skipping GCSEs
Brian Sloan
How on EARTH would this work? GCSEs may seem easy after you sit them and
move onto AS, but they are challenging for most people at the time. Unless
schools offer a total of 8 or 9 ASs (which may have a severely detrimental
effect on sanity), education would be ridiculously narrow. The whole point
of GCSEs is that they provide a basic level of qualification in a broad
range of subjects., some of which are compulsory.
--
Brian Sloan
sloa...@hotmail.com
http://www.allezlafrance.20m.com/ - Supporting the Axis of Peace
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/03
BarrySmith
By saying GCSE should be optional for the bright immediately in my eyes
devalues the GCSE qualification. in my opinion even the brightest have to
work damn hard to get the grades they get. What's wrong with them studying
ten subjects (i thought the government was keen on broadness).
I strongly believe that choice at 14 is slightly too early (I know people
with probably disagree) - but in the article you gave a link to it said that
Eton plans to let students study 6 AS level subjects. It doesn't say if
they study any GCSE's aswell.
The problem with my subject (maths) would be the fact that work builds on
other work and if you go for an A-level in the subject, you may aswell sit a
GCSE on your way - because you need to learn this work for the foundations
of the A-level. And then of course we are back to where we started.
There jsuts seems change after change after change in our education system.
Why can't they leave it alone for a time/
All the best
"Brian Sloan" <br...@sloan29.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bh7pkj$uravu$1...@ID-156642.news.uni-berlin.de...
ncb
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-774058,00.html
>
> How on EARTH would this work? GCSEs may seem easy after you sit them and
> move onto AS, but they are challenging for most people at the time. Unless
> schools offer a total of 8 or 9 ASs (which may have a severely detrimental
> effect on sanity), education would be ridiculously narrow. The whole point
> of GCSEs is that they provide a basic level of qualification in a broad
> range of subjects., some of which are compulsory.
I guess you could study the GCSE curriculum, or a similarly
broad based range of topics, without taking the exams? What seems
weird is the increasing fragmentation of the UK education system
this promises. Most state schools will not want to give up GCSE
because a lot of the kids will not go on to AS level study. So do
those schools have two tracks, one for people who will use the
GCSE as a 'terminal' qualification, and the other for people who
are aiming at A-level, and who therefor will skip GCSE? How would
people be chosen for these two tracks? If all state school people
keep on taking GCSEs, while Eton etc. skip them and have four
years to take and retake AS and A2 modules, won't that give them
lots of opportunities to get better A-level grades, as suggested in
some newspaper article I read recently, I think in the Guardian?
--
Nora
Brian Sloan
"ncb" <n...@mu-networks.com> wrote
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-774058,00.html
> >
> > How on EARTH would this work? GCSEs may seem easy after you sit them
and
> > move onto AS, but they are challenging for most people at the time.
Unless
> > schools offer a total of 8 or 9 ASs (which may have a severely
detrimental
> > effect on sanity), education would be ridiculously narrow. The whole
point
> > of GCSEs is that they provide a basic level of qualification in a broad
> > range of subjects., some of which are compulsory.
> I guess you could study the GCSE curriculum, or a similarly
> broad based range of topics, without taking the exams?
But if these people are so clever, taking the exams after studying the
curriculum will be no problem. Besides, we need qualifications on paper.
> What seems
> weird is the increasing fragmentation of the UK education system
> this promises. Most state schools will not want to give up GCSE
> because a lot of the kids will not go on to AS level study. So do
> those schools have two tracks, one for people who will use the
> GCSE as a 'terminal' qualification, and the other for people who
> are aiming at A-level, and who therefor will skip GCSE? How would
> people be chosen for these two tracks? If all state school people
> keep on taking GCSEs, while Eton etc. skip them and have four
> years to take and retake AS and A2 modules, won't that give them
> lots of opportunities to get better A-level grades, as suggested in
> some newspaper article I read recently, I think in the Guardian?
Indeed, the whole thing is ridiculous.
Gordon
>
> How on EARTH would this work? GCSEs may seem easy after you sit them and
> move onto AS, but they are challenging for most people at the time.
Unless
> schools offer a total of 8 or 9 ASs (which may have a severely detrimental
> effect on sanity), education would be ridiculously narrow. The whole
point
> of GCSEs is that they provide a basic level of qualification in a broad
> range of subjects., some of which are compulsory.
I skipped Biology and Physics GCSEs and went straight onto AS (although I
had done 1 and 2 years of work on the GCSE syllabus respectively). This was
great for me, as I ended up with an AS in Bio as opposed to a GCSE, and I
got to finish Physics A2 when I was 17. If I had wanted to, I could have
then done a post A-level course (as it was, I just got some more free time
:P).
I'm glad I did some GCSEs, as I'm not sure whether I could have coped with
ASs in my weaker subjects (French, English). However, I would have liked to
have this option in say Geography.
I don't think there would be a massive problem doing 8 or 9 ASs (I've done
6- enabled by the fact that I did Bio, Physics and Maths* early)- remeber
you'd have way more time to do a given course, or only be doing a few at any
one time.
Personally I think this is a top plan, although it isn't a completely new
idea.
Brian Sloan
"Gordon" <gRemov...@hotmailThiS.com> wrote
> I skipped Biology and Physics GCSEs and went straight onto AS (although I
> had done 1 and 2 years of work on the GCSE syllabus respectively). This
was
> great for me, as I ended up with an AS in Bio as opposed to a GCSE, and I
> got to finish Physics A2 when I was 17. If I had wanted to, I could have
> then done a post A-level course (as it was, I just got some more free time
> :P).
But if a little free time is the only thing gained, is it worth it?
ncb
(ncb wrote:
> So do those schools have two tracks, one for people who will use the
> GCSE as a 'terminal' qualification, and the other for people who
> are aiming at A-level, and who therefor will skip GCSE? )
I found this Q&A session on the BBC website, might be interesting for
those (like me) who aren't familiar with the old O-level and CSE system
which was replaced by the current GCSE:
"Q: Isn't this plan going to bring us full circle to a situation where
the brightest pupils do AS-levels and the not so bright do GSCEs as with
split between CSEs and GCEs? Does this mark a failure of the intention
of the GSCE as a "one exam fits all" approach?
A: (Martin Ward deputy general secretary of the Secondary Heads
Association)
Yes I can take that point and I think there is a danger of that because
those who can think back that far remember that there used to be two
streams and you either got put in the O-level stream if you were bright
or the CSE stream if you weren't so bright, typically at age around 14
years old. And that labelled people in a way that's very unhelpful.
Certainly I would be sorry if that were to happen again."
--
Nora
adam
>
> "Gordon" <gRemov...@hotmailThiS.com> wrote
> > I skipped Biology and Physics GCSEs and went straight onto AS (although
I
> > had done 1 and 2 years of work on the GCSE syllabus respectively). This
> was
> > great for me, as I ended up with an AS in Bio as opposed to a GCSE, and
I
> > got to finish Physics A2 when I was 17. If I had wanted to, I could have
> > then done a post A-level course (as it was, I just got some more free
time
> > :P).
>
> But if a little free time is the only thing gained, is it worth it?
He also did 6 AS levels.
And enabling top students to go at their own pace, not being 'held back' by
having to take exams at specific ages, then that's defiently a good thing.
adam
Stuart Williams
says...
level. That meant I did my (4) A levels at 17 and went straight on to
university. Virtually all of my teachers regarded O level exams as an
irritant (in English, we started work for O level in March).
Two things emerge from this experience:
I had a much more interesting education than pupils I now teach who do
ten or even eleven GCSEs. The emphasis on exam technique and perfectable
coursework is competely stultifying. This is what Eton et al are trying
to get away from. Abolishing League Tables would be a better way of
ensuring the same result.
I was too young to go to university. This is quite likely to happen to
those who begin their AS courses in Yr 11, as I effectively did.
Bring on the Bac.
Stuart Williams
Adam Atkinson
>there used to be two
>streams and you either got put in the O-level stream if you were bright
>or the CSE stream if you weren't so bright, typically at age around 14
>years old. And that labelled people in a way that's very unhelpful.
Last time I looked (quite a few years ago), GCSE maths had three
tiers, and which tier you were entered for determined which grades you
could possibly get. It's not obvious to me that this is a "one exam
fits all" solution. Has maths stopped doing this? Did/do other
subjects do this?
--
Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk)
Quicksand or no, Carstairs, I've half a mind to struggle.
Brian Sloan
"Adam Atkinson" <gh...@mistral.co.uk> wrote
> Last time I looked (quite a few years ago), GCSE maths had three
> tiers, and which tier you were entered for determined which grades you
> could possibly get. It's not obvious to me that this is a "one exam
> fits all" solution. Has maths stopped doing this? Did/do other
> subjects do this?
All have Foundation and Higher Tiers. Maths is the only subject with an
Intermediate tier, and is the only subject in which a substantial proportion
of students sit anything other than Higher.
Ian/Cath Ford
<br...@sloan29.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>All have Foundation and Higher Tiers.
Not all - History certainly only has one tier and iirc so does art and
quite possibly some of the other similar stuff like drama. Design and
food do have 2 however.
History is an odd one. I can't remember exactly how or why historians
managed to argue that the exam with arguably the most amount of
reading (OK, perhaps Eng Lit wins - just) should retain single tier
entry. Daft idea imo.
>Intermediate tier, and is the only subject in which a substantial proportion
>of students sit anything other than Higher.
Not sure about the substantial proportion bit you know. Certainly
Travel and Tourism at AQA had a very small higher entry, as, I
believe, do a number of short courses.
But the general point is probably sound for the majority of the
popular subjects.
Ian
--
Ian, Cath & Eoin Ford
The view from Beccles
I loved the words you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday
No e-mail address. If you want to talk to me then talk here to start with and we can go back to your place later...
Adam Atkinson
>All have Foundation and Higher Tiers. Maths is the only subject with an
>Intermediate tier, and is the only subject in which a substantial proportion
>of students sit anything other than Higher.
Aha. Thanks.
This new proposal to split GCSE maths in two would create something
( even more content-free / even less intimidating ) than Foundation
maths GCSE as it stands today? Fascinating, if so.
--
Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk)
A psychopath kills for no reason; I kill for money. (M. Blank)
Brian Sloan
"Adam Atkinson" <gh...@mistral.co.uk> wrote> This new proposal to split GCSE
maths in two would create something
> ( even more content-free / even less intimidating ) than Foundation
> maths GCSE as it stands today? Fascinating, if so.
It'll be a completely different subject - Use of Maths. You can take either
or both.
ath
either
> or both.
Maths has a use?!?
Aonghus
Brian Sloan
"ath" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bh8rle$r35$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Despite attempts by the A-Level Pure Maths syllabi to convince you
otherwise, I'm told the whole universe can be understood through Maths, the
drawback being that you have to understand Maths first.
BarrySmith
the logistics of it are quite something. We have tried to create a separate
maths group in Year 9 this year (with 15 or 20) individuals who could get an
A/A* in maths a year early at GCSE. The problem then is to get this into
the timetable (it is an extra group - so do we employ a teacher for three
lessons, give one group to a non maths specialist (possible - but unfair) or
make all the other groups bigger- again unfair on the c/d borderline kids).
Alternative is accelearte all the top set (even though they all wouldn't get
an even an A at end of Year 11). Problem then is what do they do after.
You would have pupils wanting to resit their GCSE modules (this is possible
with GCSE maths). YOu would have pupils wanting to start A-level. Pupils
not wanting at all to continue the subject. What do we do? It's almost
impossibel to put a timetable into place as it is - complications with the
new a-level make it even more difficult. I honestly think this is where
there could be a problem.
The alternative of course is self study and individual learning. I hope
this is not the way it is going. I still want to teach pupils maths.
These are just a few thoughts.
"adam" <no...@boo.net> wrote in message
news:bh8i91$t8o5r$1...@ID-24218.news.uni-berlin.de...
Toby
wrote:
Mrs. Nuttal?
Wood of Beech?
Wains and Gels?
If this means nothing, you may disregard :)
Alex Warren
> Despite attempts by the A-Level Pure Maths syllabi to convince you
> otherwise, I'm told the whole universe can be understood through Maths, the
> drawback being that you have to understand Maths first.
Can it though? Maths can exist quite happily without the universe. So why the
feck does the universe exist at all? This has been baffling me for a while now.
Alex
--
At axeuk.com, alex is. Welcome to email you are.
alt.uk.a-levels FAQ and photos: http://www.axeuk.com/aua/
NEW: The Embryo - "Information": http://www.theembryo.net/
Brian Sloan
> So why the
> feck does the universe exist at all? This has been baffling me for a while
now.
Why waste our time with such a trivial question? ;)
Gordon
news:bh8hjv$vo9as$1...@ID-156642.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > I skipped Biology and Physics GCSEs and went straight onto AS (although
I
> > had done 1 and 2 years of work on the GCSE syllabus respectively). This
> was
> > great for me, as I ended up with an AS in Bio as opposed to a GCSE, and
I
> > got to finish Physics A2 when I was 17. If I had wanted to, I could have
> > then done a post A-level course (as it was, I just got some more free
time
> > :P).
>
> But if a little free time is the only thing gained, is it worth it?
Well, I might have needed the time to cope with my other subjects. I'm not
sure to be honest. But more importantly, if I had wanted to do Physics or
whatever at university, I could have done a post A-level course, which
covers interesting topics at 1st/2nd year uni depth, preparation for
Olympiads, AEAs etc (and STEP when they still had them for Physics).*
Also, I could have used the time freed up, to finish off Biology and do the
A2 (I didn't because I wanted the time to focus on my UCAS applications and
other subjects, as well as the fact that I A-level Bio courseis cr*p). Or I
could have taken another AS.
ncb
> >
> My 2d-worth: I went to a school where the A-stream took four years to O
> level. That meant I did my (4) A levels at 17 and went straight on to
> university. Virtually all of my teachers regarded O level exams as an
> irritant (in English, we started work for O level in March).
>
> Two things emerge from this experience:
>
> I had a much more interesting education than pupils I now teach who do
> ten or even eleven GCSEs. The emphasis on exam technique and perfectable
> coursework is competely stultifying. This is what Eton et al are trying
> to get away from. Abolishing League Tables would be a better way of
> ensuring the same result.
>
they just lead to increasingly stringent selection so that there won't
be any kids in the school liable to drag down the table standing.
> I was too young to go to university.
Thought you said you went straight onto uni at 17 ... are you
saying you were too young to enjoy it, or am I confused?
This is quite likely to happen to
> those who begin their AS courses in Yr 11, as I effectively did.
>
> Bring on the Bac.
Hmm ... see interesting post by "Alex" (n...@no.no) who says he's taught
the Bac and it's not all it's cracked up to be. But at least it might
get away from the Three Years in a Row of Tests and Mocks on Top of
That syndrome.
--
Nora
Stuart Williams
says...
> Stuart Williams wrote:
<snip>
> > I was too young to go to university.
>
> Thought you said you went straight onto uni at 17 ... are you
> saying you were too young to enjoy it, or am I confused?
>
I went to university at 17 but found the first year really hard to deal
with, which I put down to emotional immaturity.
> This is quite likely to happen to
> > those who begin their AS courses in Yr 11, as I effectively did.
> >
> > Bring on the Bac.
>
> Hmm ... see interesting post by "Alex" (n...@no.no) who says he's taught
> the Bac and it's not all it's cracked up to be. But at least it might
> get away from the Three Years in a Row of Tests and Mocks on Top of
> That syndrome.
> --
> Nora
>
Yes, I read Alex's post, but I disagree with his view that A levels
provide more (or as much) breadth: nothing stops you from doing Double
Maths and Physics (with a little Electronics on the side) or Economics,
Business Studies and Psychology.
And the best-educated students I've had have nearly all been Germans: we
don't have to take over the French Bac, we could look at the Abitur
instead. Or (revolutionary idea) build our own version.
Stuart
ncb
> >
> Yes, I read Alex's post, but I disagree with his view that A levels
> provide more (or as much) breadth: nothing stops you from doing Double
> Maths and Physics (with a little Electronics on the side) or Economics,
> Business Studies and Psychology.
>
> And the best-educated students I've had have nearly all been Germans: we
> don't have to take over the French Bac, we could look at the Abitur
> instead. Or (revolutionary idea) build our own version.
Well, we'll have to build our own to some extent, as my understanding
of the IB is it's not suitable for less academic kids. What about the
Abitur, is that a qualification that only the more academic students do
in Germany, or does it cater for all levels?
--
Nora
Stuart Williams
says...
> Stuart Williams wrote:
> > >
> > Yes, I read Alex's post, but I disagree with his view that A levels
> > provide more (or as much) breadth: nothing stops you from doing Double
> > Maths and Physics (with a little Electronics on the side) or Economics,
> > Business Studies and Psychology.
> >
> > And the best-educated students I've had have nearly all been Germans: we
> > don't have to take over the French Bac, we could look at the Abitur
> > instead. Or (revolutionary idea) build our own version.
>
> Well, we'll have to build our own to some extent, as my understanding
> of the IB is it's not suitable for less academic kids.
I may have misunderstood, but I thought this idea of introducing a Bac-
type qualification was to replace A levels for brighter kids. It isn't
meant to replace A levels as such.
> What about the
> Abitur, is that a qualification that only the more academic students do
> in Germany, or does it cater for all levels?
> --
> Nora
>
It's designed for the top 20% of German school leavers and serves as
their entrance exam to university.
I'm sure there are better links than this, but it goves some idea:
http://www.jfks.de/kennedyschool/academicprog/abiprog.html
Stuart
ncb
> I may have misunderstood, but I thought this idea of introducing a Bac-
> type qualification was to replace A levels for brighter kids. It isn't
> meant to replace A levels as such.
>
would accomodate everybody and I think in my mind I was roaming into
that territory. I understand now we were talking a bit at cross
purposes, you were thinking of provision for the more academic.
--
Nora