Comments on: How we intend to implement the changes and proposed changes to regulatory documents http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/making-the-current-gcses-linear/how-we-intend-to-implement-the-changes-and-proposed-changes-to-regulatory-documents/ This consultation covers the changes being made to current GCSE specifications in England. Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:30:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Sue Copeman http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/making-the-current-gcses-linear/how-we-intend-to-implement-the-changes-and-proposed-changes-to-regulatory-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-169 Sue Copeman Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:30:04 +0000 http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/?p=8#comment-169 An Exams Officer's point of view:- If we are to move back to linear specs, it would be common sense for one entry code, or two if F or H, as it used to be, with covers all units, given that they all have to be entered in the same series. In the interests of putting candidates first, admin processes should be simplified as much as possible. There are always people new to the role of Exams Officer, and candidates should not fall victim to admin errors due to over-complicated entry processes. An Exams Officer’s point of view:- If we are to move back to linear specs, it would be common sense for one entry code, or two if F or H, as it used to be, with covers all units, given that they all have to be entered in the same series.

In the interests of putting candidates first, admin processes should be simplified as much as possible. There are always people new to the role of Exams Officer, and candidates should not fall victim to admin errors due to over-complicated entry processes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Elaine http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/making-the-current-gcses-linear/how-we-intend-to-implement-the-changes-and-proposed-changes-to-regulatory-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-166 Elaine Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:39:54 +0000 http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/?p=8#comment-166 As a current HOD (Geography/Citizenship) like many of the contributors above I am horrified at the prospect of changing the courses so soon after the last re-write of our schemes of work. Lessons and progression pathways are planned directly to the modular course. The time and cost implications are substantial. Following the introduction & announcement of the Ebacc measure many lesser able students have opted for Geography in our centre; attracted by the tiered papers & modular approach. Aspirations are high and the current course promotes this, as learners have greater opportunities to show their achievements during the course. I fear that these gains will be wiped out by the proposals. The current modular system in the subject has three examined units(Edexcel specB). Potentially these would be examined at the end of the course when students, who regularly take ten GCSEs could potentially have to face over 20 examinations. Is placing this amount of pressure on students really allowing them to achieve their potential? In addition shelf life of controlled assessments will no longer be feasible, as it would allow no flexibility for completion in year 10. My final concern is the lack of empirical evidence for these changes. Show me the research please. As a current HOD (Geography/Citizenship) like many of the contributors above I am horrified at the prospect of changing the courses so soon after the last re-write of our schemes of work. Lessons and progression pathways are planned directly to the modular course. The time and cost implications are substantial.
Following the introduction & announcement of the Ebacc measure many lesser able students have opted for Geography in our centre; attracted by the tiered papers & modular approach. Aspirations are high and the current course promotes this, as learners have greater opportunities to show their achievements during the course. I fear that these gains will be wiped out by the proposals.
The current modular system in the subject has three examined units(Edexcel specB). Potentially these would be examined at the end of the course when students, who regularly take ten GCSEs could potentially have to face over 20 examinations. Is placing this amount of pressure on students really allowing them to achieve their potential? In addition shelf life of controlled assessments will no longer be feasible, as it would allow no flexibility for completion in year 10.
My final concern is the lack of empirical evidence for these changes. Show me the research please.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David Cross http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/making-the-current-gcses-linear/how-we-intend-to-implement-the-changes-and-proposed-changes-to-regulatory-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-154 David Cross Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:37:39 +0000 http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/?p=8#comment-154 There seems to be an assumption that exams are sit down 2 hour written papers - examinations are not a homogeneous species. All subjects are not best suited to a terminal written examination. Assessment that is fit for purpose, matching the current wide range of disciplines taught in our schools, has come a long way over the years. Subjects with significant practical content like art, drama and dance often involve an examination that lasts many hours spread over several days or weeks. In the current OCR Drama specification the use of distinctive modules allows the candidates to demonstrate a greater depth of knowledge and breadth of skills than would be possible with just a terminal exam. It is not an issue of ‘bite sized’ information retention that we test, but distinctive processes of performing, directing, devising and designing. I have sympathy with concerns about resits, principally on issues of cost, however revisiting tasks and coming at them a second time is not necessarily negative in a learning context. In the OCR Drama specification, like many similarly examined subjects, resits are not really a feasible option. The time frames, practical aspect and often group nature of the examinations make this impossible. Please in your deliberations do not adopt a model of one fit to suit every instance. Very well thought out and successful ways of teaching and assessing are going to be compromised if all the new GCSEs have to follow one formula. There seems to be an assumption that exams are sit down 2 hour written papers – examinations are not a homogeneous species. All subjects are not best suited to a terminal written examination. Assessment that is fit for purpose, matching the current wide range of disciplines taught in our schools, has come a long way over the years. Subjects with significant practical content like art, drama and dance often involve an examination that lasts many hours spread over several days or weeks.
In the current OCR Drama specification the use of distinctive modules allows the candidates to demonstrate a greater depth of knowledge and breadth of skills than would be possible with just a terminal exam. It is not an issue of ‘bite sized’ information retention that we test, but distinctive processes of performing, directing, devising and designing.
I have sympathy with concerns about resits, principally on issues of cost, however revisiting tasks and coming at them a second time is not necessarily negative in a learning context. In the OCR Drama specification, like many similarly examined subjects, resits are not really a feasible option. The time frames, practical aspect and often group nature of the examinations make this impossible.
Please in your deliberations do not adopt a model of one fit to suit every instance. Very well thought out and successful ways of teaching and assessing are going to be compromised if all the new GCSEs have to follow one formula.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Jill Catmull http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/making-the-current-gcses-linear/how-we-intend-to-implement-the-changes-and-proposed-changes-to-regulatory-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-143 Jill Catmull Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:52:03 +0000 http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/?p=8#comment-143 In a 'Nutshell' my question is. Just why are we doing this anyway? In a ‘Nutshell’ my question is. Just why are we doing this anyway?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: T Crump http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/making-the-current-gcses-linear/how-we-intend-to-implement-the-changes-and-proposed-changes-to-regulatory-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-141 T Crump Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:58:45 +0000 http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/?p=8#comment-141 Having just started teaching the new specificatin for Science, I am horrified by the thought of having to prepare for another change in 2012. Funding and resouring new specifications are beyond the budget of most schools and so will seriously impact on the quality of the learning experience for most GCSE students. It is also unacceptable to expect staff to prepare for yet another change just 12 months after the last re-write of the Science GCSE specifications. However if the move to linear has been decided then there needs to be a reduction in the number of exams per GCSE. No student should need to sit more than 2 exams per subject in a linear course as many students are doing 8/9 GCSE at the same time and so would be facing 16-18 exams. The shelf-life for controlled assessment should be 2 years and not one so that schools have the opportunity to fulfil the the requirement over Y10 and Y11 rather than just in Y11; most students should have the opportunity to do at least 2 pieces of each type of coursework. Having just started teaching the new specificatin for Science, I am horrified by the thought of having to prepare for another change in 2012. Funding and resouring new specifications are beyond the budget of most schools and so will seriously impact on the quality of the learning experience for most GCSE students. It is also unacceptable to expect staff to prepare for yet another change just 12 months after the last re-write of the Science GCSE specifications.

However if the move to linear has been decided then there needs to be a reduction in the number of exams per GCSE. No student should need to sit more than 2 exams per subject in a linear course as many students are doing 8/9 GCSE at the same time and so would be facing 16-18 exams. The shelf-life for controlled assessment should be 2 years and not one so that schools have the opportunity to fulfil the the requirement over Y10 and Y11 rather than just in Y11; most students should have the opportunity to do at least 2 pieces of each type of coursework.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: T Crump http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/making-the-current-gcses-linear/how-we-intend-to-implement-the-changes-and-proposed-changes-to-regulatory-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-140 T Crump Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:56:28 +0000 http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/?p=8#comment-140 Having just starting teaching the new specificatin for Science, I am horrified by the thought of having to prepare for another change in 2012. Funding and resouring new specifications are beyond the budget of most schools and so will seriously impact on the quality of the learning experinece for most GCSE students. It is also unacceptable to expect staff to prepare for yet another change just 12 months after the last re-write of the Science GCSE specifications. However if the move to linear has been decided then there needs to be a reduction in the number of exams per GCSE. No student should need to sit more than 2 exams per subject in a linear course as many students are doing 8/9 GCSE at the same time and so would be facing 16-18 exams. The shelf-life for controlled assessment should be 2 years and not one so that schools have the opportunity to fulfil the the requirement over Y10 and Y11 rather than just in Y11; most students should have the opportunity to do at least 2 pieces of each type of coursework. Having just starting teaching the new specificatin for Science, I am horrified by the thought of having to prepare for another change in 2012. Funding and resouring new specifications are beyond the budget of most schools and so will seriously impact on the quality of the learning experinece for most GCSE students. It is also unacceptable to expect staff to prepare for yet another change just 12 months after the last re-write of the Science GCSE specifications.

However if the move to linear has been decided then there needs to be a reduction in the number of exams per GCSE. No student should need to sit more than 2 exams per subject in a linear course as many students are doing 8/9 GCSE at the same time and so would be facing 16-18 exams. The shelf-life for controlled assessment should be 2 years and not one so that schools have the opportunity to fulfil the the requirement over Y10 and Y11 rather than just in Y11; most students should have the opportunity to do at least 2 pieces of each type of coursework.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Chris Elliss http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/making-the-current-gcses-linear/how-we-intend-to-implement-the-changes-and-proposed-changes-to-regulatory-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-136 Chris Elliss Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:31:09 +0000 http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/?p=8#comment-136 There is a suspicious absence of any reasoning for the proposed changes and who is calling for them - it is certainly not the teaching profession. Are the proposed changes intended to benefit students and improve standards? It is certainly not obvious how they would achieve that as the proposals would seem to benefit able students who have the ability to sit a large number of terminal examinations and penalise many weaker students. If there is educational research which supports such changes, then this must be shared with us before we can even begin to take the proposals seriously. If a fully linear system is introduced for all GCSEs then we can expect a return to the days when many less able students leave school without qualifications because they simply don't bother to turn up to the examinations. There is a suspicious absence of any reasoning for the proposed changes and who is calling for them – it is certainly not the teaching profession. Are the proposed changes intended to benefit students and improve standards? It is certainly not obvious how they would achieve that as the proposals would seem to benefit able students who have the ability to sit a large number of terminal examinations and penalise many weaker students. If there is educational research which supports such changes, then this must be shared with us before we can even begin to take the proposals seriously.

If a fully linear system is introduced for all GCSEs then we can expect a return to the days when many less able students leave school without qualifications because they simply don’t bother to turn up to the examinations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Danuta Reah http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/making-the-current-gcses-linear/how-we-intend-to-implement-the-changes-and-proposed-changes-to-regulatory-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-130 Danuta Reah Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:18:44 +0000 http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/?p=8#comment-130 Where is the research that demonstrates modular GCSEs lead to a reduction in standards or are otherwise flawed? it is very worrying when examination systems are changed at what looks very like the whim of the current Minister. The modular courses were introduced at great time and expense, and centres have trained and geared up for these, also at great time and expense. If these changes are to be made, this should be done on the basis of rigorous and valid research. Where is the research that demonstrates modular GCSEs lead to a reduction in standards or are otherwise flawed? it is very worrying when examination systems are changed at what looks very like the whim of the current Minister. The modular courses were introduced at great time and expense, and centres have trained and geared up for these, also at great time and expense. If these changes are to be made, this should be done on the basis of rigorous and valid research.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Christine Whipp http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/making-the-current-gcses-linear/how-we-intend-to-implement-the-changes-and-proposed-changes-to-regulatory-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-119 Christine Whipp Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:04:40 +0000 http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/?p=8#comment-119 I also deplore the waste of time and resources yet another change to GCSE specs will require. We have just started a new science course at great expense in terms of time and money. The course has been designed to be modular - most of the modules stand alone and there is little building of concepts. If the course were to become linear it would be necessary to change it substantially. By all means remove the possibility of re-taking modules but leave the course alone. I also deplore the waste of time and resources yet another change to GCSE specs will require. We have just started a new science course at great expense in terms of time and money. The course has been designed to be modular – most of the modules stand alone and there is little building of concepts. If the course were to become linear it would be necessary to change it substantially. By all means remove the possibility of re-taking modules but leave the course alone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Harry Orr http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/making-the-current-gcses-linear/how-we-intend-to-implement-the-changes-and-proposed-changes-to-regulatory-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-117 Harry Orr Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:56:58 +0000 http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/gcse-reform/?p=8#comment-117 Will Short Course GCSE be affected by these changes? Will Short Course GCSE be affected by these changes?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>