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

 

No, it was a teacher.

I'm not even really sure why a poem is being done in an exam.

I'm not even really sure why a poem is being done in an exam.

 

It was for English Language and you had to write a poem in the exam. I don't actually know why the examiners set it though.

The English system is SO different to the Irish one I don't even know where to begin, but can I ask HOW so many people get so many A/A*s? What grade is that in percentages? :unsure:

 

Btw, don't ever get rid of your assessments in schools. We don't have them here (it's ALL exam-based) and we're expected to cram six years of hard studying into a 2 or 3 hour exam at the end of secondary school. It turns the whole thing into a memory test and only caters for a certain percentage of students who seem to benefit from rote learning...

The English system is SO different to the Irish one I don't even know where to begin, but can I ask HOW so many people get so many A/A*s? What grade is that in percentages? :unsure:

 

Btw, don't ever get rid of your assessments in schools. We don't have them here (it's ALL exam-based) and we're expected to cram six years of hard studying into a 2 or 3 hour exam at the end of secondary school. It turns the whole thing into a memory test and only caters for a certain percentage of students who seem to benefit from rote learning...

Gove seems to be a big fan of rote learning. It has its place but it is more important to demonstrate an understanding of the subject rather than just a good memory.

 

I was helping my nephew with some maths recently including some work on percentages. He had been given the formula to work out the answer to a question along the lines of "After a 10% increase in price, an item costs £132. What did it cost before the increase?" He knew the formula but didn't really understand why that was the way to work it out. A basic understanding of percentages - and what they mean - would have done away with the need to remember the formula and would demonstrate a better understanding of the subject. My worry is that Gove wants to make things worse.

 

When it was introduced (by the last Tory government) the inclusion of an element of coursework was a good idea. However, the growth of the internet now makes it far easier to cheat so it is time to change again. Perhaps an exam where text books are allowed would keep some of the advantages of coursework while making it harder to cheat. After all, in the real world, there is an advantage in remembering facts, formulae etc. but it doesn't necessarily matter too much if you need to look something up. If you have a good grasp of the subject, you will at least have a reasonable idea of what you need to look up and where to find it.

When it was introduced (by the last Tory government) the inclusion of an element of coursework was a good idea. However, the growth of the internet now makes it far easier to cheat so it is time to change again.

 

As I said easier, they scrapped coursework for controlled assessments a few years ago.

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 completely disagree, GCSEs test what should be base level skills in Maths and English and you'd have to be mad to let kids leave school without proving they are numerate and literate to a decent level - especially now SATS testing (which were crap admittedly) have been scrapped so there's no standardised tests at 14 now.

99% of people are not experienced enough to leave school at 14 anyway!

I completely disagree, GCSEs test what should be base level skills in Maths and English and you'd have to be mad to let kids leave school without proving they are numerate and literate to a decent level - especially now SATS testing (which were crap admittedly) have been scrapped so there's no standardised tests at 14 now.

 

What is more useful to society...

 

A 14 year old sitting at the back of the class dossing and interrupting the teaching of academically minded kids or a 14 year old learning car mechanics or carpentry or plumbing at a college and then being assured of an apprenticeship at the end of the 2 years?

 

Far more useful to them that they learn a trade, far more useful than wasting 2 years in academics.

 

The leave school at 14 would only be for those who enrol in technical college and commit to the course, they don't then they are straight back to school.

 

In terms of academic subjects they need to be changed to reflect the real world, what good is it a kid leaving school knowing about all the kings and queens but not how to write a cv or business plan or manage money?

 

Business

IT

Maths

Sciences

Financial Management

Economics

English language

Employment skills

Communication

 

Should all be mandatory subjects in school that every kid has to do so they are equipped for the real world

 

 

99% of people are not experienced enough to leave school at 14 anyway!

 

They wouldn't be leaving at 14, they would simply be swapping the classroom for technical college where they would learn a trade, simply opting out of academic education would not be an option, they would have to be offered and accepted onto a course like car mechanics, plumbing, carpentry or whatever at a college.

With nearly 1m young people unemployed in this country and the same number again 'economically inactive' it is time that schools stopped focusing on bullshit that kids will not need once they leave school and instead focus on things that will help them in the job market

 

What good is it a youth leaving school and the following happening at an employment agency when they register

 

Agency - "can you write a good covering letter"?

Applicant - "no never been taught that but i can name every king and queen"

Agency - "right, ok, what about cv and application form"?

Applicant - "no sorry but I once read the whole of Hamlet"

 

The majority of stuff kids learn at school is unimportant but they are ill equipped with regards important stuff when they leave school. Needs sorting, no use just blaming the government for youth unemployment, the education system is churning out unemployable youths too.

When I left school in 1978 I hadn't been taught how to write a covering letter or a CV so it's hardly anything new. I'm sure most people have never written a business plan so teaching youngsters how to do that would be no more useful than learning a list of monarchs.

 

Your concentration on the sciences is just as bad as Gove's insistence on the importance of history. Both sets of subjects are important but some people will be better at subjects such as the sciences but others will be better at subjects such as history or geography. The school curriculum should cater for everybody, not just those whose strongest subjects are those considered important by the education secretary of the day who, in the words of the late Robin Day, is a here today, gone tomorrow politician.

When I left school in 1978 I hadn't been taught how to write a covering letter or a CV so it's hardly anything new. I'm sure most people have never written a business plan so teaching youngsters how to do that would be no more useful than learning a list of monarchs.

 

Your concentration on the sciences is just as bad as Gove's insistence on the importance of history. Both sets of subjects are important but some people will be better at subjects such as the sciences but others will be better at subjects such as history or geography. The school curriculum should cater for everybody, not just those whose strongest subjects are those considered important by the education secretary of the day who, in the words of the late Robin Day, is a here today, gone tomorrow politician.

 

We are from a similar generation, I left in 82 and likewise I never covered those things in school but the labour market has changed considerably since then

 

Population explosion

People retiring later

Women working, which was quite rare in our day

Migrant labour

More jobs in our day

 

The labour market has changed so much since we were at school for the above and other reasons so the education system should reflect that IMHO and basically become a gateway to work as opposed to teaching such a broad range of subjects.

 

I included sciences as there is a maths element to it and mathematical skills are essential especially as more and more jobs are IT and admin related.

We were shown how to write a CV at 14 and it was bugger all use because no one had any qualifications, so it was about six lines long. It's the kind of thing that is so easily accessible online that I don't really see the need to teach it in school.

 

Regardless of what you think of "naming all the kings and queens" (which is actually what Gove is trying to return to, so I've no idea how you think that his reforms are a step towards what you want except through blind faith), it'd be criminal to allow more children to leave school without being tested on basic literacy and numeracy levels. These are such essential things that you can barely get through life without them, letting kids leave at 1 without them is basically condemning them to a life with no prospect of social mobility.

 

And you an prepare them for the jobs market all you want but there need to be some jobs out there in the first place - but that's another argument for another thread.

We were shown how to write a CV at 14 and it was bugger all use because no one had any qualifications, so it was about six lines long. It's the kind of thing that is so easily accessible online that I don't really see the need to teach it in school.

 

Regardless of what you think of "naming all the kings and queens" (which is actually what Gove is trying to return to, so I've no idea how you think that his reforms are a step towards what you want except through blind faith), it'd be criminal to allow more children to leave school without being tested on basic literacy and numeracy levels. These are such essential things that you can barely get through life without them, letting kids leave at 1 without them is basically condemning them to a life with no prospect of social mobility.

 

And you an prepare them for the jobs market all you want but there need to be some jobs out there in the first place - but that's another argument for another thread.

 

You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink as the saying goes

 

The kid who is 14 and hates school and has literacy and/or numeracy problems is unlikely to change between 14 and 16, so they will just carry on through the education system and leave it barely literate so its better to train them up for a trade IMHO rather than drag them through 2 years of subjects they have no interest in.

 

With a lack of interest in academic subjects they are likely to be disruptive and hold back or interrupt kids who want to learn and get good grades so best to offer them an option at 14 of learning a trade.

You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink as the saying goes

 

The kid who is 14 and hates school and has literacy and/or numeracy problems is unlikely to change between 14 and 16, so they will just carry on through the education system and leave it barely literate so its better to train them up for a trade IMHO rather than drag them through 2 years of subjects they have no interest in.

 

With a lack of interest in academic subjects they are likely to be disruptive and hold back or interrupt kids who want to learn and get good grades so best to offer them an option at 14 of learning a trade.

I don't agree with that premise at all. I knew a lot of people at school whose attitude changed massively between the ages of 13-14 and 16. Students who were on the verge of being written off at 13 or 14 were able to get decent exam results by the time they were 16 or 17.

I don't agree with that premise at all. I knew a lot of people at school whose attitude changed massively between the ages of 13-14 and 16. Students who were on the verge of being written off at 13 or 14 were able to get decent exam results by the time they were 16 or 17.

 

In my school, don't know if it was different as it was an inner city comprehensive, there was a hardcore of about 4 out of a class of 30 odd who had absolutely no interest in any subjects, 3 of them loved sport and were pretty much the best athletes in the school but they found academic subjects boring and would sit at the back of the class and talk and laugh and roll up bits of paper into a ball and throw them at the back of the heads of the brighter kids, generally they were a pain in the arse and were right the way through their 3rd-5th year (year 9 to 11 now?)

 

No change in their attitudes to lessons at all.

 

 

In my school, don't know if it was different as it was an inner city comprehensive, there was a hardcore of about 4 out of a class of 30 odd who had absolutely no interest in any subjects, 3 of them loved sport and were pretty much the best athletes in the school but they found academic subjects boring and would sit at the back of the class and talk and laugh and roll up bits of paper into a ball and throw them at the back of the heads of the brighter kids, generally they were a pain in the arse and were right the way through their 3rd-5th year (year 9 to 11 now?)

 

No change in their attitudes to lessons at all.

 

I'd imagine every school is different, but to be fair, my experience is similar to yours Craig. I went to a rough school, worst in my area although the headteacher was on the largest salary in the area. Some kids did just not want to learn. I took school more seriously as I grew older, as did a lot of my friends, but I put that mainly down to maturity rather than anything else. Simply put at least 1/3 of my school had no desire to learn at all or take things seriously. But every school is different of course. I think it is more social problems rather than academic though.

With nearly 1m young people unemployed in this country and the same number again 'economically inactive' it is time that schools stopped focusing on bullshit that kids will not need once they leave school and instead focus on things that will help them in the job market

 

What good is it a youth leaving school and the following happening at an employment agency when they register

 

Agency - "can you write a good covering letter"?

Applicant - "no never been taught that but i can name every king and queen"

Agency - "right, ok, what about cv and application form"?

Applicant - "no sorry but I once read the whole of Hamlet"

 

The majority of stuff kids learn at school is unimportant but they are ill equipped with regards important stuff when they leave school. Needs sorting, no use just blaming the government for youth unemployment, the education system is churning out unemployable youths too.

Do you really think somebody with the ability to assess Hamlet properly wouldn't have the language skills to write a proper CV and application form?

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?

That's a pretty dire principle. You may as well say 'what's the point in teaching a child who doesn't want to to eat their greens?'. It's about conditioning.