Morning anyway. I see the Beeb have rolled out the evergreen "no knockout blow" for the debate. This is such a trope that I reckon the only thing that would prevent its use is if there was quite literally a punch delivered on stage flattening one of the participants. And Sunak did seem to fancy it at times, didn't he?
However, because they don't know what they're talking about, we have ended up with a train crash. Maths GCSE is the classic example. It's designed to be 'more rigorous' because the old one was 'too easy.' This means that if it had been properly assessed 40% of children would have failed it. Because that was politically unacceptable the pass mark had to be dropped, rendering the whole exercise worthless anyway. A simpler, more flexible exam that had a decent spread of grades would have been much more useful as a qualification.
And, since it does not cover any of the A-level content in any sort of depth anyway, to do well at A-level you really need to do Further Maths GCSE on top as well. Which negates the whole purpose of 'democratising' the qualification as most state schools don't offer it.
So - which standards? And how? And why?
I would need to go and check but I suspect far fewer people do A level maths now than before the reforms. The Twin's school only allowed those with an 8 or 9 to do A level maths as even those with a 7 were finding the leaps and work required too much..
This is what I found as well when running the sixth form. Because ordinary GCSE doesn't prepare you properly, you can't do A-level maths without further maths GCSE unless you are incredibly able (in which case, why not do FM anyway)?
Apparently, the issue is the lack of proper algebra at GCSE which is the dominant component of A-level. Whether that's a good thing or not I don't know, I don't know enough about the uses of algebra to make an informed guess. I just know that that's a really, really stupid mistake to have made.
One reason for that is that the new GCSE syllabuses are so full you can't do what used to happen. Prior to 2017 a common approach would be for the top stream to do GCSE maths in Year 10, walk away with an A/B and study Further Maths in Year 11.
I suspect there was an assumption that the same logic would be followed post the reforms and there are multiple reasons (all decisions made by Gove and co) as to why that isn't the case
As against that, the three year GCSE is becoming the norm. Simply because the courses are so overstuffed.
However, it does highlight the muddled thinking on this issue. If you're going to have a different exam to set up A-level, and have everyone sit the 'ordinary' maths exam, why not make that reasonably straightforward so you can see where in the ability spectrum somebody falls rather than just saying the 50% who can't really get anything from it must be being badly taught or something?
Then, have a third in the top grades further sorted by further maths?
Still what do I know? I'm only an expert with a functioning brain, two ways I'm different from those in charge of education.
Everyone knows that GCSE's now require 3 years but woe betide any school caught by Ofsted teaching the GCSE course in year 9 or allowing pupils to select topics in Year 9. Which means that schools need to guess the important topics and teach a combination of in depth (likely to be examined) and superficial to get everything covered in time.
Of course you know that but others may not.
Why would a school get in trouble for teaching a year ahead?
When I was in school I was 2 year's ahead on Maths because I was a year ahead physically (thanks to changing hemispheres), plus streamed into top-set on Maths which taught a year ahead.
Are you suggesting a school with streaming that runs a year ahead for kids that are ahead would get in trouble?
As @ydoethur points out - KS3 runs from Y7 to Y10 - ages 11 to 14. Woe betide you shrink that.
Hate to be picky, but it's years 7-9 inclusive. Years 10 and 11 are GCSE.
However, because they don't know what they're talking about, we have ended up with a train crash. Maths GCSE is the classic example. It's designed to be 'more rigorous' because the old one was 'too easy.' This means that if it had been properly assessed 40% of children would have failed it. Because that was politically unacceptable the pass mark had to be dropped, rendering the whole exercise worthless anyway. A simpler, more flexible exam that had a decent spread of grades would have been much more useful as a qualification.
And, since it does not cover any of the A-level content in any sort of depth anyway, to do well at A-level you really need to do Further Maths GCSE on top as well. Which negates the whole purpose of 'democratising' the qualification as most state schools don't offer it.
So - which standards? And how? And why?
I would need to go and check but I suspect far fewer people do A level maths now than before the reforms. The Twin's school only allowed those with an 8 or 9 to do A level maths as even those with a 7 were finding the leaps and work required too much..
This is what I found as well when running the sixth form. Because ordinary GCSE doesn't prepare you properly, you can't do A-level maths without further maths GCSE unless you are incredibly able (in which case, why not do FM anyway)?
Apparently, the issue is the lack of proper algebra at GCSE which is the dominant component of A-level. Whether that's a good thing or not I don't know, I don't know enough about the uses of algebra to make an informed guess. I just know that that's a really, really stupid mistake to have made.
One reason for that is that the new GCSE syllabuses are so full you can't do what used to happen. Prior to 2017 a common approach would be for the top stream to do GCSE maths in Year 10, walk away with an A/B and study Further Maths in Year 11.
I suspect there was an assumption that the same logic would be followed post the reforms and there are multiple reasons (all decisions made by Gove and co) as to why that isn't the case
As against that, the three year GCSE is becoming the norm. Simply because the courses are so overstuffed.
However, it does highlight the muddled thinking on this issue. If you're going to have a different exam to set up A-level, and have everyone sit the 'ordinary' maths exam, why not make that reasonably straightforward so you can see where in the ability spectrum somebody falls rather than just saying the 50% who can't really get anything from it must be being badly taught or something?
Then, have a third in the top grades further sorted by further maths?
Still what do I know? I'm only an expert with a functioning brain, two ways I'm different from those in charge of education.
Everyone knows that GCSE's now require 3 years but woe betide any school caught by Ofsted teaching the GCSE course in year 9 or allowing pupils to select topics in Year 9. Which means that schools need to guess the important topics and teach a combination of in depth (likely to be examined) and superficial to get everything covered in time.
Of course you know that but others may not.
Why would a school get in trouble for teaching a year ahead?
When I was in school I was 2 year's ahead on Maths because I was a year ahead physically (thanks to changing hemispheres), plus streamed into top-set on Maths which taught a year ahead.
Are you suggesting a school with streaming that runs a year ahead for kids that are ahead would get in trouble?
Yes. OFSTED don't like it. Particularly under the new, less than brilliantly imagined or implemented 'curriculum inspection framework' that considers KS1 is two years, KS2 is four years, KS3 is three years...
That's f***ing stupid.
Hold back bright kids? What f***ing purpose can that possibly have?
Not yet 10 am and you're boiling over. Again.
In fairness Bart has been given a good reason to boil over, particularly if the system is set up to encourage schools to hold back kids. I hope it isn't true, but ....
Morning anyway. I see the Beeb have rolled out the evergreen "no knockout blow" for the debate. This is such a trope that I reckon the only thing that would prevent its use is if there was quite literally a punch delivered on stage flattening one of the participants. And Sunak did seem to fancy it at times, didn't he?
Also, this "turns toxic" and "deeply bitter and personal" stuff.
I didn't see either Truss or Sunak go the full MalcolmG on stage.
They were having a leadership debate, and challenging each other accordingly on their policy, priorities and leadership style.
As a result, it's possible to be a complete idiot and still get a good grade in a History exam (Cummings waves hello - there's nothing wrong with his memory except a determination to rewrite his past, but he is incapable of analysing or understanding anything beyond a very superficial level).
However, all politicians and civil servants, however dim, got where they were by being good at passing exams. Which means they firmly, fervently and probably quite honestly believe that's the best way of showing who is intelligent. Plus, they believe the exams were harder when they sat them and so, they need to be 'reformed' to be 'more rigorous.'
However, because they don't know what they're talking about, we have ended up with a train crash. Maths GCSE is the classic example. It's designed to be 'more rigorous' because the old one was 'too easy.' This means that if it had been properly assessed 40% of children would have failed it. Because that was politically unacceptable the pass mark had to be dropped, rendering the whole exercise worthless anyway. A simpler, more flexible exam that had a decent spread of grades would have been much more useful as a qualification.
And, since it does not cover any of the A-level content in any sort of depth anyway, to do well at A-level you really need to do Further Maths GCSE on top as well. Which negates the whole purpose of 'democratising' the qualification as most state schools don't offer it.
So - which standards? And how? And why?
I've never even heard of further maths GCSE. My daughter is planning to do maths and further maths A level. I'm worried now!
I'm interested to know why the format of A level maths has changed from the past. In my day we had Pure maths A level and Applied maths A level. As an alternative there was a Combined Maths A level that consisted of the first two (easier) papers of the other two A level. Ideal for those needing a good maths grounding at University but not doing maths. Seems sensible to me. Like to know the argument for the change.
You appear to have escaped from the 1950s.
Not far wrong. See my other post. Born in 1954, A level maths 1971 - 1973. Took one of them early in 1972.
Not saying I disagree with the change, but struggling to see the logic in it and what was wrong with the original system, which seems sound and rational.
However, because they don't know what they're talking about, we have ended up with a train crash. Maths GCSE is the classic example. It's designed to be 'more rigorous' because the old one was 'too easy.' This means that if it had been properly assessed 40% of children would have failed it. Because that was politically unacceptable the pass mark had to be dropped, rendering the whole exercise worthless anyway. A simpler, more flexible exam that had a decent spread of grades would have been much more useful as a qualification.
And, since it does not cover any of the A-level content in any sort of depth anyway, to do well at A-level you really need to do Further Maths GCSE on top as well. Which negates the whole purpose of 'democratising' the qualification as most state schools don't offer it.
So - which standards? And how? And why?
I would need to go and check but I suspect far fewer people do A level maths now than before the reforms. The Twin's school only allowed those with an 8 or 9 to do A level maths as even those with a 7 were finding the leaps and work required too much..
This is what I found as well when running the sixth form. Because ordinary GCSE doesn't prepare you properly, you can't do A-level maths without further maths GCSE unless you are incredibly able (in which case, why not do FM anyway)?
Apparently, the issue is the lack of proper algebra at GCSE which is the dominant component of A-level. Whether that's a good thing or not I don't know, I don't know enough about the uses of algebra to make an informed guess. I just know that that's a really, really stupid mistake to have made.
One reason for that is that the new GCSE syllabuses are so full you can't do what used to happen. Prior to 2017 a common approach would be for the top stream to do GCSE maths in Year 10, walk away with an A/B and study Further Maths in Year 11.
I suspect there was an assumption that the same logic would be followed post the reforms and there are multiple reasons (all decisions made by Gove and co) as to why that isn't the case
As against that, the three year GCSE is becoming the norm. Simply because the courses are so overstuffed.
However, it does highlight the muddled thinking on this issue. If you're going to have a different exam to set up A-level, and have everyone sit the 'ordinary' maths exam, why not make that reasonably straightforward so you can see where in the ability spectrum somebody falls rather than just saying the 50% who can't really get anything from it must be being badly taught or something?
Then, have a third in the top grades further sorted by further maths?
Still what do I know? I'm only an expert with a functioning brain, two ways I'm different from those in charge of education.
If you had the education brief for a full parliamentary term, together with some funding headroom, how might you reform the system ? And what would you prioritise for greatest effect ?
Sacking the whole DfE and not replacing them would be the most essential step. Most of the problems in education stem form their efforts to micromanage things, very incompetently.
Getting rid of Academy chains would also be important. They were essentially a power grab by the DfE and a very costly (in all senses) mistake.
For good or ill we are stuck with the exam system we have. It is enormously disruptive and expensive to change it and would probably jam the whole system solid if anyone even tried. The reason this is my first actual summer holiday in six years is because all the others have involved enormous amounts of work rewriting the curriculum to match the changes. (It wouldn't even be that if I hadn't quit, although 2023 might be easier.)
I would however look to have loose federations of local schools and universities working on curriculums and possibly qualifications as well. That would, however, require fairly dramatic reforms of the university QA system.
There might be a case for abolishing GCSEs as they are no longer gateways to sixth form study.
And take a leaf out of the posh schools book and have non-examined courses of more "relevant" or just interesting subjects, from local history of wherever the school is, to how to set up a web site or make a Youtube video; simple DIY, car maintenance or cookery for one.
As a result, it's possible to be a complete idiot and still get a good grade in a History exam (Cummings waves hello - there's nothing wrong with his memory except a determination to rewrite his past, but he is incapable of analysing or understanding anything beyond a very superficial level).
However, all politicians and civil servants, however dim, got where they were by being good at passing exams. Which means they firmly, fervently and probably quite honestly believe that's the best way of showing who is intelligent. Plus, they believe the exams were harder when they sat them and so, they need to be 'reformed' to be 'more rigorous.'
However, because they don't know what they're talking about, we have ended up with a train crash. Maths GCSE is the classic example. It's designed to be 'more rigorous' because the old one was 'too easy.' This means that if it had been properly assessed 40% of children would have failed it. Because that was politically unacceptable the pass mark had to be dropped, rendering the whole exercise worthless anyway. A simpler, more flexible exam that had a decent spread of grades would have been much more useful as a qualification.
And, since it does not cover any of the A-level content in any sort of depth anyway, to do well at A-level you really need to do Further Maths GCSE on top as well. Which negates the whole purpose of 'democratising' the qualification as most state schools don't offer it.
So - which standards? And how? And why?
I've never even heard of further maths GCSE. My daughter is planning to do maths and further maths A level. I'm worried now!
I'm interested to know why the format of A level maths has changed from the past. In my day we had Pure maths A level and Applied maths A level. As an alternative there was a Combined Maths A level that consisted of the first two (easier) papers of the other two A level. Ideal for those needing a good maths grounding at University but not doing maths. Seems sensible to me. Like to know the argument for the change.
You appear to have escaped from the 1950s.
Did they have GCEs in the 1950s or was it still school certificate and matriculation? Or for most pupils, escape and a job at 15.
iirc in my day you could do double A-level maths either as maths and further maths, or as pure maths and applied maths, where the same content would be examined in a different order.
However, because they don't know what they're talking about, we have ended up with a train crash. Maths GCSE is the classic example. It's designed to be 'more rigorous' because the old one was 'too easy.' This means that if it had been properly assessed 40% of children would have failed it. Because that was politically unacceptable the pass mark had to be dropped, rendering the whole exercise worthless anyway. A simpler, more flexible exam that had a decent spread of grades would have been much more useful as a qualification.
And, since it does not cover any of the A-level content in any sort of depth anyway, to do well at A-level you really need to do Further Maths GCSE on top as well. Which negates the whole purpose of 'democratising' the qualification as most state schools don't offer it.
So - which standards? And how? And why?
I would need to go and check but I suspect far fewer people do A level maths now than before the reforms. The Twin's school only allowed those with an 8 or 9 to do A level maths as even those with a 7 were finding the leaps and work required too much..
This is what I found as well when running the sixth form. Because ordinary GCSE doesn't prepare you properly, you can't do A-level maths without further maths GCSE unless you are incredibly able (in which case, why not do FM anyway)?
Apparently, the issue is the lack of proper algebra at GCSE which is the dominant component of A-level. Whether that's a good thing or not I don't know, I don't know enough about the uses of algebra to make an informed guess. I just know that that's a really, really stupid mistake to have made.
One reason for that is that the new GCSE syllabuses are so full you can't do what used to happen. Prior to 2017 a common approach would be for the top stream to do GCSE maths in Year 10, walk away with an A/B and study Further Maths in Year 11.
I suspect there was an assumption that the same logic would be followed post the reforms and there are multiple reasons (all decisions made by Gove and co) as to why that isn't the case
As against that, the three year GCSE is becoming the norm. Simply because the courses are so overstuffed.
However, it does highlight the muddled thinking on this issue. If you're going to have a different exam to set up A-level, and have everyone sit the 'ordinary' maths exam, why not make that reasonably straightforward so you can see where in the ability spectrum somebody falls rather than just saying the 50% who can't really get anything from it must be being badly taught or something?
Then, have a third in the top grades further sorted by further maths?
Still what do I know? I'm only an expert with a functioning brain, two ways I'm different from those in charge of education.
Everyone knows that GCSE's now require 3 years but woe betide any school caught by Ofsted teaching the GCSE course in year 9 or allowing pupils to select topics in Year 9. Which means that schools need to guess the important topics and teach a combination of in depth (likely to be examined) and superficial to get everything covered in time.
Of course you know that but others may not.
Why would a school get in trouble for teaching a year ahead?
When I was in school I was 2 year's ahead on Maths because I was a year ahead physically (thanks to changing hemispheres), plus streamed into top-set on Maths which taught a year ahead.
Are you suggesting a school with streaming that runs a year ahead for kids that are ahead would get in trouble?
Yes. OFSTED don't like it. Particularly under the new, less than brilliantly imagined or implemented 'curriculum inspection framework' that considers KS1 is two years, KS2 is four years, KS3 is three years...
That's f***ing stupid.
Hold back bright kids? What f***ing purpose can that possibly have?
Not yet 10 am and you're boiling over. Again.
In fairness Bart has been given a good reason to boil over, particularly if the system is set up to encourage schools to hold back kids. I hope it isn't true, but ....
As a result, it's possible to be a complete idiot and still get a good grade in a History exam (Cummings waves hello - there's nothing wrong with his memory except a determination to rewrite his past, but he is incapable of analysing or understanding anything beyond a very superficial level).
However, all politicians and civil servants, however dim, got where they were by being good at passing exams. Which means they firmly, fervently and probably quite honestly believe that's the best way of showing who is intelligent. Plus, they believe the exams were harder when they sat them and so, they need to be 'reformed' to be 'more rigorous.'
However, because they don't know what they're talking about, we have ended up with a train crash. Maths GCSE is the classic example. It's designed to be 'more rigorous' because the old one was 'too easy.' This means that if it had been properly assessed 40% of children would have failed it. Because that was politically unacceptable the pass mark had to be dropped, rendering the whole exercise worthless anyway. A simpler, more flexible exam that had a decent spread of grades would have been much more useful as a qualification.
And, since it does not cover any of the A-level content in any sort of depth anyway, to do well at A-level you really need to do Further Maths GCSE on top as well. Which negates the whole purpose of 'democratising' the qualification as most state schools don't offer it.
So - which standards? And how? And why?
I've never even heard of further maths GCSE. My daughter is planning to do maths and further maths A level. I'm worried now!
I'm interested to know why the format of A level maths has changed from the past. In my day we had Pure maths A level and Applied maths A level. As an alternative there was a Combined Maths A level that consisted of the first two (easier) papers of the other two A level. Ideal for those needing a good maths grounding at University but not doing maths. Seems sensible to me. Like to know the argument for the change.
You appear to have escaped from the 1950s.
Did they have GCEs in the 1950s or was it still school certificate and matriculation? Or for most pupils, escape and a job at 15.
iirc in my day you could do double A-level maths either as maths and further maths, or as pure maths and applied maths, where the same content would be examined in a different order.
GCEs came in in the late 1940s (I think 1947) under the terms of the Education Act 1944.
It’s very good - but also very much a concept car, full of F1 and Formula E tech, with a hand-built carbon chassis and relentless attention to aerodynamic detail.
A production version would be in supercar pricing territory and have a lot less range, but some people will definitely pay top dollar to avoid having to deal with the various charging systems on road trips.
I noticed in passing while reading about the new MG 4 that their new floor design allows for battery packs of between 40kwh and 150kwh... So they are looking at building cars with a range of 700 miles +
Tbf 500-600 miles would be plenty for most people, meaning you could travel through Europe and only have to charge overnight.
If I was driving from home to Dover, I would probably run out of battery just at the entrance to Dover. However, the ensuing hold ups wouldn’t be my fault, as I’m not French.
However, because they don't know what they're talking about, we have ended up with a train crash. Maths GCSE is the classic example. It's designed to be 'more rigorous' because the old one was 'too easy.' This means that if it had been properly assessed 40% of children would have failed it. Because that was politically unacceptable the pass mark had to be dropped, rendering the whole exercise worthless anyway. A simpler, more flexible exam that had a decent spread of grades would have been much more useful as a qualification.
And, since it does not cover any of the A-level content in any sort of depth anyway, to do well at A-level you really need to do Further Maths GCSE on top as well. Which negates the whole purpose of 'democratising' the qualification as most state schools don't offer it.
So - which standards? And how? And why?
I would need to go and check but I suspect far fewer people do A level maths now than before the reforms. The Twin's school only allowed those with an 8 or 9 to do A level maths as even those with a 7 were finding the leaps and work required too much..
This is what I found as well when running the sixth form. Because ordinary GCSE doesn't prepare you properly, you can't do A-level maths without further maths GCSE unless you are incredibly able (in which case, why not do FM anyway)?
Apparently, the issue is the lack of proper algebra at GCSE which is the dominant component of A-level. Whether that's a good thing or not I don't know, I don't know enough about the uses of algebra to make an informed guess. I just know that that's a really, really stupid mistake to have made.
One reason for that is that the new GCSE syllabuses are so full you can't do what used to happen. Prior to 2017 a common approach would be for the top stream to do GCSE maths in Year 10, walk away with an A/B and study Further Maths in Year 11.
I suspect there was an assumption that the same logic would be followed post the reforms and there are multiple reasons (all decisions made by Gove and co) as to why that isn't the case
As against that, the three year GCSE is becoming the norm. Simply because the courses are so overstuffed.
However, it does highlight the muddled thinking on this issue. If you're going to have a different exam to set up A-level, and have everyone sit the 'ordinary' maths exam, why not make that reasonably straightforward so you can see where in the ability spectrum somebody falls rather than just saying the 50% who can't really get anything from it must be being badly taught or something?
Then, have a third in the top grades further sorted by further maths?
Still what do I know? I'm only an expert with a functioning brain, two ways I'm different from those in charge of education.
Everyone knows that GCSE's now require 3 years but woe betide any school caught by Ofsted teaching the GCSE course in year 9 or allowing pupils to select topics in Year 9. Which means that schools need to guess the important topics and teach a combination of in depth (likely to be examined) and superficial to get everything covered in time.
Of course you know that but others may not.
Why would a school get in trouble for teaching a year ahead?
When I was in school I was 2 year's ahead on Maths because I was a year ahead physically (thanks to changing hemispheres), plus streamed into top-set on Maths which taught a year ahead.
Are you suggesting a school with streaming that runs a year ahead for kids that are ahead would get in trouble?
Yes. OFSTED don't like it. Particularly under the new, less than brilliantly imagined or implemented 'curriculum inspection framework' that considers KS1 is two years, KS2 is four years, KS3 is three years...
That's f***ing stupid.
Hold back bright kids? What f***ing purpose can that possibly have?
Not yet 10 am and you're boiling over. Again.
In fairness Bart has been given a good reason to boil over, particularly if the system is set up to encourage schools to hold back kids. I hope it isn't true, but ....
As a result, it's possible to be a complete idiot and still get a good grade in a History exam (Cummings waves hello - there's nothing wrong with his memory except a determination to rewrite his past, but he is incapable of analysing or understanding anything beyond a very superficial level).
However, all politicians and civil servants, however dim, got where they were by being good at passing exams. Which means they firmly, fervently and probably quite honestly believe that's the best way of showing who is intelligent. Plus, they believe the exams were harder when they sat them and so, they need to be 'reformed' to be 'more rigorous.'
However, because they don't know what they're talking about, we have ended up with a train crash. Maths GCSE is the classic example. It's designed to be 'more rigorous' because the old one was 'too easy.' This means that if it had been properly assessed 40% of children would have failed it. Because that was politically unacceptable the pass mark had to be dropped, rendering the whole exercise worthless anyway. A simpler, more flexible exam that had a decent spread of grades would have been much more useful as a qualification.
And, since it does not cover any of the A-level content in any sort of depth anyway, to do well at A-level you really need to do Further Maths GCSE on top as well. Which negates the whole purpose of 'democratising' the qualification as most state schools don't offer it.
So - which standards? And how? And why?
I've never even heard of further maths GCSE. My daughter is planning to do maths and further maths A level. I'm worried now!
I'm interested to know why the format of A level maths has changed from the past. In my day we had Pure maths A level and Applied maths A level. As an alternative there was a Combined Maths A level that consisted of the first two (easier) papers of the other two A level. Ideal for those needing a good maths grounding at University but not doing maths. Seems sensible to me. Like to know the argument for the change.
A legal challenge. Against rules in the Tory Party constitution. "Yes of course we can challenge it" says the "top QC" mentioned in the article. Kerching!
As a result, it's possible to be a complete idiot and still get a good grade in a History exam (Cummings waves hello - there's nothing wrong with his memory except a determination to rewrite his past, but he is incapable of analysing or understanding anything beyond a very superficial level).
However, all politicians and civil servants, however dim, got where they were by being good at passing exams. Which means they firmly, fervently and probably quite honestly believe that's the best way of showing who is intelligent. Plus, they believe the exams were harder when they sat them and so, they need to be 'reformed' to be 'more rigorous.'
However, because they don't know what they're talking about, we have ended up with a train crash. Maths GCSE is the classic example. It's designed to be 'more rigorous' because the old one was 'too easy.' This means that if it had been properly assessed 40% of children would have failed it. Because that was politically unacceptable the pass mark had to be dropped, rendering the whole exercise worthless anyway. A simpler, more flexible exam that had a decent spread of grades would have been much more useful as a qualification.
And, since it does not cover any of the A-level content in any sort of depth anyway, to do well at A-level you really need to do Further Maths GCSE on top as well. Which negates the whole purpose of 'democratising' the qualification as most state schools don't offer it.
So - which standards? And how? And why?
A good effort A*
I agree wholeheartedly that exams are often a poor measurement of academic excellence.
I am also minded that middle class parents produce the best coursework. "My" A* Geography project done in a few hours on a Sunday evening a handful of years ago demonstrated this.
In my own field of in-work assessments, a system trumpeted by HY as a means to "educate" the hoi poloi, I see little added value, particularly in many lower level awards. The system we use is not a system of indentured apprenticeships as in Germany.
I don't know the answer. You seem to have some great ideas. Ideas that would never be adopted in a month of Sundays by the Conservatives. Are you lobbying other political parties? Are you harassing the Shadow Education Secretary for some blue skies thinking?
Truss's disingenuous ramblings about her "sub-standard" education at Roundhay School demonstrate the utter contempt Conservatives have for non-selective Secondary education. Mind you, if education is to be so underfunded, at least with well funded selection at 11 Grammar Schools, some very, very few may gain a benefit by merit alone.
The rest are left on the scrapheap though, like Mrs P.
As a July baby who'd lost a year's education through illness she was at a disadvantage and narrowly failed her 11-plus. Consigned the the local secondary modern, she had to fight hard to get the Maths and English 'O' levels she needed to train as a nurse (since the school didn't usually bother). After a successful nursing career she later did a degree and masters in History.
Plenty of others in her position have been similarly failed not lucky enough to overcome it.
I agree, I believe selection at 11 is fundamentally evil. My point was if secondary education except for selective Grammar Schools is to be criminally underfunded by the Conservatives at least one or two smart poor people out of a nation of 67m getting a good education is better than none.
Comments
Cruddas is wasting his time and his money.
I didn't see either Truss or Sunak go the full MalcolmG on stage.
They were having a leadership debate, and challenging each other accordingly on their policy, priorities and leadership style.
Not saying I disagree with the change, but struggling to see the logic in it and what was wrong with the original system, which seems sound and rational.
NEW THREAD
And take a leaf out of the posh schools book and have non-examined courses of more "relevant" or just interesting subjects, from local history of wherever the school is, to how to set up a web site or make a Youtube video; simple DIY, car maintenance or cookery for one.
iirc in my day you could do double A-level maths either as maths and further maths, or as pure maths and applied maths, where the same content would be examined in a different order.