|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "You are a failure" vs. "You've failed."
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
The Coalition Government is seeking to reintroduce a two tier examination system at 16 ... the return of "O" Levels and CSE's - Gove's Gamble.
The harrumphing from the teaching unions is to be expected of course. The blind spot it seems to me is the lack of realism about failure.
Failing is a fact of life. All of us fail at sometime or other. Thinking that we could or should protect children from the experience of failing is not going to equip them for life. It is not going to make them robust enough to aspire to try again ... to achieve second time round. After all, nobody goes around hand-wringing that those who do not make the grade in sports (Olympics and International Soccer currently) are going to be psychologically scarred for life. Even egalitarian Soviet Russia was proudly elitist when it came to identifying and supporting high achievers. Is it really impossible to distinguish for children:- "You have failed" (now let's see what we can do about that) from "You are a failure" (you are a waste of space)?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
... Is it really impossible to distinguish for children:- "You have failed" (now let's see what we can do about that) from "You are a failure" (you are a waste of space)?
Never mind the children, I've seen plenty of parents talking to their kids in a way that suggests they can't tell the difference either. The children only know what they've been told. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
"You have failed" (now let's see what we can do about that) from "You are a failure" (you are a waste of space)?
There's an interview in this month's Third Way with the athlete Tanni Grey-Thompson, where she says (and paraphrasing) "I've lost a lot of races, but I don't think I've ever failed."
It would be brilliant if the education system recognised that knowledge is gained continuously, and not in discrete chunks. The idea that we're going to do away with the "retake culture" is stupid and wrong. Screwing up and trying again is how most people actually learn.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
OliviaG - Then the fault lies with the teachers and the parents and it is not going to be cured even by changing the exam system.
[ 21. June 2012, 18:20: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
That's an excellent point Doc Tor. Many, many tries can transform losing or falling short into winning or passing the line. I think that the avoidance of not reaching the mark is born out of a false compassion that renders children and adults ill-equipped for the world.
[ 21. June 2012, 18:24: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
Failing is a fact of life. All of us fail at sometime or other. Thinking that we could or should protect children from the experience of failing is not going to equip them for life. It is not going to make them robust enough to aspire to try again ... to achieve second time round.
You appear to have missed the point of the objections to Gove's proposal, which is that introducing a two-tier exam system and separating children into academic and non-academic streams at the age of 14 makes it unnecessarily difficult for those who failed then to try again. I remember O levels and CSEs; it was theoretically possible to transfer between the two streams, but in practice hardly anyone ever did. I was identified as 'academic' and went into the O-level class; I went on to do A levels and got into a good university. My younger sister was put into the CSE class; she left school with 4 CSEs, but was lucky enough to get an apprenticeship with the local council. She is now a senior manager and has just completed an MBA (she did her first degree part-time on day release from her job).
I am very proud of her, but I can't help wondering what she might have achieved if she'd gone through school a few years later and done GCSEs instead... maybe she'd have gone to Oxford or Cambridge straight out of school and ended up running the country. She'd probably be better at it than the ConDems, as well.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Of course failure has to be an option. I think you'll find that GCSE offers 8 grades, 4 of which are generally considered to be a "fail" (excessive, in my opinion - those with Ds and Es are mostly effective communicators). The problem is the idea that, at the age of around 14, we are going to have to go back to dividing children into 'academic' or 'not academic' and teach them accordingly. Such an approach is not a recipe for excellence and is at odds with everything we know about learning, achievement and neurological development.
GCSEs are not broken - the exam boards have just been bending over backwards to give the government what they thought it wanted, that is continuous improvement and 'average' attainment that somehow miraculously becomes above average. Now the government has embraced a different piece of nonsense - but instead of being up front about that, they are blaming it all on exam boards, schools and teachers. It is utter disingenuous bollocks.
And the problem isn't that we're all terrified of the idea of failure - in fact, we all know that 'he who never made a mistake never made anything', but there is absolutely no point in setting children up to fail and even less point in going back to a system which, half way through secondary schooling, labels 80% (or 60% or 40% or whatever) of children as failures.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
The OP is about failure, not about selection. I have been a teacher (secondary). I have taught in a number of schools where exam bodies were chosen specifically because their grade bars were lower. I know the culture shared by many teachers who often care more about social engineering than actually giving the upper and quartiles what they need to succeed. Mediocrity is a safe option. Transforming D's into C's matters more than changing B's into A's or G's into F's.
The system is broken if only because Universities often have to put on remedial courses for undergrads and employers complain about job applicants who are barely literate. I don't think it's actually necessary to go 2-tier but it is necessary to repudiate this sliding scale of mediocrity.
[ 21. June 2012, 19:03: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The OP is about failure, not about selection.
Yes, because you apparently see the problem as being a lack of realism about failure. Maybe that is an element of the problem, but I don't see it as located in the teaching profession* or the exam boards - I see it in successive government courting of cheap populism, quote:
I have taught in a number of schools where exam bodies were chosen specifically because their grade bars were lower.
Yes, and who designed a system whereby exam boards could compete in this way? Oh yes, a Tory government. And then who ramped up the odds so that schools couldn't afford to fail? Oh yes, a Tory government - then aped by a Blairite government. quote:
I know the culture shared by many teachers who often care more about social engineering than actually giving the upper and quartiles what they need to succeed.
Soooo... let me see if I've got this straight: helping the lower quartiles to improve is social engineering, but helping the upper quartiles to succeed is.... what, exactly? Letting Nature take its course? Supporting the survival of the fittest? Give me a break. quote:
Mediocrity is a safe option. Transforming D's into C's matters more than changing B's into A's or G's into F's.
Well, with C as a "pass" - yes it does. But who designed the league tables to make those D to Cs matter so much? Oooooh - that's a hard one.... no, wait - don't tell me - could it possibly have been the government? And your concern for the G to Fs is commendable, but scarcely convincing - and Gove's proposal will help them .... er, how? quote:
The system is broken if only because Universities often have to put on remedial courses for undergrads and employers complain about job applicants who are barely literate.
Once again, not a broken system - just a system that has been designed to deliver one thing now told that all along it should have been delivering something else. And, by the way. I was a Census Enumerator in 1981 - the number of illiterate over 40s I encountered was staggering. Ah, the good old days.
* After all, you yourself have been a teacher - oh, but perhaps you're special.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Given that this is a leaked proposal of something that hasn't even gone to consultation yet, I think we should avoid leaping to conclusions as to what's actually being proposed.
May I point out that GCSEs are already a two-tier system - Foundation Tier and Higher Tier?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
AMEN to all your points QLib!
The tories buggered up the system. I lived through it all as a teacher - now they blame the teachers.
I am very pleased to be semi-retired and getting away from all the meddling and politics teachers have been subjected to. It's the most wonderful job - turned into a box ticking exercise.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
You make a number of good points QLib but I do actually believe that the SAME attention and resources should be given to BOTH the upper and lower quartiles. I accept that it was indeed governments who largely created this mess. Nonetheless I still think that schools need to do a lot more to take hold of this themselves and raise standards. League tables are not in themselves wrong .... it's HOW we use them and what is deemed to be acceptable that needs to change. There needs to be far more emphasis on value added.
BTW the social engineering reference wasn't a reference to raising the lower quartile .... I said before that this was something I welcomed so I was hardly equating it with social tinkering was i? No, social engineering is reflected in the assumption that children should not be streamed according to APTITUDE as well as ability. It's the idea that differentiation in ability somehow compromises social equality. It doesn't. Give each child what she needs ... at any percentile point.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Day
Ship's revolutionary
# 3630
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The OP is about failure, not about selection. I have been a teacher (secondary). I have taught in a number of schools where exam bodies were chosen specifically because their grade bars were lower. I know the culture shared by many teachers who often care more about social engineering than actually giving the upper and quartiles what they need to succeed. Mediocrity is a safe option. Transforming D's into C's matters more than changing B's into A's or G's into F's.
The system is broken if only because Universities often have to put on remedial courses for undergrads and employers complain about job applicants who are barely literate. I don't think it's actually necessary to go 2-tier but it is necessary to repudiate this sliding scale of mediocrity.
I think you are wrong in blaming the teachers. The current system is not broken. All it needs is to have one exam board instead of 6. I do not have a problem with kids failing - infact, I think it is a good thing that they have the experience of not passing (but hopefully in a mock exam or before the finals) In my experience this gives them the motivation to succeed next time - so you could argue that it isn't really a failure as they have learnt from it.
However, I do have a massive problem with labelling kids as failures - which is what the CSE / O level does. At least with the GCSE's all children have the opportunity to succeed at the highest level. I have students in my form this year who would have almost certainly entered for the CSE band when they were 13/14 but in the end they have done really well and hit the grade B's.
And to say that teachers are social engineers - well of course - I want every student I teach to do as well as they can - the grade G students and the A* students. However, my school want me to focus on the students who are D/C borderline. Why? Because that is what we are judged on. The child who overcomes problems and gets 5 E's is not seen as a success in the governments eyes (and therefore the league tables) The child who scrapes 5 C's is. That is not the fault of teachers but the fault of politicians and the media.
Tom
--------------------
My allotment blog
Posts: 6473 | From: My Sofa | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I don't disagree with any of that Tom ... especially the vital necessity of scrapping multiple exam bodies. I agree that the return of the 2 tier system (not the OP's reference) could bring back failure labelling.
The only reservation I have about that is the technical issue about whether or not one assessment system can cover the vast range of ability and aptitude ranges.
We also need to stop thinking that academic ability is the superior quality and capacity in our children. The problem has been, I believe, not social elitism but rather intellectual elitism. The social rewards follow on from that. They do not precede it. Grammar schools were a great leveller in that they made an academic education available to the poor. They failed by being prioritised in resources and esteem ... but that was hardly their fault.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
You make a number of good points QLib but I do actually believe that the SAME attention and resources should be given to BOTH the upper and lower quartiles.
Agreed. quote:
I accept that it was indeed governments who largely created this mess. Nonetheless I still think that schools need to do a lot more to take hold of this themselves and raise standards.
The schools can't do this, because they have very little say in what the exam boards offer. In fact, even the exam boards have very little say in what they offer - a supposedly independent (i.e. unelected and unaccountable) authority does that.
quote:
League tables are not in themselves wrong .... it's HOW we use them and what is deemed to be acceptable that needs to change. There needs to be far more emphasis on value added.
Agree on the last bit.
quote:
... social engineering is reflected in the assumption that children should not be streamed according to APTITUDE as well as ability. It's the idea that differentiation in ability somehow compromises social equality. It doesn't.
There is no certain way of measuring aptitude because intelligence is not, in fact, a fixed element and, even if it were, achievement also depends upon attitude and commitment - so streaming children according to some pseudo-scientific measure of aptitude is wrong, wrong, wrong. And I find it literally unbelievable that anyone who has recently worked in secondary education should think that differentiation is frowned upon - differentiation is a compulsory part of every lesson plan; exam marking and moderation hinges upon the establishment of an appropriate "order of merit" - Yes, merit, Fr.Gregory - that word is actually used in official marking criteria; the cult of mediocrity is a creation of the diseased imagination of right-wing journalists. Nobody dreams of their child being mediocre.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But as I also said in Hell, vocational training is not valued. The current changes to the EBacc under Gove have trashed many vocational courses, because they no longer count, so the local school will be thinking twice about offering an engineering course that includes Level 1 passes at English, Maths and ICT Functional Skills as part of the whole.
Round here, the college places that were offered as supplementary to school education that gave students NVQ or BTEC qualifications in motor vehicle maintenance, hair and beauty, catering or construction (basic bricklaying, carpentry, plumbing and electrics) have gone this year - the funding has been cut.
There is a PSE (personal, social, health and employment education - depending on units) that covers entry 1 to Functional Skills 2 as course work - it's not going to count towards school tariff points any more without a significant amount of changing, which means it will be no longer offered by many schools, even though it means a chance to teach sex ed, drugs and alcohol, personal finance, healthy lifestyles at a suitable level.
And the sort of kids I taught knew they were failures. We spent an awful lot of time trying to build them up again after school experiences that had not worked for them, to reaching the highest level of qualification they could achieve
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I know about differentiation QLib ... for goodness sake! It's how far we are prepared to resource each need rather than simply aiming for the middle because that is where marginal improvements are focussed.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I know about differentiation QLib ... for goodness sake! It's how far we are prepared to resource each need rather than simply aiming for the middle because that is where marginal improvements are focussed.
And, for goodness' sake, how far things can be resourced is a government decision. Aiming for the middle (the grade C pass) is a consequence of a) too many people inappropriately insisting on the C grade and b) the way league tables are scored. Another government For any Tory minister to talk as though this is someone else's fault is totally disingenuous.
And to return to your OP: "You've failed, let's see what we can do about that" is precisely what this system addresses - and the government then objects that there are too many re-sits and too many people passing. The "You're a failure" (and waste of space) approach is precisely what a two-tier system will foster.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
And, for goodness' sake, how far things can be resourced is a government decision. Aiming for the middle (the grade C pass) is a consequence of a) too many people inappropriately insisting on the C grade and b) the way league tables are scored. Another government For any Tory minister to talk as though this is someone else's fault is totally disingenuous.
Is Mr Gove saying it's anyone else's fault?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I am not actually disagreeing with you QLib ... it's just that we all need to focus on the task in hand ... which is raising everyone's game. GCSE's in my opinion have failed in that task.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I am not actually disagreeing with you QLib ... it's just that we all need to focus on the task in hand ... which is raising everyone's game. GCSE's in my opinion have failed in that task.
I think you could take any exam and treat it as having failed. O levels because they encouraged cramming, so the knowledge was forgotten all too quickly, CSE's because no one sincerely believed a CSE grade 1 was equivalent to any kind of O level, NVQs and BTECs because they aren't academic and the EBacc because it's trying to be all things to all men.
Sioni's education manifesto is therefore:
i) A single exam board provided it gets its act together is a damn good idea: credit where it's due.
ii) An acknowledgement that academic ability is not relevant for many jobs.
iii) Don't even try to equate academic and vocational qualifications, but ensure key skills are taught and learned through whatever route.
iv) Encourage early and non-graduate entry to trades, occupations and professions, so that firms can ensure their staff are trained as they prefer by supplying the training themselves.
and
v) Put a system in place and leave the thing alone for a generation to go through the normal education cycle, from Reception (age 4) to Graduation (c 21).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
I do not wish to minimise or detract from the discussion of UK examinations. However may I discuss the issue of failure, as it concerns me greatly? I have a friend who is a researcher in the field of young men, dropping out of school, suicide etc. Admittedly it is Quebec but I believe it could be universal.
He found that because of the pressure on young men, unless they were top, an A+ grade, they considered themselves as a failure and gave up completely. B+ or even A- is not good enough, so they opt out. Obviously, it is impossible to be a brilliant student, an Olympic gold medalist, rock star and have Justin Biber’s success with the girls all at the same time. However anything less than top across the board is a failure, so they give up completely.
An example from our friendship group; a girl married a member of the Canadian Olympics team. Because he did not make the finals in his event, his life fell to bits. After sulking in bed for a year, he became an aircraft cleaner at nights rather than completing his education. He became an abusive husband and negligent father. In other words, he is self assigned failure.
In general there appears to be a major problem over the role of young men in our modern society. A key element of which is what are reasonable expectations for me now and for my future life. In other words, what is failure and what is just ‘that’s life’.
Your comments will be much appreciated.
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
Sorry probably need a clarification when I wrote “what are reasonable expectations for me now and for my future life.” I was not referring to my personal life but the life of young men as a social group. I cannot claim to be a teenager, I am very pleased to say.
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I remember when I was a kid and my father was looking for a hobby. He went to a local toy store and decided to buy a scale model of the USS Constitution. The clerk told him that he should take on a lesser task as he would not be able to accomplish building that particular model.
The fully finished and rigged model sits in my house to this day.
I suppose this may be a bit off point, but I write this story to say that some people are motivated by someone telling them they are going to fail.
It is hard to see kids fail, especially our own. If we prevent them from ever failing they will never be prepared for how to deal with the failure they will inevitably encounter as adults.
I don't know, and probably don't care, about schools in another country on the level of the discussion in this thread to date. I do care that kids learn how to deal with life as an adult while they still have the safety net of being a kid and being surrounded by a family that loves them.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I write this story to say that some people are motivated by someone telling them they are going to fail.
Yes, well, that's a lovely story, but there's a huge difference between one adult telling another that something is too difficult for them and a teacher telling a child that they belong in the D group and therefore will take exam X rather than exam Y.
Research shows that telling schoolchildren they're going to fail tends to increase their chance of failing, whereas telling them they are going to succeed tends to increase their chances of success. Best of all, telling them that they will achieve if they work hard enough - which actually happens to be true (up to a point, they're not all going to get A grades) - is really good at increasing their chances of success.
Furthermore, telling teachers that 'this is the A group and that is the B group' will increase the chances of A group children succeeding and B group children going downhill.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Because schools are measured on their success their drive is all for grade C and above students. Students who can't achieve this now feel as if they fail. I have walked away from so many meetings with students who are working hard and achieving brilliantly for their abilities, but the predicted grades of E will mean that they see themselves as failing.
There are many, many students who cannot achieve a grade C at the current GCSE English or Maths for a whole range of reasons. Reasonable literacy can be achieved without producing the set piece work on poetry, a Shakespeare play or a book that feels as if it has no relevance to anyone, but that is a requirement of any GCSE English course. And that's not to say I don't think young people shouldn't be exposed to any or all of plays, poetry, literature ... but if they haven't had all the middle class grounding that's implicit in the expectations, these are huge leaps.
Just how numerate and literate do we expect our car mechanics, builders and carpenters to be? And why are we rubbishing those jobs because their entry requirements aren't what the schools need to achieve their targets?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
...because of the pressure on young men, unless they were top, an A+ grade, they considered themselves as a failure and gave up completely. B+ or even A- is not good enough, so they opt out. Obviously, it is impossible to be a brilliant student, an Olympic gold medalist, rock star and have Justin Biber’s success with the girls all at the same time. However anything less than top across the board is a failure, so they give up completely.
Actually it's not just boys, of course, though I'm inclined to agree they are worst hit. Research (Dweck et al) shows that telling kids earlier in life that they are doing well at school because they are smart or bright (etc.) is toxic. It not only leads them to underestimate the importance of effort and persistence, it also tends to mean that they are devastated by anything that looks like failure - yes, even a B grade, or perhaps an A, because it's not an A*. And suddenly they're not so bright any more. The kid who claws his or her way up from E to D to C to B is likely to do better than the high-flier who suddenly finds him/herself getting B grades.
Yet another reason for not dividing kids into sheep and goats at 9, 11, 13 or whenever.
[ 22. June 2012, 07:29: Message edited by: QLib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Kat in the Hat
Shipmate
# 2557
|
Posted
I'm reminded of a girl in one of my classes. She is regarded by the rest of the class as one of the "failures", but she puts 100% effort into everything she does. We were practising PE and one of the boys complained that she was in his group because "she is useless". She ignored him, concentrated on what she needed to do and ended up out-performing him. I used her as an example to the rest of the class.
She will probably not do well academically (or in the sporting field) but if you want someone to persevere in a job - I'd employ her like a shot.
--------------------
Less is more ...
Posts: 485 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Single exam board sounds a terrible idea to me. We already have a national curriculum, and I wish we didn't. Schools already tend to teach to exams and I wish they didn't. If there is only one exam board we'll end up with everyone studying exactly the same things as everyone else at school which would be a disaster.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
The O and A Levels were originally a tool for University matriculation, at a time when only a small % of pupils got to University. They were designed around academic pupils.
Then GSEs were brought in to cater for those who were not quite of the ability required to pass O Level.
Then GCSEs were brought in as an attempt to cover everyone, whether academic or not and give them a grade - not, in theory, a 'pass' or a 'fail'.
The problem in England is that 'academic' has status. Anything 'other' is seen as inadequate, a failure, a social step down.
This is why our Education system, compared to (say) Germany's fails miserably. It wastes the large percentage of pupils who are not academic and brands them as 'failures'. In Germany they understand the value of technical, as opposed to academic ability, and value it highly. That's why German engineers and technicians exist in such quality and quantity as they do.
England is still, at heart, in love with the 19th Century Public School system, Latin, and cricket on the green, and above all social snobbery. That is one of several reasons why this country is in such a mess. To succeed in the modern world a country needs to harness the abilities of all its people, not just the most academic 10%, or whatever the percentage is.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Yes, even in the good old days that Gove seems to yearn for, we had at least three or four exam boards, and some syllabuses, sometimes whole boards had less credibility than others. But here's the thing - they mostly appear to have been controlled by universities. Or perhaps they just had strong links. Now - why were exam boards taken out of that form of control? Wasn't part of the argument that they were too academic and the government of the time wanted more real-life, vocational, where-the-country-earns-its-money input?
If the standard by which A levels (and even GCSEs, or whatever replaces them) are to be measured is that of giving universities what they want, then why not have the universities running the exam boards?
eta: originally a response to ken, but follows on well enough from Sighthound's post, I feel. Anyway, real life calls, so no time to edit further.
[ 22. June 2012, 09:51: Message edited by: QLib ]
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Single exam board sounds a terrible idea to me. We already have a national curriculum, and I wish we didn't. Schools already tend to teach to exams and I wish they didn't. If there is only one exam board we'll end up with everyone studying exactly the same things as everyone else at school which would be a disaster.
I'm no fan of the national curriculum or of exams as both restrict the ability of schools to educate.
If we must have exams and tests however, let's do away with the current wasteful and inconsistent scheme which leads to schools using the best exams for the school rather than the best for their students. Debate whether calculus should be taught and examined at Year 11, but put the means in place for it to be done evenly.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
England is still, at heart, in love with the 19th Century Public School system, Latin, and cricket on the green, and above all social snobbery. That is one of several reasons why this country is in such a mess.
That says it all about Gove.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
A friend is in the process of completing her B.Sc. and was recently informed by her faculty advisor that she cannot graduate until she upgrades her HIGH SCHOOL math and science. <facepaw> At the time she was in high school, she wanted to starat working right away, so she was streamed into the "non-academic" path. She wouldn't have been allowed to take those courses even if she had been interested.
Given that we are headed for a future where there is no such thing as a life-long career, it seems to me utterly daft to limit some people's education so they can't change careers later. Yes, a pupil's aptitude and interests are important, but in future they will also need flexibility, adaptability and the ability to transfer skills from one job to another. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...
iv) Encourage early and non-graduate entry to trades, occupations and professions, so that firms can ensure their staff are trained as they prefer by supplying the training themselves. ...
Unfortunately, employers have figured out that is is cheaper and easier to dump the cost of training onto the individual student or the public system. That leaves them free to complain about how high their taxes are -- which are lower than they've ever been -- and how crappy the schools are -- which are now responsible for educating the entire population, rather than just the wealthy or gifted. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
A friend is in the process of completing her B.Sc. and was recently informed by her faculty advisor that she cannot graduate until she upgrades her HIGH SCHOOL math and science.
What country is that in? Things like that certainly don't happen here!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...
iv) Encourage early and non-graduate entry to trades, occupations and professions, so that firms can ensure their staff are trained as they prefer by supplying the training themselves. ...
Unfortunately, employers have figured out that is is cheaper and easier to dump the cost of training onto the individual student or the public system. That leaves them free to complain about how high their taxes are -- which are lower than they've ever been -- and how crappy the schools are -- which are now responsible for educating the entire population, rather than just the wealthy or gifted. OliviaG
I can't take the rap for that idea. It's straight from that notorious Yankee socialist P J O'Rourke.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
England is still, at heart, in love with the 19th Century Public School system, Latin, and cricket on the green, and above all social snobbery. That is one of several reasons why this country is in such a mess. To succeed in the modern world a country needs to harness the abilities of all its people, not just the most academic 10%, or whatever the percentage is.
Got it in one!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
A friend is in the process of completing her B.Sc. and was recently informed by her faculty advisor that she cannot graduate until she upgrades her HIGH SCHOOL math and science.
What country is that in? Things like that certainly don't happen here!
and in England you're not required to have Level 2 / GCSE C or above English and Maths are a prerequisite for any degrees?
For PGCEs / BEds you definitely have to prove you can pass the English, Maths and ICT requirements and GCSEs / O Levels were not enough when I went through it, we all had to sit additional tests to prove our ability. I don't remember what happened if you didn't pass those tests because I did, but ...
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
A friend is in the process of completing her B.Sc. and was recently informed by her faculty advisor that she cannot graduate until she upgrades her HIGH SCHOOL math and science.
What country is that in? Things like that certainly don't happen here!
and in England you're not required to have Level 2 / GCSE C or above English and Maths are a prerequisite for any degrees?
For PGCEs / BEds you definitely have to prove you can pass the English, Maths and ICT requirements and GCSEs / O Levels were not enough when I went through it, we all had to sit additional tests to prove our ability. I don't remember what happened if you didn't pass those tests because I did, but ...
There are a few subjects (including law I believe) for which Maths at GCSE Grade C is not mandatory, but I understand English at that level is always required. How that corresponds to the required High School grade I don't know.
When Eldest Son did his PGCE a few years ago there were key skills tests and catch-up courses for those who didn't pass first time.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
and in England you're not required to have Level 2 / GCSE C or above English and Maths are a prerequisite for any degrees?
To get in to the course. The post was talking about someone who had done the course and was refused a degree at the end.
quote:
For PGCEs / BEds you definitely have to prove you can pass the English, Maths and ICT requirements and GCSEs / O Levels were not enough when I went through it, we all had to sit additional tests to prove our ability. I don't remember what happened if you didn't pass those tests because I did, but ...
When I did an MSc in the Crystallographjy department here, they required students to either have a first degree in a mathematical subject (Physics counted, Biology didn't) or else an A-level maths or equivalent and to attend some extra classes on certain aspects of maths (which didn;t count towars the final degree). If you didn't have an A-level you could sit a test they set. I didn't have A-level maths - I couldn't have dreamed of A-level maths when I was at school, I almost failed the O-level. So I got a textbook, spent a summer working through relevant chapters, sat the test, passed, and attended the catch-up classes.
That's fine. But what they didn't do was turn round at the end and say "even though you have passed all the exams we set you we won't give you a degree because you didn't already have A-level maths". That doesn't' happen here, and I can't imagine it happening (unless maybe you lied to them about your previous exam passes of course - but I assume that's not what we are talking about)
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There are a few subjects (including law I believe) for which Maths at GCSE Grade C is not mandatory, but I understand English at that level is always required.
But again, that is for getting in to the college, not for graduatging once you are there.
quote:
How that corresponds to the required High School grade I don't know.
Not at all I think. We specialise earlier so our subject tests are more advanced that the work Americans typically do at the same age, but they need to do more subjects to finish high school.
So even though you take them at the same age you can't say that an American High School diploma is the same as a set of GCSE passes. The Americans will probably have done more things than we have but the things we do do will probably be taken to a higher level (maths is possibly the one exceptin to that)
Its even more marked at A-level - the Americans have no national exams remotely resembling them. IIRC their university entrance tests, the SATS, only look at English and Mathematics. The SATS maths will be more advanced than our GCSE maths - in fact most British students of that age would probably fail it - but nothing like as advanced as A-level maths, which is more like undergraduate level in the USA.
The biology A-level I did decades ago included stuff few Amereicans would study till grad school. That doesn;t mean we are cleverer than them, just that we drop all the subjects we aren't studying, American university students seem to choose what they call their "major" at age 19 or 20 or even older. We decided at age 16 - in some ways we decided at age 13 or 14.
[ 23. June 2012, 14:36: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
If the standard by which A levels (and even GCSEs, or whatever replaces them) are to be measured is that of giving universities what they want, then why not have the universities running the exam boards?
Which is, in fact, one of Michael Gove's proposals ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
If the standard by which A levels (and even GCSEs, or whatever replaces them) are to be measured is that of giving universities what they want, then why not have the universities running the exam boards?
Which is, in fact, one of Michael Gove's proposals ...
They used to! There is nothing new under the sun (well, clouds just now but that's another topic)
Ken said: quote:
The biology A-level I did decades ago included stuff few Amereicans would study till grad school. That doesn;t mean we are cleverer than them, just that we drop all the subjects we aren't studying, American university students seem to choose what they call their "major" at age 19 or 20 or even older. We decided at age 16 - in some ways we decided at age 13 or 14.
And if Gove gets his way it will be decided for us even earlier. It won't be a question of 'options' but of being told you're too thick to take his O-levels Mark 2. The eleven plus will be back on the cards before too long.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
If the standard by which A levels (and even GCSEs, or whatever replaces them) are to be measured is that of giving universities what they want, then why not have the universities running the exam boards?
Which is, in fact, one of Michael Gove's proposals ...
They used to! There is nothing new under the sun
Yes, but I think the proposal now, as stated in that linked article, is that exam boards will still run things, but universities will dictate content. Not sure that that will work - firstly, there's the issue of power without responsibility, second there's the point that unless the universities also control the marking there isn't much point in dictating the content, and thirdly, however important university entrance is, it's surely not all we want from our Level 3 qualifications.
quote:
... if Gove gets his way it will be decided for us even earlier. It won't be a question of 'options' but of being told you're too thick to take his O-levels Mark 2. The eleven plus will be back on the cards before too long.
Yes, that's what I fear too.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It won't be a question of 'options' but of being told you're too thick to take his O-levels Mark 2.
But again, this already happens with the existence of Foundation Tier and Higher Tier within GCSEs.
If you're going to add harder questions to GCSEs - which I think is a Good Thing - there's going to be some form of academic selection within schools, as teacher decide when they can push a pupil to get A*****s or whatever, and when they should just concentrate on making sure a student gets a C. I'm not sure this is functionally different from saying the bottom students are 'too thick' to get A***** and should just try for a C.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It won't be a question of 'options' but of being told you're too thick to take his O-levels Mark 2.
But again, this already happens with the existence of Foundation Tier and Higher Tier within GCSEs.
Yes, on the whole - and I agree it's a serious problem - but it does depend a bit. It's definitely true with Maths, but with some English syllabuses it is at least theoretically possible to change your entry at the last minute (provided you don't need a specially adapted paper). The big thing in English is whether you take just one subject (English) or two (English Language or English Literature) - that decision usually has to be made around the age of 14. However, it's not a huge deal breaker. If you do well in English, you should still be able to do Language and/or Literature at as Sixth Form College and go on to university.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Maths isn't totally inflexible, there's not an insurmountable amount extra between the Foundation and the Higher papers. The syllabus isn't huge, it can't be from the number of students who enter it a year early.
Science, however, there isn't much chance of crossing over. There's just too much to teach - and there the issue is whether you're covering single science, double science or triple science. And that makes a huge issue as to what you can do next.
But schools would often rather enter any student into a Foundation paper with a good chance of getting a C than a Higher Paper and a chance of not getting a C. And if they have achieved a C at an early sitting of, say maths, the chance of getting another entry to improve the grade is minimal. Far, far better for the school to get another C grade in, for example, ICT out of the student.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
ISTM this is basically about branding. There aren't many ways of adding harder questions to GCSEs that don't look stupid.
You can't really start creating A**, A***, A**** grades without looking like an a***.
You could say that the criteria for getting each grade is now higher. But this is basically saying that an 'old' A is now a 'new' C, and the many voters who have mainly Bs and Cs won't appreciate being told that these are now equivalent to mainly Ds and Es.
You could create a separate standalone qualification, a 'GCSE extra' or whatever, comparable to Advanced Extension Awards or the old S-level at A-level stage, but then only a handful of grammar schools and private schools will bother entering pupils for them.
So basically you have to appear to abolish GCSEs and replace them with something else. And then you could give them a totally new name like 'Gove-levels', but if you resurrect an old name like 'O-levels', at least people have some idea of what they are intended to achieve.
FWIW I think the real culprit is the narrowness of A-levels. In most other countries in the world nobody cares about the GCSE equivalent: the only grade anyone looks at is the baccalauréat / Abitur / whatever. But a baccalauréat covers a wider range of subjects than a set of A-levels. GCSEs are important to Brits because, for most subjects, GCSE X represents the highest qualification we have in subject X.
[ 23. June 2012, 20:46: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
As to Latin, it's not being taught so much in London as it used to be in Scotland. Also when I taught it in secondary school in London, all my classes passed well - but the way they learned was different from the technical academic way I'd learned ( both at school and uni). It seemed to be only me and the head of that school having learned Latin and so teaching it.
O levels and GCSEs also seem to be sometimes different and sometimes similar.
Another thing: is it because we've got so many pupils in schools, who have come from abroad and their English may be a problem? Many have learned well in primary schools, but their parents still do not talk English with them.
Spanish is also an language that many more pupils now learn, not just French and or German.
IMO, it's not bad for teachers to be teaching, nor is GCSE a problem. Maybe people in parliament remember doing O-levels and so want to go back to that - not properly understanding GCSEs...
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anna B
Shipmate
# 1439
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
England is still, at heart, in love with the 19th Century Public School system, Latin, and cricket on the green, and above all social snobbery. That is one of several reasons why this country is in such a mess. To succeed in the modern world a country needs to harness the abilities of all its people, not just the most academic 10%, or whatever the percentage is.
Got it in one!
I am shocked, shocked I tell you. I thought it was only we Americans who yearned for that sort of thing. You guys seemed to have said, well, goodbye to all that.
--------------------
Bad Christian (TM)
Posts: 3069 | From: near a lot of fish | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
