Bring Back The 'O' Level?

[Rob McCow]

Under Mr Gove’s proposals, leaked to the Daily Mail, the new exams would “meet or exceed the highest standards in the world for that age group”.

Mr Gove has understood to have already discussed his plans with the exams regulator Ofqual and will announce them later this month.

Under draft proposals – which have not yet been cleared with the Conservative Coalition partners and have emerged while the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is out of the country:

* The National Curriculum in secondary schools would be abolished to give heads freedom to teach what they like when they like;

* The Government will scrap the requirement that pupils obtain five good GCSEs graded A* to C to encourage uptake of the new O-Levels;

* Less intelligent pupils who currently get F or G grades at GCSE will sit new simpler exams like the old CSE.

A document, seen by the Mail, reveals: “Those starting GCSEs in 2013 are the last pupils who will have to do them,” sitting their exams in 2015.

More than two-thirds of pupils who begin in September 2014 will be expected to take O-Levels in English, maths and science in 2016. There will be individual O-Levels in physics, chemistry and biology. In a bid to end the slide in standards, pupils will have to study complex subjects like calculus to get an A grade in O-Level Maths. English students will be banned from taking set texts into exams and will be expected to write longer essays.

So will this encourage students to strive for the highest possible achievements? Or is it going to polarise our society from the youngest age?

Or will it simply put too much pressure on teachers?

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

I really wish Michael Gove would crawl back into whichever pretentious cave he emerged from sometimes... and that's about the nicest I can bring myself to be about our current Secretary of State for Education.
God help our teachers!

[Nyder]

My two sisters work in education, I work in the NHS and we can all say with confidence that moral has never been lower in these 2 public sectors.

Well done coalition. You've played a blinder.

[SiHart]

Coming soon- abacuses for all school children and the return of the slate.

Oh for goodness sake- Gove is such an arse.

[Si Hunt]

The National Curriculum in secondary schools would be abolished to give heads freedom to teach what they like when they like;

In my experience, they make people headmasters when they are such arses that it's dangerous for them to be doing anything other than sorting out new carpets. So this is obviously a bit worrying.

The danger is going to be when you get a pompous, deluded Head with an agenda (which, let's face it, is most of them) like one who thinks everyone should learn drama. Then you're going to be stuck with a school which is hugely angled towards drama, or sports or something.

Si.

[Rob McCow]

Abolishing the National Curriculm would allow a broad church of views to be taught in school. Views such as 'Evolution is a lie!' and 'Women are evil' could be taught as solid facts!

[Jon Masters]

I wonder if anyone could put Mr Gove in touch with a certain Professor Whitaker ? Then the whole of the UK could be returned to the 1950's which was obviously the Golden Age of education.

I wonder if anyone remembers which party invented the National Curriculum, and why ?

I wonder which party are going to change the rule so that people with no teaching qualifications or experience will be allowed to become Heads ?

I wonder why I bother planning any of my work for the future ?

[Stuart Wallis]

My brother was in school when they brought the GCSEs in. He wouldn't have minded, but he was halfway through his O-levels at the time. At least those who are starting their GCSE courses nex year will be able to finish them. It's the teachers i feel sorry for, running two different courses at once.

Our Aunt Dolly could organise this much better!

[Jason Thompson]

I wonder if anyone could put Mr Gove into a teaching job for a while and perhaps allow him to cultivate some understanding of what the profession involves. He has demonstrated time and again that he has no clue what being a teacher is actually all about and what it entails. He has no sense of reality about the job he is doing at all.

And perhaps someone could beat all politicians round the head until they understand the concept of timing. On the one hand they're saying we have to tackle the problem of a disenchanted youth who see no prospects, and on the other we have them every summer term without fail, while kids are doing their exams, making media headlines with statements like 'exams are getting easier' and 'qualifications are meaningless'. Christ, is it any wonder whole generations get disenchanted when they hear everyone saying all that work they've been doing for the past few years is worthless?!

[Anthony Williams]

I think that part of the problem is that most people accept that the GCSEs are woefully inadequate these days. One only needs to look at the increasing number of private schools that are switching to the iGCSEs to see that (my old school included) Certainly, the GCSE has been massively dumbed down - even since I took it 8 years ago!

Now, what of the difference between the proposed O-Level/CSE system? Certainly, there's already something similar in place with GCSEs - certain students will sit "foundation" papers in some subjects, while others sit "higher level" papers (I think I've got the terminology right. As I said, it's been 8 years since I took mine!) Is that not the same sort of polarisation?

I've got a lot of friends who are university-level academics. They all say that the current GCSE and A-Level system leaves the majority of British students woefully ill-equipped for university. Every single one of them say that the current GCSEs and A-Levels just create students that churn out set answers. They all say that the current system doesn't encourage students to think for themselves. This is why schools are turning to iGCSEs, and for Sixth form, to the International Baccalaureate or the Cambridge Pre-Us. On a personal note, while an undergraduate, I was surprised at the inability of some of my peers to be able to construct a sentence properly. On a humanities degree course! Dear Lord!

Obviously, the current system is in dire need of reform. I don't see an issue with bringing in a more rigorous exam. And why not call them O-Levels?

I do, however, take exception to the idea of the removal of the national curriculum. There do need to be some sort of guidelines there, even if they're a bit looser than what they are right now.

[Nyder]

Ant's hit the nail on the head here. Kids need to learn how to think and critically appraise, not be trained how to pass an exam paper. But unfortunately "the system" is designed around the latter.

[MinaHarker]

Ant's hit the nail on the head here. Kids need to learn how to think and critically appraise, not be trained how to pass an exam paper. But unfortunately "the system" is designed around the latter.

Of course it is, because exam results are what schools are judged on. It doesn't matter if students are bright, helpful, kind, aware of the world, polite or have good people skills. Just what exam results the school has.

[Si Hunt]

When I look back at my education there were so many "waste of time" lessons - Religious Education failed to teach me anything about religion, and CDT failed to teach me anything useful. The things I left school unable to do: wire a plug, maintain a car, plaster a wall, drain a hot water tank, cook a meal. These "real world" concerns are the sort of things it would have been handy to know and these "social" type lessons maybe could have taught me. But when I think of the shit we did in CDT... we made a WOODEN SPATULA once. And then one project had us welding an aliminium model of a plane. WTF?! How are these things useful in life? We spent much time in Home Economics making cakes. One week we made a fruit salad. It completely failed to teach me how to cook a nutricious main meal/dinner for myself. And it's not like I did badly in any of these subjects.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

Sounds like your school was a bit below par there then, Si. Can't blame the entire education system for that.

Religious Education failed to teach me anything about religion

I wonder what it did teach you then? I learned an awful lot from me RE classes about various world religions, even though I found them pretty dull classes.

and CDT failed to teach me anything useful

Except maybe safe practice in a workshop and effective use of certain tools. I think it is a bit unfair to complain that they didn't teach you the exact things those tools might be used for later. It's as much about their use and the properties of various materials as anything else.

wire a plug

Very odd, as that was definitely part of my education in school, and we are about the same age.

maintain a car

Since compulsory education in this country ends before anyone in it is legally old enough to be operating a car in the first place, this seems a bit of a harsh criticism. School never taught me how to maintain a car either. What it did is provide me with the framework to be able to go and understand and apply what I read in the manual so that I can maintain a car.

No, school doesn't teach you how to do all the things you will need to do in your adult life. What it does do, whether you recognise the fact or not, is provide you with the foundation you need to go on and learn those things and others, and enable you to be a reasonably competent human being. So often I heard people say they didn't need to know the things that school taught them. It's like people who moan that science is a waste of money because they can't see the immediate benefit to them. Sorry, but you definitely do need the rounded education you get at a school. Maybe it doesn't teach you the exact things you'll be going on and doing, but that's not what it is actually for. Those skills you go out and learn when you move on from compulsory education and start choosing your life path.

I wonder how it is that people can manage to go through an education and make use of the stuff they learned, yet completely fail to recognise where that actually came from originally. Maybe that cognitive dissonance explains the crap that teachers have to put up with.

[Si Hunt]

As I didn't get the luxury of multiple educations, I can only really base my opinions on the one school I went to, Jason.

I can't remember a single thing we did in R.E! Goodness knows what they (tried to) teach us. All I know is, when I encountered certain individuals in "real life" afterwards they taught me more about religion, the Bible, religious history (if you know what I mean) and what faith/God means. I didn't take any of that from school. Maybe, like my old Sunday school, they tried to teach the right stuff but in a way that was totally unengaging and dull. I don't remember them teaching us how to pray in those classes. Shouldn't that be, like, lesson 1?

I don't see what everyone being too young to drive a car has to do with it! We were all too young to legally have sex at primary school, but we still got (a feeble) sex education. Surely the whole POINT of school is to teach you stuff you will need in life later?

But the kind of things I mentioned arn't the sort of things I would expect to be taught. It's just that if we're being shown useless stuff like the wooden spatula, then I'd rather be taught useful, practical stuff instead. Yes, it taught me safe practise in a workshop but that could be done in an hour. We then spent a year sat filing down a bit of metal while chatting. They were happy to let us just get on with it, and they didn't want or expect us to do anything more than come up with a filed down bit of metal. They taught us how to weld and things like that. It didn't seem like the sort of thing I'd ever need again, and I haven't since.

Si.

[Stuart Wallis]

After an accident on the pitch, thankfully not involving me, school sports had a negative effect on me - it put me off rugby, the only game or sporting event I ever had any interest in other than cricket, for life. I even took a year's-worth of German lessons in order to avoid it. Not that I've had any use for that since, but I'm at least pleased to have had the intellectual challenge. (The teacher was a readhead, but that's beside the point!)

I can see why people go into teaching, and where would we all be if no-one did? Considering the little b*****ds passing themselves off of pupils that come through the system these days, I have every respect for anyone who goes into the profession (pardon the pun) these days - an old friend of mine is now a deputy head. If you get the right lot of pupils and the right teacher, education can be very valuable and extremely enjoyable. It's just getting them into the right place at the right time, and getting the appropriate politicians and educationalists to teach something of any worth in the right way as well.

I'd reccomend that anyone who wants to see how to do it properly, and to see what someone who's dedicated to education has to put up with as a school inspector, reads Gervase Phinn's Dales books.

[Paul Clement]

The current system needs to have its glaring issues addressed. The schools are judged on the results of their pupils in exams and this has created a pattern of perverse behaviourfrom the schools in their fight to achieve sufficient results. I know of a number of schools where pupils have been given information to pass segments of their exams to ensure they passed when they have not had the level to achieve. In one case, the person was given a piece of paper with three sections of Italian and told to memorise at least three lines in each section to guarantee a pass in their oral exam. They passed the subject despite only knowing about fifty Italian words.

[MinaHarker]

Of course it is, because exam results are what schools are judged on. It doesn't matter if students are bright, helpful, kind, aware of the world, polite or have good people skills. Just what exam results the school has.

Not sure if I was quite clear in my post, but I am not saying that this is a good thing - in fact I think it is quite the opposite.

Of course I want students to get good exam results, but I also want them to be well-rounded people with the skills they need to function and be happy in the workplace, family life and society in general.

[Jason Thompson]

I don't remember them teaching us how to pray in those classes. Shouldn't that be, like, lesson 1?

Nope. R.E. is learning about religions in general. I would also be surprised if you hadn't been praying in school since your primary days anyway, since 'acts of collective worship' have been legal requirements in schools for a very long time.

We were all too young to legally have sex at primary school, but we still got (a feeble) sex education.

The big difference there being the knowledge that the legal age of consent will not stop a bunch of randy teenagers from trying it. It also does not apply if both parties are below 16.

They taught us how to weld and things like that. It didn't seem like the sort of thing I'd ever need again, and I haven't since.

Fine for you, but anyone who went on to be an engineer or welder might well have found that very useful indeed.

Schools can't tailor your education to your future career path, since they are not clairvoyant. Nor can they teach you everything you will need in your future life. They provide a wide range of education, some of which will be useful to any given individual, some of which won't. Everyone will leave school feeling that some aspect of their education was useless to them. I have never needed to speak French or German since leaving school, nor have I had a need to apply some of the mathematical techniques I learned. I made wooden salad tongs and plastic keyrings in class, which are techniques I've never had cause to use again. I can't fault my school for teaching me that, though, because other people who went through that same education have made use of those elements, and probably think it was a waste of their time sitting through a bunch of physics and chemistry classes.

[Stuart Wallis]

Not that I'm disagreeing with your last point - just to add that, not being sure what other people's experiences were, but I was glad that we had a more general education for three years before being given the choice of O-levels. It gave a more informed choice as to what subjects were available. (Although I was railroaded into Computer Studies, because it was the lesser evil out of that and Geography - I could have taught myself how to do mapreading in ten minutes, never mind a term - and also into Physics because Gardening and Beekeeping was, the school had decided, was for the lower educational stream.

And I never had any more use for Metalwork, but I'm still using the letterknife; my brother, who's an engineer who's been doing up his house recently, has found the hammer very useful; and I'm glad that I was taught how to knock nails in properly. At least it's nice to know that the information was on offer.

[Jon Masters]

To clarify some of the points made in other posts:

1. Private schools only jumped on the iGCSE bandwagon because it made them distinct from state schools, who up until now were not able to offer iGCSE under the exam board rules. The content of the courses are identical.

2. Dividing GCSE into foundation and higher level is not the same as having two different exam systems. Individual papers in a GCSE can be taken at different levels - it is the combined total points score that determines the grade. However, the key difference is there is no indication of the level on the final GCSE - someone who gets a C at foundation level is comparable to someone who got a C at higher level , and their results just say C.

Now, in the dim dark past when I was at school a CSE grade 1 was supposedly equivalent to an O level grade C. But, since it said on your exam certificate CSE1 it was clear that employers and college courses thought CSE's weren't worth the paper they were printed on.

3. The Government say they are freeing up the curriculum, but in fact they're not. The new measure of school performance on the league tables is the so called English Baccalaureate - how many students got GCSEs in English, Maths, 2 sciences, a language and a humanity. Consequently many schools are now insisting that students take these subjects, regardless of what they may want. Indeed, at our place the number of classes which take separate sciences has been limited by the management because it will take students out of these other subjects.

The stupidity is we continually compare ourselves to other countries, but never the same country for everything. We also don't take into account that the main reason the English education system is so screwed up is because every 2-3 years it gets fu@#ed up and completely changed by a bunch of ministers who know nothing about education.

[MinaHarker]

To clarify some of the points made in other posts:

the main reason the English education system is so screwed up is because every 2-3 years it gets fu@#ed up and completely changed by a bunch of ministers who know nothing about education.

THIS.

[Stuart Wallis]

Mind you, that does sound just about right for politics in general...

[MinaHarker]

.
The big difference there being the knowledge that the legal age of consent will not stop a bunch of randy teenagers from trying it. It also does not apply if both parties are below 16.

Remember the primary national curriculum mostly deals with the physical changes associated with puberty. Given that puberty starts at around age 10, it is VITAL that students are taught what is happening to them at or before the time it starts. Too many parents don't.

[Jason Thompson]

I wonder how much less controversy the whole issue of 'sex education' would generate if they just called it something else. So many of the objectors to it seem to treat it as if it is literally education about the act of having sex, rather than the actual education about the physical changes and the differences between boys and girls. The actual bit of it that concerns the act itself is such a small part, but yet people object to the whole lot as if that's all it is.

Sorry, bit of an off-topic ramble there...