Unfiddling the books

  • Thread starter cantaloup63
  • Start date


Horse maintenance is no longer worth 4 GCSE's, as you are all aware.

The reason behind this is that these GNVQ's, BTECs or whatever they're now called were taking the mick a little and making it ridiculously easy for schools to take the easy option to score remarkably well in league tables, at the expense of actually suggesting that the students learned anything "difficult".

League tables include the "including English and Mathematics", and thus obviates the need for the old "5 or more A*-C" tables. Indeed, student fees had already led to a 10% reduction in university applications, and I suspect that this social engineering is being rolled back to younger ages - we no longer need a "highly qualified" work force, nor can we afford it, so we may as well stop making out that so many 16 year olds should have easy access to some FE courses.

I used to work in a school for over a decade that regularly scored 65%+ A*-C's, but which if you adjusted it by removing the vocational subject weighting would bring it down to 25-30% and thus put it into special measures. The head was quite blase about using GNVQ and I fell out with him since IMO he wasn't doing the more capable students any favours by forcing them to sit Science GNVQ (to buck the statistics up), even though this meant that they would not be permitted to study science based subjects post-16, since colleges did not consider GNVQ as sufficient grounding.

Never fear though, the powers that be will be able to find some way of making things looks better than they are.
Sponsored Links
So it was OK for you to get qualified and your kids (if you have any) but no bugger else's? :rolleyes:
Sponsored Links
Never fear though, the powers that be will be able to find some way of making things looks better than they are.

They always do, that's the game innit.
They always do, that's the game innit.
Indeed it is.

Here's one for you to ponder over. Last June's edexcel GCSE mathematics required an overall score of 24% in order to gain a grade "C" (the going rate for several years has been 33-38%). So how did they come to the conclusion that this score demonstrated the necessary skills and knowledge for a students to gain an "O"-level pass? Did they base it by considering the level of difficulties for the range of questions?

Did they hell :rolleyes: They did what is so common place- they decided that they wanted 59% of the student population to attain this grade or above and, once they had all the marks in the database, this generated the required pass percentage.

"Why 59% of the population" I hear you ask. Because it demonstrated an increase on the random percentage chosen last year, which obviously indicates that pupils are getting brighter :rolleyes:
Glad I dropped out of college when I was 20 then Canta, else they'd be blaming me for the thicko's they seem to churn out these days. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
It's not just the education service which has meaningless targets, the whole spectrum of british institutions is run the same way. Somebody realised that "you can fool enough of the people enough of the time". And all of the political parties are happy to carry on down that road instead of introducing much needed changes in order to base achievement on merit. Smoke and mirrors.
Perhaps if the powers that be stopped dicking about with the curriculum and changing things randomly left, right and centre then we could get on and do our jobs.
Instant communication combined with very short attention span makes for a pretty easy way to control people.
As long as the footies on, and corrie and emmerdale for the women...happy days.
Sponsored Links