Maths GCSE's

I think that maths, like foreign languages and music, tends to be taught by people to whom it comes naturally. Maths teachers, therefore, tend to teach in a way that works for students who also have an interest and natural ability in maths, but not in a way that suits those with little interest or ability (probably the majority). Maths teaching often fails such people. It failed me. I find no beauty in numbers, solving problems for their own sake is not particularly rewarding to me. What I really needed was to be taught why a certain mathematical process was useful in the real world, as its abstract nature was not of any interest to me.

I scraped an O-level pass, but went on to do physics A-level (and 3 others) where the maths content had some real-world relevance. I later went on to be a molecular biologist working in research, any maths that I needed for my work I taught myself, with the impetus of it being directly relevant.

I think one of the problems with maths GCSE is the majority that sit it probably won't use a good half of it ever again. Personally think we're going too big too soon with what we're teaching kids.

I absolutely agree, a qualification involving real life maths would be far more useful at that age and those that want to go on to a career that involves high level maths can go on to do the higher stuff after GCSEs. 

But if all you're taught up till 16 is addition, subtraction, division, multiplication, fractions, percentages, simple odds and maybe how interest and pensions work, it would not be enough for those looking to progress in technical subjects. It's like you need two qualifications, which is why there were O levels and CSEs.

But they merged them and created something with 9 result levels, of which 6 I believe are a pass.

But I think you probably need 2 different syllabuses, which would serve people better. However, you then run into the lower one being looked down on, which is probably  why they got merged.

After maths PE was my worst subject, I hated it with a passion especially those girls who had a permanent period and were let off PE when I was told running around would be good for it. In the end I just refused to do it, I refused to run, if I was put in goal I'd just stand there and let balls go past me. Why would anyone thnk that being in goal is a good position for someone who hates sport? Gym was like torture, in primary school we had to go swimming every week, I was useless at that too, we had to go in the baby pool and I don't think it was deep enough for me I was always tall and I don't think it gave me enough bouyancy, all it did was confirm that I swim like a brick. Nobody was ever in the water with us, just a teacher provided by the pool, who'd shout at us from the edge, we had to dp mandatory tests, like swimming a width or a length, which was hell for me, I feel like they would of quite happily of seen me drown before helping me.

I think some kids get a good choice and it works out well for them but others either can't pick the ones they want because of the set up or like you say are very much guided by parents and staff. The practical subjects can also still be academically challenging like PE so not always a good option for weaker learners. It's also still quite a restrictive choice although it has improved a lot over the years. But we still don't cater to people that are very practical rather than academic.

I think a lot of the choice of what subjects you'll get to study is an illusion, teachers and parents still have imput, or they did when I was at school and when my kids were at school. I wasn't allowed to do Cookery, the only O level I could have passed because the teacher didn't like me, I was a better cook than her and she didn't like that I'd take the things I'd made home and we'd have them for dinner, she didn't like the fact that I did most of the cooking at home by the time I was 13-14. I was made to do Home Economics instead, which was a CSE.

Something like 20% of the population are functionally innumerate, i.e do not reach the level expected at 11.

This represents a challenge for those individuals. Even things like discounts in stores can be confusing. This is partly why stores do buy one get one free (50% off), or buy 2 get one free (33% off) as it is easier to understand than the percentages. It also shifts more volume, in the hope people will eat it faster not just stick in the cupboard.

It is also why stores are required to put the price per 100g or per kg on the labels, so you can tell if 2 small items are cheaper than 1 big item, as it is hard for people to do it on their head. Often the offers are not what they seem.

This is the governments expectations. That all kids will leave school with a 4 in English and maths. They have to keep repeating it until they either get a 4 or leave education. They may get a 1, 2 or 3 but 4 is the standard pass mark. Many employers and college courses now have a 4 in maths and English as an entry requirements but not all the jobs and courses that are requiring this need people to have that level of education.

I don't think we should be viewing kids education as separating those who could learn from those who will not. Not at that stage. We want to be getting the very best we can for each individual and setting them up to achieve in life. At the moment we're not. We're teaching them that they're failures very early on. We're making it that everything revolves around their ability in maths and English. 

Educating kids should be about making sure they have the skills they need for later life not lasered in on the content of a GCSE. If these kids weren't being pushed through GCSE content. Perhaps they could be learning the skills they haven't yet such as being able to manage time and money so they have a chance at independence.

Expecto_Patronum said:

we currently have a literal rule that all kids should get a 4 in English and Maths. We all know that this isn't possible so why is it an expectation.

Can you explain this more please?

What is the kids are not capable or reaching this 4? I assume they would fail the exam but that is part of the exams purpose, to separate those who could learn the subject from those who cannot or will not.

Am I missing something?

They have to do Science. That's not really a choice. They can sometimes choose between combined or single so that they can have an extra subject to choose. 

I disagree. I think there's a lot more we can do. Going back to the point of this post, we currently have a literal rule that all kids should get a 4 in English and Maths. We all know that this isn't possible so why is it an expectation.

The weaker learners used to have the option to do entry level qualifications. Whilst schools may still offer these in some circumstances, there's been a massive push away from them because the government stopped them counting in the league tables and how a school is seen to perform is sadly what is cared about most.

At the moment there is a huge SEN and schools funding crisis. The SEN learners in mainstream, not to mention all of those that go without their needs being picked up, are not having their needs met or the support they need to access the curriculum. It's a rubbish system.

Expecto_Patronum said:

They can pick a few subjects to their interests at GCSE but usually from certain lists.

There is at least an element of choice thought. I recall I couldn't do 3 science subjects for my Highers although I really wanted to because of this, but the justification is that education at this level needs to be broad to form a base for the further education process.

Expecto_Patronum said:

main stream education doesn't suit the weakest learners at all.

This is the result of ability being on a bell curve - the upper achievers are held back and the lower achievers are not really catered for and are expected to fail.

I think the education system lacks the capacity to cater for everyone and that the outliers will always suffer unless there is a support system for those with these special needs.

I used to coach a friends son in maths because he struggled badly - I picked up on his dyslexia and could present the theory in a way that made more sense to him by demonstrating using objects initially then real world examples (booking odds, calculating prices using fractions etc).

Once the school was made aware of the dyslexia they were able to help him with his English classes etc so it was a win.

The point is you sometimes need to find a way to help those that are struggling but accept that there are inevitably those who are simply not capable of even being average.

The more gifted may not be able to reach their true capabilities just as the less intelligent may never be able to grasp calculus or understand how rainbows form.

So long as the available resources are made open to those who need them, there is not much more we can do.

Agreed

I'm so glad that employment has opened up not just to women, but to people of colour and the disabled, I was at school when the equal opportunities act came in and and the male teachers marching around school really angry and telling us that there was no point in educating us as we'd just go off and have babies anyway. It seemed as though doors had been unlocked, but few of us had the skills to know how to open them. Everything was so limitied then, but not as much as when my mum was at school when you really were educated according to your gender.

Geography is one of the odder subjects in my opinion. There is actually very little done on skills like map reading or knowledge of where things are in the world. But it goes very in-depth into things like river formation and natural disasters which is very niche career wise. It also goes very in-depth into certain places around the world like Lagos and doesn't touch on other areas at all which seems bizarre to me.

Unfortunately it is not currently how our education system works at all. They can pick a few subjects to their interests at GCSE but usually from certain lists. Some schools may insist they do a humanities subject for example. Or the subjects may be grouped randomly but the kids can only pick one from each column so if all the ones they want are in the same list they cant do them. Even the seemingly more practical subjects like PE have difficult exams so we are not catering at all for those that are less academic at this stage of schooling. And it doesn't account for the fact that GCSEs in the core subjects like maths that they're all expected to do in main stream education doesn't suit the weakest learners at all.

TheCatWoman said:

I think the careers you mention that a geography GCSE migh be good for weren't open to women when I was at school, or not women like me.

Your experiences were 30-40 years ago and much has changed. Women have much more in the way of equal rights now so the careers are more accessible than before.

TheCatWoman said:

English might be about teaching communication skills, but not how I was taught, my generation weren't taught grammar we were supposed to just learn it from reading, like gramatical structures would pass from a book to our brains by osmosis.

I'm sorry you had such a poor experience. I recall having to do a lot of my own research to understand some of the English skills the teachers were supposed to teach us but I was always a bit of a bookworm and spent a lot of time in the library.

TheCatWoman said:

Psychology wasn't a subject when I was at school,

This is more of a higher education thing as it needs a lot of foundation skills to be ready for it, so isn't really a school subject on its own.

Iain, Of course I know that! But how many people actually use geography in thier everyday lives? It just felt like one of those time filling subjects with no point to it. I think the careers you mention that a geography GCSE migh be good for weren't open to women when I was at school, or not women like me.

English might be about teaching communication skills, but not how I was taught, my generation weren't taught grammar we were supposed to just learn it from reading, like gramatical structures would pass from a book to our brains by osmosis.

Psychology wasn't a subject when I was at school, or not at my school anyway.

I think there's still a big gap between the value placed on academic and vocational subjects, I hope it's changing and vocational courses are getting proper recognition. 

I hope they're better than NVQ's, I saw a lot of people get a hairdressing qualification who probably shouldn't of done, because the system was set up so that people couldn't fail, it annoyed the hell out of tutors too.

Expecto_Patronum said:

How can you make a system where kids can do the right qualifications for their abilities but aren't made to feel inferior

I guess this comes down to the students chosing the best electives for their interests which happens about age 14 I think.

The point of the exams is to grade the students based on their abilities so the more capable ones can be identified for being ahead of the queue for further education or jobs. Market forces basically.

It is part of the sorting hat of life.

And this is the big problem. How can you make a system where kids can do the right qualifications for their abilities but aren't made to feel inferior or as if they've missed out on opportunity.

Stuart333 said:

to progress in technical subjects. It's like you need two qualifications, which is why there were O levels and CSEs.

But they merged them and created something with 9 result levels, of which 6 I believe are a pass.

But I think you probably need 2 different syllabuses, which would serve people better. However, you then run into the lower one being looked down on, which is probably  why they got merged

You are correct,  I remember the GCE and CSE divide.  Schools claimed that that the highest grade in CSE was equivalent to a pass at O level GCE.  But nobody believed it.  At the age of  14, the teachers decided if one did CSEs or GCEs,  both the kids and parents were angry when they were placed in the CSE stream,  the teachers at my school were obviously never allowed to say that CSEs were inferior, the code word was suitability, 'You are more suitable for the CSE, the CSE is more suitable for you", were the phrases.

Stuart333 said:

to progress in technical subjects. It's like you need two qualifications, which is why there were O levels and CSEs.

But they merged them and created something with 9 result levels, of which 6 I believe are a pass.

But I think you probably need 2 different syllabuses, which would serve people better. However, you then run into the lower one being looked down on, which is probably  why they got merged

You are correct,  I remember the GCE and CSE divide.  Schools claimed that that the highest grade in CSE was equivalent to a pass at O level GCE.  But nobody believed it.  At the age of  14, the teachers decided if one did CSEs or GCEs,  both the kids and parents were angry when they were placed in the CSE stream,  the teachers at my school were obviously never allowed to say that CSEs were inferior, the code word was suitability, 'You are more suitable for the CSE, the CSE is more suitable for you", were the phrases.

After maths PE was my worst subject, I hated it with a passion especially those girls who had a permanent period and were let off PE when I was told running around would be good for it. In the end I just refused to do it, I refused to run, if I was put in goal I'd just stand there and let balls go past me. Why would anyone thnk that being in goal is a good position for someone who hates sport? Gym was like torture, in primary school we had to go swimming every week, I was useless at that too, we had to go in the baby pool and I don't think it was deep enough for me I was always tall and I don't think it gave me enough bouyancy, all it did was confirm that I swim like a brick. Nobody was ever in the water with us, just a teacher provided by the pool, who'd shout at us from the edge, we had to dp mandatory tests, like swimming a width or a length, which was hell for me, I feel like they would of quite happily of seen me drown before helping me.

I think some kids get a good choice and it works out well for them but others either can't pick the ones they want because of the set up or like you say are very much guided by parents and staff. The practical subjects can also still be academically challenging like PE so not always a good option for weaker learners. It's also still quite a restrictive choice although it has improved a lot over the years. But we still don't cater to people that are very practical rather than academic.

I think a lot of the choice of what subjects you'll get to study is an illusion, teachers and parents still have imput, or they did when I was at school and when my kids were at school. I wasn't allowed to do Cookery, the only O level I could have passed because the teacher didn't like me, I was a better cook than her and she didn't like that I'd take the things I'd made home and we'd have them for dinner, she didn't like the fact that I did most of the cooking at home by the time I was 13-14. I was made to do Home Economics instead, which was a CSE.

Something like 20% of the population are functionally innumerate, i.e do not reach the level expected at 11.

This represents a challenge for those individuals. Even things like discounts in stores can be confusing. This is partly why stores do buy one get one free (50% off), or buy 2 get one free (33% off) as it is easier to understand than the percentages. It also shifts more volume, in the hope people will eat it faster not just stick in the cupboard.

It is also why stores are required to put the price per 100g or per kg on the labels, so you can tell if 2 small items are cheaper than 1 big item, as it is hard for people to do it on their head. Often the offers are not what they seem.

This is the governments expectations. That all kids will leave school with a 4 in English and maths. They have to keep repeating it until they either get a 4 or leave education. They may get a 1, 2 or 3 but 4 is the standard pass mark. Many employers and college courses now have a 4 in maths and English as an entry requirements but not all the jobs and courses that are requiring this need people to have that level of education.

I don't think we should be viewing kids education as separating those who could learn from those who will not. Not at that stage. We want to be getting the very best we can for each individual and setting them up to achieve in life. At the moment we're not. We're teaching them that they're failures very early on. We're making it that everything revolves around their ability in maths and English. 

Educating kids should be about making sure they have the skills they need for later life not lasered in on the content of a GCSE. If these kids weren't being pushed through GCSE content. Perhaps they could be learning the skills they haven't yet such as being able to manage time and money so they have a chance at independence.

Expecto_Patronum said:

we currently have a literal rule that all kids should get a 4 in English and Maths. We all know that this isn't possible so why is it an expectation.

Can you explain this more please?

What is the kids are not capable or reaching this 4? I assume they would fail the exam but that is part of the exams purpose, to separate those who could learn the subject from those who cannot or will not.

Am I missing something?

They have to do Science. That's not really a choice. They can sometimes choose between combined or single so that they can have an extra subject to choose. 

I disagree. I think there's a lot more we can do. Going back to the point of this post, we currently have a literal rule that all kids should get a 4 in English and Maths. We all know that this isn't possible so why is it an expectation.

The weaker learners used to have the option to do entry level qualifications. Whilst schools may still offer these in some circumstances, there's been a massive push away from them because the government stopped them counting in the league tables and how a school is seen to perform is sadly what is cared about most.

At the moment there is a huge SEN and schools funding crisis. The SEN learners in mainstream, not to mention all of those that go without their needs being picked up, are not having their needs met or the support they need to access the curriculum. It's a rubbish system.

Expecto_Patronum said:

They can pick a few subjects to their interests at GCSE but usually from certain lists.

There is at least an element of choice thought. I recall I couldn't do 3 science subjects for my Highers although I really wanted to because of this, but the justification is that education at this level needs to be broad to form a base for the further education process.

Expecto_Patronum said:

main stream education doesn't suit the weakest learners at all.

This is the result of ability being on a bell curve - the upper achievers are held back and the lower achievers are not really catered for and are expected to fail.

I think the education system lacks the capacity to cater for everyone and that the outliers will always suffer unless there is a support system for those with these special needs.

I used to coach a friends son in maths because he struggled badly - I picked up on his dyslexia and could present the theory in a way that made more sense to him by demonstrating using objects initially then real world examples (booking odds, calculating prices using fractions etc).

Once the school was made aware of the dyslexia they were able to help him with his English classes etc so it was a win.

The point is you sometimes need to find a way to help those that are struggling but accept that there are inevitably those who are simply not capable of even being average.

The more gifted may not be able to reach their true capabilities just as the less intelligent may never be able to grasp calculus or understand how rainbows form.

So long as the available resources are made open to those who need them, there is not much more we can do.

Agreed

Unfortunately it is not currently how our education system works at all. They can pick a few subjects to their interests at GCSE but usually from certain lists. Some schools may insist they do a humanities subject for example. Or the subjects may be grouped randomly but the kids can only pick one from each column so if all the ones they want are in the same list they cant do them. Even the seemingly more practical subjects like PE have difficult exams so we are not catering at all for those that are less academic at this stage of schooling. And it doesn't account for the fact that GCSEs in the core subjects like maths that they're all expected to do in main stream education doesn't suit the weakest learners at all.

I think there's still a big gap between the value placed on academic and vocational subjects, I hope it's changing and vocational courses are getting proper recognition. 

I hope they're better than NVQ's, I saw a lot of people get a hairdressing qualification who probably shouldn't of done, because the system was set up so that people couldn't fail, it annoyed the hell out of tutors too.

Expecto_Patronum said:

How can you make a system where kids can do the right qualifications for their abilities but aren't made to feel inferior

I guess this comes down to the students chosing the best electives for their interests which happens about age 14 I think.

The point of the exams is to grade the students based on their abilities so the more capable ones can be identified for being ahead of the queue for further education or jobs. Market forces basically.

It is part of the sorting hat of life.

And this is the big problem. How can you make a system where kids can do the right qualifications for their abilities but aren't made to feel inferior or as if they've missed out on opportunity.