Scrapping GCSEs

It was somehow inevitable that, eventually, Michael Gove would take a look at GCSEs and hark back to the days of the old O-level - and it was even more inevitable that many in education would rise up in indignation at what he said. It's a reflex action for many - if Gove says it then it must be wrong/stupid/Victorian.

But Gove, on this, is talking sense.



We desperately need to review the exams that students sit at 16.

When I was a pupil there were O-levels and CSEs. The O-levels were for the academic high fliers and the CSEs were slightly more practical but, largely, for those who weren't academic.

GCSEs were introduced in the late 1980s to try to have one qualification that fitted everybody. Sadly, as is the way with one size fits all qualifications, it is an experiment hat has failed.

GCSEs are tailored at the average. They are a half way house between academic and vocational and, let's be honest, in most cases fail both. They prize mediocrity and fail to stretch the academically bright whilst still being too academic for those who struggle with such forms of examination.

GCSEs have been allowed to fail for far too long.

In an attempt to make it seem that everything was rosy with GCSEs successive governments have allowed slippage in standards to an extent that actual grades in GCSEs have become meaningless.

Yes, students may well work hard for them. Yes, they may be assessed more often than in final examinations. Yes, teachers are working very hard to get their students the best grades possible.

But none of this addresses the real issue - GCSEs are overly easy for the academically able who have been failed by a system that is aimed at the average student. High fliers now coast their way through GCSEs. They aren't stretched. They're not really being prepared for A-levels, let alone degrees. They are ale to freewheel their way to an A* with little effort.

Meanwhile, the students at the other end of the academic spectrum struggle. They can't cope with the aount of academic assessment required and really shouldn't be sitting exams that are so unsuited to their skills and abilities.

Yes, when I told my O-levels back in 1981, CSEs were looked down on and sneered at. hey were the exams for "thickies" - but in the past three decades surely we've learnt that vocational skills are as valid as academic?

The left wing politicians, and even the Liberal Democrats, are opposed to re-introducing a two-tiered system for exams. Why? Every few years everything should be reviewed even if it is working, to see if it can be made to work better. Some things will be changed and improved, other things left alone. Reviewing something is a good thing.

In many ways, we already have a two-tiered system. We have GCSEs (half academic/half vocational) and we have BTECs (vocational). The problem is that too many students are taking the wrong course and there's too much crossover between the courses.

The other problem is the way that BTECs - a totally different type of course and assessment - are given "GCSE-equivalent" status - as if to say, these BTECs are all well and good, but it's GCSEs that really count. And, in order to counter the ridiculous anti-vocational lobby the BTECs have been given huge numbers of GCSE-equivalnce - which has meant that some schools have replaced GCSEs with BTECs as they will score better in league tables...

What is the problem with a course and an assessment being vocational? Vocational is good, just as academic is good. They are different from each other. They suit different students and that should be encouraged and applauded.

Surely a better system would retain the BTECs but make them more vocational and minimise the academic aspects of them, scrap the neither here nor there GCSEs and introduce a new academic qualification that will look to street those students who are more suited for that?

The other thing that needs to change is that the concept of failure needs to be re-introduced. It is pointless that everyone passes an exam. It makes the qualifications meaningless. Yes, when I failed my O-level French I felt deflated but it was the correct mark - I was hopeless at French. There is nothing wrong with being failed if it helps you focus on the things you are good at. There are whole generations of students who haven't failed at anything because it might upset them too much. Such nonsense must stop.

If someone's not very good at something they should be told.

I hope Gove looks to replace GCSEs, and that they are more academically rigorous, but I hope he brings back failure as an acceptable mark for the sake of future generations.

OPINION: BTECs and NVQs being downgraded

Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, today announced that lots of vocational qualifications would lose their "GCSE equivalent" status.

The main reason is because many schools, perhaps more concerned about league tables than the education of their students, have been pushing the BTECs and NVQs because they have helped them rapidly climb league tables. Some schools offered virtually no GCSEs any more.

I always thought it odd that these vocational qualifications weren't allowed to stand on their own merits rather than have to be "equivalent" to GCSEs. Why, when they became popular in schools, wasn't an extra column not simply added to the league tables? One column to show their GCSE success rate, another column for their vocational qualification success rate? isn't that simple?

The other problem is that some of the "equivalent" statuses were generous, to put it lightly.

Now, I accept my experience is in the field of music and the performing arts but some BTECs were given the equivalent of 4 GCSEs for work at a lesser level academically and practically. It was a total nonsense and a misguided and badly thought through piece of politics by Blair's government, and, of course, David Blunkett, who were keen to promote vocational qualifications, so they put them on offer. Take one qualification and get 2, 3, 4 for free.

Vocational qualifications have their place but are limiting as, while some are prepared for a career, others find they have paths cut off because, haven done a BTEC, they are unable to go on to A-level or university. So the school benefits by harming the future prospects of their more academic students. Genius!

I'm glad to see the end of GCSE equivalents for vocational qualifications. Let's hope that those same vocational qualifications are now made more worthwhile and demanding - that is the way to sell them and give them credibility, not cheapening them and making them a laughing stock.

OPINION: Michael Gove and a new royal yacht

Michael Gove gets a very bad press in education circles. This is, of course, nothing new. Teachers tend to mistrust and dislike most Secretaries of State for Education whether they are Labour, Tory or, potentially, while we have a coalition, Lib Dem.

Mchael Gove, however, doesn't help his case. He often takes things a step too far, or comes up with ideas which, quite frankly, are just plain dumb.

Yesterday evening a letter that he wrote was leaked to The Guardian. In it he argues the case for the nation giving a new royal yacht to the Queen to mark her diamond jubilee this year.

Gove is an enthusiastic monarchist. Like those who have religion, he has the same emptiness behind his eyes that all morons who support monarchy have.

Gove argues that a new royal yacht would be an appropriate gift to the monarch and would not only create much-needed work in our shipbuilding industry, but would give every man, woman and child a feel good feeling.

Really? Yep, he's that much of a moron.

Firstly, why should Liz Windsor get any "gift" from the nation. She's been taking millions and millions of pounds annually for oing little of merit or worth. Her year is pretty much non-stop holiday and yet this year she and hubby couldn't be arsed to attend the Royal Variety Performance, which is put on for her benefit, because it was in Salford. I don't see many fom the North West feeling they've had value ir money from the £200+ million spent on the monarchy every year.

Secondly, Gove argues that a new royal yacht would create jobs - well, it might have one had it been commissioned a couple of years ago. As it is, even the best, most efficient shipyards wouldn't be able to build a new royal yacht in the time between now and the Jubilee celebrations in the early summer. Additionally, by EU rules I suspect that such a process would have to be put out to render across Europe and, with the UK's run down, overpriced and increasingly inexperienced shipbuilding industry, the chances are that a non-UK shipyard would win the contract to build the new royal yacht.

Thirdly, Gove claims a new royal yacht would only cost about £60 million. Well, when the Royal Yacht Britannia was decommissioned in 1997, a decision made in equal parts by the dregs of John Major's government and the incoming, reforming government of Tony Blair, it was estimated a replacement would have cost between £60 - 70 million. The likelihood is that a new royal yacht, if the luxury ships owned by the likes of various wealthy Russian oligarchs is anything to go by, would be much nearer to £200 million.

Fourthly, Gove believes that, having had cutbacks, job losses, fuel price rises, inflation, wage freezes, pension turmoil, etc. we'll all feel a warm glow if happiness because our overpaid, underworked, privileged monarch had a new luxury toy for her holidays. Really? Is he really THAT demented? Apparently so.

Even Cameron, very often the Moron-in-Chief, thinks it's a bad idea - though he, it seems does think putting the idea out o public subscription might work and be a good idea. By the time the ship was ready, and all paid for, chances are we might have a new monarch who, I. It ice, has today said he supports the idea of a new royal yacht. Quelle Surprise! Charlie Windsor wants more from the public to support his worthless lifestyle.

The suggestion that the nation buys anything for Liz Windsor is, at best insulting to the public and, at worst, is an evil and deluded suggestion from someone who urgently needs to spend some time with his family - though I pity them if he does.

No to a royal yacht - and, while we're at it, time for a republic!

OPINION: Gove sinks to a new low with Bible plan

Education Secretary, Michael Gove, is much-pilloried by the teaching profession and the general public. On occasions, I've thought this rather harsh, but he deserves every bit of grief he will, I hope, receive over his latest plan.

Gove wants to give a single copy of a special edition of the King James' Version of the Bible to each school. Each copy will cost the Department for Education £10, and so the total cost is going to be about £200,000 (apparently, according to The Guardian, the DfE reckon the total cost will be £375,000)! In a time of austerity and budget constraints that seems a bizarrely large amount of money to spend.

After all, haven't all school libraries already got a copy of each of the main religions' holy books? Even if they don't, I'm sure they have the Internet and can access, for free, umpteen different translations of the Bible.

Yes, the KJV is/was a very important book and it is rightfully regarded as a significant part of British history, but, for one thing, the 400th anniversary, the apparent inspiration for the distribution, is this year, 2011. Are the Bibles ready to go? Budget-approved? Waiting to be sent? How much will the distribution, alone, cost on top of the £10 per copy?!

Then there's the issue of the Bible itself. Any right-thinking person knows very little of it has any historical or factual basis. Many of the best stories, including most of the Jesus-myth, are, we'll be generous, borrowed from earlier religions. None of the headlining stories have any basis in history, archaeology, geography, science or fact. Why on earth is the Bible being donated to schools, remember just one copy per school, rather than, say something by Darwin or Dawkins?

One copy will, I predict, sit on a bookshelf in the Headteacher's office, gathering dust for most of the year. The only time a pupil is ever likely to see or use the special Bible is if they use it for readings at the Christmas carol service.

At a time when education is struggling, when schools are scrambling about for money surely there's more important things to spend the £375k on? Should the government, via the DfE, be giving free publicity for one of the biggest, wealthiest organisations in the country.... the Church?

I hope lots of schools simply return the copies to Gove. Or flog them on E-Bay and use the money for something useful, worthwhile and educational.

Mr. Gove, as Secretary of State for Education, your job is to facilitate education and guide and assist schools, keeping an eye on budgets and improving the learning if every child in the land. It is not to help the church manipulate and brainwash a new generation of "believers" and it is not to waste money on pointless baubles that have more to do with you trying to achieve immortality than worthwhile education.