GCSEs (again)

Lozzo wrote

That is why I wear reactolites, sometimes I am dyslectic and the rest of
the time I are just plain fik

Well done indeed.

 

I've spoken to about 8 secondary schools about special needs provisions-
they all recognised dyslexia. Some of them were state, some private.
All were in the same area though.

Even 25 years ago my school (and others in the area I lived) were aware
of dyslexia and offered extra time in exams.

I find it very, very hard to believe that any school or education
authority fails to recognise dyslexia as a condition these days. Still.
it seems your experience varies.

 

Yellow is still yellow, innit.

Good girl.

 

Ginge says...

That's what they said, that's what they did.

 

We have a notice board in thestaff room that outlines things exactely like
that. There are a couple of my pupils that need glasses to see the board
properly (even from the front) but wont wear them. Once all the teachers
know then they can insist the pupil put them on each lesson. The usual
excuse is then that they have forgotten/lost them. The simple answer is that
they then stay behind over lunch etc. to copy someones book as they couldn't
see the board. Amazingly they turn up to lessons with the glasses that they
have "lost" from then on.

 

So, to summarize: all of your kids do/did badly at school.

Hmm. Let's have a think on the common factor.

 

Then he'll spend his working life trolley pushing or burger flipping.

I know it's been said before but I can't for the life of me see why
you didn't move away from the area when these problems started to
become obvious if the schools couldn't help.

A change in area would have prevented the more recent problems with
chav brats and your kids would have all done well enough at school to
go to university.

I understand that kids can be cunts, my eldest has done things that
would make most parents shoot her but me being a single parent meant
it was expected of her so it didn't matter.

 

Perhaps some of the journalists could try taking the exams then we'd
see.

 

But C4 did something like that last year (or maybe the year before) called,
I think, That'll Teach 'Em with a group of 16 year olds who were expected to
get very good GCSE grades. Students who achieved 8 A*s at GCSE had problems
passing 'O' Level Maths & English exams.

The following year they took a bunch of underachieving kids and taught them
some CSE-based vocational subjects and, on the whole they actually improved
in both scholastic ability and attitude.

Not sure what that says about CSEs, but, taking into account the series'
makers probable underhand tricks and picking just the right mix of kids to
make the programmes "watchable infotainment" instead of a serious study it
would appear that GCSEs are easier to achieve a good mark at that 'O'
Levels.

Dave

 

Yes but remember that, unlike a scholar doing serious imbaised research, C4
already know what they want the programme to show and what the final
conclusion will be so they create a programme that does just that.

Did the pupils follow a 2 year "O" level programme? No, so how can they be
expected to pass. Many things are no longer on the syllabus that are now
irrelevant (Log table etc.)

Also the style of the exams have changed, questions are designed to be in
context with everyday life, making clinical questions more difficult to the
untrained.

It would be more interesting to get an O-level student to sit a GCSE exam,
together with coursework and then we could see if they were getting easier.

Saying that, I do still believe that the worth of the GCSE has been reduced.
If I was looking to employ someone, I'd put more value on an O-level.

 

Oh the joys of snipping. What you said here is what I said later in my
post.

 

WavyDavy says...

He's clever, he's a teacher. That's why he's over here and working and
you have to resort to dossing with the French and entering pointless
motorcycle related competitions.

It's hard to say who's the winner.

 

^
This |

^
Doesn't really square with this. |

FWIW, IMO The young people are, as always being taught to pass the
exam, it seems hypocritical that they're then criticised for doing so.

 

Boots Blakeley wrote

Agree strongly.

 

They aren't being criticised. They're just being told they have it
easier than their Parents' / Grandparents' generation did.

Nothing changes really.

This doesn't mean the exams are any harder/easier/whatever though. My
personal suspicion is that the exams are easier based on my experience
of looking at my Children's maths/science work but this is a suspicion
rather than a fact.

 

When you were at school you were learning concepts you found difficult;
now you understand those concepts and seeing school books through those
eyes could it be that you perceive them to be easier?

 

....that aliens have substituted their own prodgeny for our kids and
that we must kill everyone under 10?

It might just work...

 

Kids are shagging at younger and younger ages.

Yet nookie certainly aint getting easier to find. Not for me anyway.

 

OK, not direct criticism but certainly undermining their achievements
and with limited evidence. Sure giving a greater weight to the course
work may lift the mark but importantly it means that a reasonable
level of work has to be maintained throughout the course.

Of course, that however doesn't make it right, FFS praise them if they
do well and encourage them if they don't do so well.

I've forgotten so much of the subjects I studied[1] that I really
couldn't be sure and by the time my kids took A levels the subjects
they chose I had no real knowledge of.

[1] I can't recall a time I needed maths etc to O level and HND
standard apart from the exams.

 

scribbled:

Look, just stop asking at the school gates [1], it'll only lead to
tears.


[1] Unless you're asking MILFs of course