education report out calls for diploma to replace whole system

[wheresmyplacebo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3747862.stm

what do you think?

sounds good in some aspects like less coursework, but having effectively a dissitation for A Levels isnt a good idea, considering the level of depth subjects that area have

and teaching kids to do basic multipication etc should be taught earlier on, i learnt my times tables by 11, at 14 it should be known by then, having algebraic maths at 14-18 is a good thing as it encourages logical thinking

[wheresmyplacebo]

update
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3750886.stm

almost definate now



having more A grades is further making students feel worthless as A is no longer enough, restructuring exams to test more than exam and c/w technique would work better

[Braineater]

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) this is what they have in the USA.

There's nothing inherently wrong with A-Level's. Key Skills was greeted with distain and apathy by both teachers and students the year I did them (2002). It won't improve standards at all.

A 5000 word dissertation is nothing. English AS Level requires 2x10000 word essays including a critique (WJEC) when I did it.

It'll prepare people for university more but otherwise I don't see the benefits.

[Man Of Kent]

Listening to a discussion today I understood that most coursework would disappear and the whole course would be marked on the basis of a single exam.

Big mistake.

I thought that this had been resolves when GSCEs came into place. The whole point being that you cannot really gauge a persons learning from a single three hour exam.

[pedr]

I think that the really radical proposal is to, shock, horror, trust teachers to assess their students' work.

So it's not so much replacing coursework with more exams, but replacing coursework with teacher assessment of ongoing work. One idea is to have 'charter assessor' teachers who oversee the process to safeguard against horrendous cheating - but the argument against coursework is becoming stronger and stronger the more people realise how easy it is to cheat.

Here's how I see it: the coursework system pitts the student and teacher against the examiner - the aim is to beat the examiner so there is no incentive to reduce cheating. This system makes the school one of the centres of assessment - continual assessment - so teachers take a closer interest in the whole span of work and report on it as a whole instead of focusing on one or two pieces.

It also has the advantage that every piece of work could contribute to a teacher's assessment of a pupil's standard so nothing is "pointless 'cos I've already done my coursework" etc

[wheresmyplacebo]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Listening to a discussion today I understood that most coursework would disappear and the whole course would be marked on the basis of a single exam.

Big mistake.

I thought that this had been resolves when GSCEs came into place. The whole point being that you cannot really gauge a persons learning from a single three hour exam.

no theyll replace multiple cws with one big cw so to speak and less exams

one flaw of this is that they expect schools to teach everything, surely somethings are better learnt off the persons back like in work experience or whatnot

and on the topic of basic skills like reading, writing and doing summations and multiplication - they should have been taught that by 13 anyway, i was

[dr_carter]

Why do we need to change an exam system that is widely regarded as the gold standard of post-16 education? I personally think that with the addition of the AS, the A-Level system is an even better system than before. Why scrap it? I haven't yet seen any reasonable proof that exams really are getting easier.

[pedr]

Originally posted by dr_carter
I personally think that with the addition of the AS, the A-Level system is an even better system than before... I haven't yet seen any reasonable proof that exams really are getting easier.

Can I ask what experience you've had of Curriculum 2000 (the AS/A2 level system)?

Because everyone I hear from, including my mother who is a teacher, thinks it simply doesn't work. On so many levels:

workload for the students, pressure to take more subjects, encouragement to retake many modules leading to huge numbers of exams at the end (and, yes, increased success rates!), uncertainty over what to do with students at the end of year 12 - after their exams, before their results when they don't know which subjects they'll be continuing with, and of course the situation where between years nine and 13 young people sit four sets of serious, externally marked exams in five years - and they often even have formal exams in Science and short-course GCSEs at the end of year ten.

I could go on, but no-one would read it!

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by pedr
Can I ask what experience you've had of Curriculum 2000 (the AS/A2 level system)?

workload for the students, pressure to take more subjects, encouragement to retake many modules leading to huge numbers of exams at the end (and, yes, increased success rates!), uncertainty over what to do with students at the end of year 12 - after their exams, before their results when they don't know which subjects they'll be continuing with, and of course the situation where between years nine and 13 young people sit four sets of serious, externally marked exams in five years - and they often even have formal exams in Science and short-course GCSEs at the end of year ten.

You may ask freely. In response, my experience is first hand. For the past two years I have been studying the Curriculum 2000 A-Levels. I personally disagree that the workload has significantly increased. Before the introduction of the AS-Levels, and I have confirmed this with many people I know who took the old-style A-Levels, there were far too many exams all clumped together as one. I think it's much fairer to give students a second chance at sitting the exams, especially in subjects like mathematics where there is no coursework requirement. Do not forget that all the exams can be taken at one of four possible junctures. That it is much easier than having to take all of the exams in one massive bundle at the end of year 13. This outdated system bases everything on one exam, which can be exceptionally difficult one year and easy the next. It's fairer to at least allow students one extra shot at a better grade. The stress is balanced out over time, rather like degree programs. You wouldn't hear of an entire degree being based on finals - it's spread across two or three years of exams. It does not automatically lead to increased success rates - if you don't know the material, you don't pass, it's as simple as that!

I debate whether the year 9 SATs can even be considered as close to a 'serious' exam. They are, quite simply, a joke.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[queenmab_roo]

i agree with adding more grades in tho, people worry so much about a current C being bad, when in fact it's a really good grade.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
As someone who took both the old style A levels and the Curriculum 2000 syllabus exams, I can confirm that AS and A2 exams are easier than A levels. Some of the old A level exams could also be modular - mathematics being one of them - so your point is moot.

I have spoken to many people who took the old style A-Levels and are shocked at how much more challenging much of the material is now as opposed to pre-2000, and how if they had attacked the current system, they would not have fared as well.

Oh, and yes, some were modular, but a lot weren't. Now they all are. It's much less stressful.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by queenmab_roo
i agree with adding more grades in tho, people worry so much about a current C being bad, when in fact it's a really good grade.

It's relative. If you fancy doing something really challenging like - I don't know, chemical engineering, a C doesn't get you too far, depending on where you want to go. However, at St. George's Hospital Medical School, they accept offers down to BBCb, depending on the average points score of your college/school.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by dr_carter
I have spoken to many people who took the old style A-Levels and are shocked at how much more challenging much of the material is now as opposed to pre-2000, and how if they had attacked the current system, they would not have fared as well.

Oh, and yes, some were modular, but a lot weren't. Now they all are. It's much less stressful.

I used the sample papers for Curriculum 2000 and they were easier. Both AS and A2. The mathematics papers in particular had got significantly easier.

The old-style A'Levels are better, far better.

This new diploma is a load of bollocks. As Chris Woodhead has, quite rightly, stated.

[dr_carter]

Kermit, do you know what they're doing to the Maths A-Level now? I personally thought the old-style 4 module wasn't as hard as the new 6 module. However, they're moving P1, P2 and P3 into 4 new units, C1, C2, C3 and C4 (C for core) and you're required to only do 2 applied - probably S1 and M1. They're essentially cutting an entire module out.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Originally posted by dr_carter
Kermit, do you know what they're doing to the Maths A-Level now? I personally thought the old-style 4 module wasn't as hard as the new 6 module. However, they're moving P1, P2 and P3 into 4 new units, C1, C2, C3 and C4 (C for core) and you're required to only do 2 applied - probably S1 and M1. They're essentially cutting an entire module out.

stupid really :rolleyes:

its A levels in subjects that shouldnt be A levels that are the main problem, like media, photography etc as those are better taught in the work environment or as a hobby building a portfolio - like theres a limit to how far your ability to regurgitate rubbish without actually learning it will get you

and emplyers saying kids are lacking basic functional maths and english skills, well they should have been taught that by 14 easily

[Kermit]

Originally posted by dr_carter
Kermit, do you know what they're doing to the Maths A-Level now? I personally thought the old-style 4 module wasn't as hard as the new 6 module. However, they're moving P1, P2 and P3 into 4 new units, C1, C2, C3 and C4 (C for core) and you're required to only do 2 applied - probably S1 and M1. They're essentially cutting an entire module out.

Eh?

The older system was a lot harder than the new six module course.

And they're just going back to the old system of doing only two applied modules, like I did.

I always preferred the pure modules, though. Was more interesting, and made more sense.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
its A levels in subjects that shouldnt be A levels that are the main problem, like media, photography etc as those are better taught in the work environment or as a hobby building a portfolio - like theres a limit to how far your ability to regurgitate rubbish without actually learning it will get you

That is complete tosh, I am afraid.

The art A'Levels are the hardest ones to do, the volume of work required is phenomenal.

and emplyers saying kids are lacking basic functional maths and english skills, well they should have been taught that by 14 easily

Employers always say that, ever since they needed people with good maths and English skills.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Originally posted by Kermit
That is complete tosh, I am afraid.

The art A'Levels are the hardest ones to do, the volume of work required is phenomenal.

i werent actually critisising art itself, as ive seen the work required and someof it is extremely difficult in its own way, i tend to reckon that apart from a few exceptions, most of the modern subjects are complete tosh due to facty if you really wanna do something in media or photography or something youre better off working on a local rag or photography group or something - in some fields experience gets you into it better than qualifications

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Kermit
That is complete tosh, I am afraid.

The art A'Levels are the hardest ones to do, the volume of work required is phenomenal.

However, the material is pretty pathetic. Have you seen a photography A-Level course? The practical knowledge I taught my friend in a couple of hours, and then she just needed to get a little bit of experience and do the artistic bullshit, which is not actually what most photography is about.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Kermit
Eh?

The older system was a lot harder than the new six module course.

And they're just going back to the old system of doing only two applied modules, like I did.

I always preferred the pure modules, though. Was more interesting, and made more sense.

I disagree that the old system was harder. I did several old-style papers for practise at relevant questions.... Hang on - that could be why I found them easier! I stand corrected.

They're not going back to the old system though. You know what the Pure is like now? They're splitting 3 units across 4. It'll go up to C8 for those doing further maths. They're just cutting out an entire unit of work, essentially.