I along with many, many people here in good old Blighty can see that Ed Balls, Gordon and his predecessor Tony Bliar are hell bent on giving the country more 'educated' people by dumbing down the qualifications that prove they are 'educated' but this story if true is shocking.
It's in the Daily Mail, so all may not be as it seems but if anyone who is working in education is reading this blog and they know the truth then please tell me through the comments. Coming on the heels of Mr Blackledges Graffiti curriculum for Year 7 it suggests that our kids are not going to be getting as good an education as we did and ours wasn't as good as our parents, in most cases so dumbing down is very real. Question is why is education being dumbed down?
Link
English GCSE? It's just 2EZ: Dumbing down row over exam to cover grammar of mobile phone texting
A new English exam that includes a section on the grammar of mobile-phone texting has been slammed as the ultimate dumbing down of the subject.
Next year pupils will be tested on text messaging as part of their English GCSEs.
They will have to write an essay on the etiquette and grammar of texting, using their own messages as examples - earning up to ten per cent of their overall English GCSE mark.
The subject is being introduced by the Assessment Qualifications Alliance (AQA), the country's largest exam board.
Last night Nick Seaton, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said it was a 'shameful betrayal of the subject'.
He said: 'Surely, with all the great literature that could be studied, it is a tragedy that pupils are being asked to do this as part of an English qualification.
'It is hardly believable and such a waste of time and effort. It is difficult to see what they will learn - it's the ultimate dumbing down.'
The subject of 'text language' will be taught from next September under the guise of 'Studying Spoken Language'.
It has been introduced as part of a reform of GCSEs designed to make the qualification tougher.
Link
English GCSE? It's just 2EZ: Dumbing down row over exam to cover grammar of mobile phone texting
A new English exam that includes a section on the grammar of mobile-phone texting has been slammed as the ultimate dumbing down of the subject.
Next year pupils will be tested on text messaging as part of their English GCSEs.
They will have to write an essay on the etiquette and grammar of texting, using their own messages as examples - earning up to ten per cent of their overall English GCSE mark.
The subject is being introduced by the Assessment Qualifications Alliance (AQA), the country's largest exam board.
Last night Nick Seaton, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said it was a 'shameful betrayal of the subject'.
He said: 'Surely, with all the great literature that could be studied, it is a tragedy that pupils are being asked to do this as part of an English qualification.
'It is hardly believable and such a waste of time and effort. It is difficult to see what they will learn - it's the ultimate dumbing down.'
The subject of 'text language' will be taught from next September under the guise of 'Studying Spoken Language'.
It has been introduced as part of a reform of GCSEs designed to make the qualification tougher.
Coursework has been taken off the curriculum over concerns that parents were helping their children cheat.
The new subject of study has been described by the AQA as the 'newest and potentially most exciting area of the new GCSE'.
An AQA spokeswoman said: 'Texting is a prevalent form of language in the 21st Century and it is right that it is given its place alongside other forms of language.'
I'm afraid this story was also in the Sunday Times (yesterday). It's only what people have suspected for many a year, results going up exponentially year on year - it's impossible. The only way to achieve these kind of figures is to make them easier. An example of the maths paper set this term. The highest value question was on the lines of: a cube has 3 sides, of 2cm X 2cm X 2cm, work out the area.
Now the person who wrote this report indicates that the kind of questions on this paper were no harder than the old 11 plus - and I can well believe it.
I really don't know why this has shocked people, it is a physical impossibility that the children are getting brighter year on year. I have no doubts that the kids may work harder these days. But the level required to gain GCSE's and GCSE equivalents is absolutely shocking.
Take diploma's as an example, what a laughauble joke - honestly. How can you achieve 6-7 equivalent GCSE's (grade A-C) just by attending college and acquiring a dimploma in hair dressing (for example).
And before you say anything, yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I am a teacher and as a result of the dumbing down of the standards over the last 10 years or so, I will be taking early retirement. I cannot continue teaching this sub-standard education any longer - we are all failing these young kids.
The school i work at is being pulled to bits. Staff absence is becoming a big problem. If only the public could see how bad the student attendance was the town would be very worried. Ofsted is looming on the safeguarding issue
The maths question cannot be a higher exam, things are not quite that bad as my child is actually learning quadratic equations and trigonometry which I believe are a higher level than 2x2x2 area of cube.
However you are correct, children cannot be getting cleverer but I do believe they are taught better. (I was ex Grammar and I doubt it would have passed OFSTED for teaching standards in many areas).
I believe it is more a combination of
1. Children working harder due to pushy parents and the competition culture, to be better than the next person.
2. A general trend of 'far better teaching standards and methods'.
3. A slight dumbing down of exams, some for the better, eg calculus has never been needed inside 99% of working environments, an absolute waste of teaching time at GCSE level.
It does not matter really what standards GCSE are as long as you learn enough to get by in normal life or learn enough to study further. This, children are still getting if their school is running smoothly.
I grew up with kids who had bloody noses every day through fighting in school and who did not progress educationally at all, but they have become Engineers and owners of companies etc.
However poor their education was, they obviously learnt enough to progress in life and after all that is all you need.
I have probably not used a 5th of what I learned at school, in my life. But that 5th is mostly made up of the basic skills in Maths, English and French, not the top level stuff I worked so hard to achieve high grades in. I still wonder what was the point.
I don't believe children are being failed by slightly easier/more relevant exams, the only ones to 'suffer' are probably the rocket scientists because they don't have an A**** certificate to show how much cleverer they are than everyone else at 16.
I have to disagree with you there Doug. It seems that you too have the mentality of the Academy - THINK Small! In this day and age we (the UK) have to think about the bigger picture. Our kids are not just competing amongst themselves now when they are applying for jobs. They are competing against people from Europe and further afield. Other countries do not share your/this Country's lack of ambition. They are looking at Education on a global scale - THAT'S what we have to aspire to.
It's all very well saying that all they need is enough to get by, unfortunately it isn't any more!
The internet and travel have made this world a smaller place. Therefore, harder to acquire the jobs that many strive for!!!! Not everyone wants to be a manual worker!
Hi wrong,
I do not agree with the new learning zones whatsoever. I do not agree with dumbing down of lessons, I was commenting on the supposed dumbing down of GCSE's now, not in the future as this remains to be seen.
As I said, children these days know enough from their 'inferior' GCSE's to go onto further education and are still getting degree's.
Those who are clever still get good degrees, those who are not perhaps should be manual workers.
Having said that manual workers know far more than some engineers about practicalities of engineering because they have learnt a trade, hands on, from the bottom up and not backwards from the top down. Theories are one thing and good for progress but hands on real life is where 'most' people live and work.
Most of us are in the middle bog standard average zone, brain wise and many of us in the past did not see our potential until we had long left school. (partly due to the two tier schooling system). At least children now can see there are opportunities to progress in education rather than it being for the elitist few and are not put off by a system that used to be beyond most children’s aspirations.
What my child is learning for maths GCSE is not all that different to what I learnt for my O level. To get an A or A* you still have to work harder than the average bear.
Like I say, I think teachers have far better methods now, hence the upsurge of children getting their GCSE's. It is only the cleverer children who are perhaps suffering as a consequence as this one size fits all system can never be suited to everyone, that is why there are such things as A levels and degrees, to sort out the rocket scientists from the rest of us.
These aspirations you speak of are only concerning jobs for the select few people. The majority of us will not be applying for jobs that have any competition with people from other countries, the majority of us do not or cannot aspire that high.
I failed my maths O Level or would have if my grammar school maths teacher had let me try to pass it. He was much wiser than I!
Managed to snag a CSE maths B though, shows how much easier they were.
Went through my sons GCSE past maths papers earlier this year and stormed it.
Sorry but passing an O Level was much harder than passing the current GCSE's.
As for degrees. They are meaningless as I have worked with numerous people who have degrees, some with three or four of them, which say they CAN do something only to find out when push comes to shove they CAN'T. As for being in competition with other countries who the hell believes that government lie?
Speaking as an employer you should always employ people who are cleverer than you are if your company is going to become more profitable, however never ever believe what is written on a piece of paper especially when that paper has the words GCSE, A Level, NVQ, degree or diploma on it.
Qualifications only ever prove one thing, that the person holding them was once capable of passing the requirements to get that particular piece of paper that particular year.
Always take them on for a six week trial to see what they can do or even better have them intern for a month and then you will really see how good they are.
Thought a CSE grade 1 was equivalent to an O level grade C.
The exam paper may be easier to you because you are much older and wiser :)
I don't dispute some things are not learnt until A level now but I defy my friend, who got Grade 1 CSE, to do trig or quadratic equations. It just ain't going to happen how about you?
To Doug - Trig and quadratic equations were in the old CSE syllabus
Thankyou for suggesting I may be older and wiser.
Older?
Defintely.
Wiser?
Possibly but better versed in mathematics?
Definitely not.
All I am better in now compared to my teens is my understanding of which bits of maths really matter and which can be safely ignored which is the majority of what I learnt in the 70's!
I did O Level maths and only took CSE maths at exam level. Checking through my old books, yes I am that sad that I have my old school books, it wasn't the trigonometry or the quadratic equations that let me down it was the fact I never ever learnt my times tables properly which meant everything had to be worked out by hand not brain, no calculators allowed in exams back then and so I was too slow at answering questions.
The fact remains I still don't know my times tables properly but I do know them better thanks to years of playing darts instead of working in a large local employer and I can still fly through the dumbed down GCSE papers my son brought home earlier this year. As our American cousins say go figure.
That should say 'for a large employer'. Shouldn't type and eat at the same time sorry!
In reply to Jean Brodie I can and do see kids not at school! A lot more than ever are blatantly walking the streets during the school day.I dont know how many must be arriving late each day either, you only have to drive over Greengate Street after 8.45am to see them strolling to school - I thought registration was 8.40am
Douglas.
Were they higher level papers?
I know the foundation GCSE papers are a breeze but you can only achieve a maximum of a B, I think.
Bloody hell we are getting down to the hair splitting stage aren't we?
Foundation level GCSE pass gets you a C
Higher level GCSE can get you an A*
Neither are equivalent to an O Level C
CSE's were always meant to be equivalent to an O level C except that employers and colleges never saw it that way!
Get real GCSE's have been dumbed down over many years so the Labour government can hit it's own target thus proving it's investment and reforms work. In the real world we can see that this is not the case.
Thanks another doug.
For those who want a little challenge, have a go at a higher paper.
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-4301-1H-W-QP-JUN08.PDF
I don't think it is easy to get an A* in the time allowed, I would need to brush up on a few things first.
I have conversed with number one son, it's all about timing!
He said that he didn't know whether the paper I went through was foundation or higher. It was earlier this year which is a lifetime ago to a teenager.
He was taking foundation GCSE maths in school but the teachers just handed out old papers willy nilly as they were all deemed to be 'useful practice'.
If the foundation GCSE it's so easy to pass it's about as much use as my CSE Maths was to me, useless!
Yes I agree, foundation maths is easy and won't be as highly regarded as the higher, but if that's the only way some kids are going to get a qualification in maths to a certain level then it is unfair not to have it.
Sounds as if it was a foundation maths paper you did, he won't have been given a higher paper if he was doing a foundation course because there would be very little he could answer on it.
There used to be an intermediate paper but that seems to have been ditched.
How did the higher paper look to you?
For me it was easy to about half way, but I would have to look back at maths rules and terminology to complete some of them. (they really know how to ask an easy question, awkwardly) and surprisingly we did not do properties of circles in our O level course.
Late to the party on this O Level/GCSE discussion but where is the gain for kids obtaining any old maths qualification(foundation level GCSE) if that qualification is know by all to be too easy to pass and therefore not highly regarded?
I fail to see the logic in this. Surely if an exam pass is to have any relevance it has to have been 'achieved' not 'handed on a plate'.
It probably isn't handed on a plate to many kids, maths is not the most popular or easily understood topics and never has been. Non of my ageing friends understand maths, so this is nothing new. The kids doing foundation level are not capable of doing the higher tier. I am not sure how you solve it other than individual tuition.
I agree it should not be too easy, however, a qualification, however low shows at least a certain standard, they are hardly going to be competing for jobs that require a high level of maths skills or doing maths A levels after all.
Raising the bar will undoubtedly knock 100s of kids off the bottom. Is there any point in this? I am not sure. Bulling up the top level at the expense of the less educated perhaps is not the way forward.
Before bars can be can be raised, these children need to be better educated, then perhaps there is a way forward.
Surely maths is all about teaching the bits that matter in everday life. Would this be dumbing down?
No.
I would argue that 'everyday maths' has much more relevance for kids and so they will be more inclined to learn it if it were taught.
The Open University or is that the University Open, haha, runs just a course in everyday maths. If the child WANTS to learn the higher maths concepts then they should be allowed to do so.
Forcing kids to do maths just to give them a piece of paper is stupid.
Having reached the age of 49 I have yet to find any use for algebra in my life or sines, cosines and logarithms but my school spent an awful long time trying to get me to understand them, along with a whole host of other stuff that has been of no use whatsoever.
What's needed is a root and branch overhaul of what passes for a curriculum in this day and age. Every 'target' should be shoved in the bin along with the quangos, civil servants and ministers who implemented them. The only thing that matters is that each child no matter where they are schooled gets the best education possible.
I've just seen the blinky balls education bill put forward in the Queens speech and it's mind numbing try and understand how anyone could dream it up let alone allow it to be promoted in a Queens speech.
However having read the EOI document on this site stupidty seems to be the one constant with this government and its 'consultants'.
"a qualification, however low shows at least a certain standard, they are hardly going to be competing for jobs that require a high level of maths skills or doing maths A levels after all."
That's quite a shocking statement to make. How dare you assume that just because people cannot garner a maths qualification all they are good for is the most menial of jobs, how bloody dare you.
It's not just Maths, that's the problem. Virtually every subject has been dumbed down. I know for a fact that my 10 year old son could pass the ICT diploma now. I have seen the syllabus and it's a joke, there is NO ICT on it. Anyone over the age of 8 can demonstrate that they can send/receive an email. Create a powerpoint and do a bit in word - that's about the crux of it - it's laughable. There's basically no IT in the ICT course. Everything taught in the diploma is used in all the other subjects as a matter of course, i.e English, maths, languages, Technology etc.
English is another dumbed down subject (fact), it's all about how a child can 'express' themselves these days, never mind grammar and punctuation. I can't remember if it was on this site, but it was certainly on the BBC's, regarding the use of 'text language' being acceptable (or used) next year - I MEAN, COME ON!!!!!!
When will this Government or the Conservatives (when they get in) do something about it. Children should not come out with 13 A*'s and if they do, it should be one or two in the country, not hundreds or thousands! Life is about winners and losers, high achievers and those who watch Jeremy Kyle. Make the system fair, so those kids who are bright are rewarded so, not group them into the same category as the average kids - who come out with A*'s
If you read it properly I never said all they were good for are menial tasks. You have, I am afraid, assumed that was what I meant and nothing could be further from the truth.
Shall I phrase it another way.
If they cannot do maths they are not going to be, for example, accountants or book keepers or maths teachers or university lecturers or engineers with a degree, is that plainer?
Therefore the jobs they choose are not going to involve anything but basic maths, which I believe is all they need to progress onto whatever they want to do.
I was actually trying to defend the kids who cannot do maths, because this system is certainly failing them and every system has done since I was a child.
I agree with another doug above, maths is all about teaching the bits that matter in everyday life and I believe foundation level does this. Yes it may be easy, but it is everything 99% of us need, to get by in life and that includes much more than menial jobs.
I could say, how bloody dare you, put down menial jobs as these are the mainly the essential workers who keep the country running and if they were not there, we really would be up sh*t creek.
I don't know about the other subjects you mention. However I can catagorically tell that it is impossible for students to gain access to higher grades at GCSE if they do not use they can use a "variety" of punctuation and sentence structure. Text language is certainly not acceptable, in fact use of Standard English is specified in the mark schemes. That's not to say that we don't have to constantly fight against the use of text lang - but it will always be marked down when used.