar performance to be getting the same grades? I'd imagine it's quite rare for the lower proportion to be chosen.

Grade boundaries change all the time! The SQA told us that they are subject to change, like if the paper turns out to be ridiculously easy the boundaries will be moved up to account for that, providing the marks coming in actually reflect that.

 

I'm saying the SQA would remark and reissue if it was found to be their error at no cost. If it was people moaning about 'unfair' marking that turned out to be perfectly within the guidelines your school could submit an appeal based on your prelim (mock) grade, other wise....tough tits.

 

Yeah, but they changed them so much that everyone who thought they knew what they doing didn't get their predicted grade! Only TWO people in my year got above an A. I don't think that's very fair if that sort of scenario happens regularly. Someone in my year apparently wrote an incredible "A" poem and only got a D for it. We were told that the examiner marked people down for very minor mistakes that should not been penalised. I resat it and only just passed those exams. So an attitude of "They shouldn't allow retakes!" is unfair when you don't get a job because of a few idiotic examiners who purposefully wanted to make the exam harder for the sake of it. Also, people in Wales had a much easier pass rate doing the same paper, so that's also basically judging which exam result you've going to get by which country you reside in. I took that exam, so I know what I'm talking about more than anyone else.

 

People always focus on making other people work harder, but what's the problem in being slightly more lenient? :lol:

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by Griff

Yeah, but they changed them so much that everyone who thought they knew what they doing didn't get their predicted grade! Only TWO people in my year got above an A. I don't think that's very fair if that sort of scenario happens regularly. Someone in my year apparently wrote an incredible "A" poem and only got a D for it. We were told that the examiner marked people down for very minor mistakes that should not been penalised. I resat it and only just passed those exams. So an attitude of "They shouldn't allow retakes!" is unfair when you don't get a job because of a few idiotic examiners who purposefully wanted to make the exam harder for the sake of it. Also, people in Wales had a much easier pass rate doing the same paper, so that's also basically judging which exam result you've going to get by which country you reside in. I took that exam, so I know what I'm talking about more than anyone else.

 

People always focus on making other people work harder, but what's the problem in being slightly more lenient? :lol:

1. Perchance, was the source that testified to that incredible "A" poem the person who wrote it?

 

2. The number of jobs in the economy won't change as a result of exam boundaries being made more stringent, so if everyone who got a B beforehand gets a job now gets a C, then they'll probably still get a job - but those people who probably shouldn't have been getting a B anyway will now be more accurately assessed. Exam boundaries being made more stringent will make it easier to assess who is the most able - and whose qualifications are more suited to given jobs/university places (therefore hopefully making it less likely that the more academically able end up unemployed, which is an inefficient use of resources). Making an exam harder is never for the sake of making it harder, but for the sake of allowing skills to be properly discerned and to see what level of knowledge and ability someone is operating at - being more lenient runs the risk that someone is seen as having a level of ability that they don't have.

 

You're right in that the Wales thing is an issue, but that's a one-off case and shouldn't be consistently applied to all future exams (at least I hope not - it'd be a shocking oversight if it was)

From what I gather Wales and NI aren't implementing any of these changes and Wales are making some of their own changes which will thus split the UK into having 4 separate exam systems at GCSE level with three of them going by GCSE.

 

 

Surely the different exam boards in England & Wales already has the effect that you're describing in that someone sitting a paper from a different exam body could have got an easier paper and thus gotten a higher mark.