Comments on: In the News: a GCSE by Any Other Name http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/gcse Global English and language change Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:05:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Charlotte http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/gcse/comment-page-1#comment-571 Charlotte Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:23:37 +0000 http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=1025#comment-571 As a newly qualified English teacher, I can’t comment with much authority on the science GCSEs you mention (some of which I suspect were created for the private sector judging by the time and resources they’d demand from schools), but I can sing the praises of qualifications like ‘entry level science’ and combined award subjects on a more general level. When selecting my own GCSEs, I opted out of Triple Award Science – the 3 standard science GCSEs – for Double Award Science which allowed me broaden my subject base at GCSE by giving me an extra option I could use on subjects I considered more valuable to my career path. Some of these qualifications afford less able students the opportunity to sit relevant and valuable qualifications, and a way into the workplace. When I was at school, if you weren’t considered clever enough to take the GCSE, you were placed in the bottom set, took the exam, and came away with a demoralising F. However, some of these new subjects offer students the opportunity to gain points towards wider-reaching qualifications (key skills exams are taken in other subjects like Maths and English, for instance) and they come out of school with GCSE grades that employers demand. For the cynic, these ‘easier’ qualifications allow the government to sweep the issue of underachievement under the carpet, and make league tables look good. However, for the teacher and the student, they often provide the valuable moral boost that less able, disaffected or disengaged pupils need to give them a ‘leg up’ into the world of work. As a newly qualified English teacher, I can’t comment with much authority on the science GCSEs you mention (some of which I suspect were created for the private sector judging by the time and resources they’d demand from schools), but I can sing the praises of qualifications like ‘entry level science’ and combined award subjects on a more general level. When selecting my own GCSEs, I opted out of Triple Award Science – the 3 standard science GCSEs – for Double Award Science which allowed me broaden my subject base at GCSE by giving me an extra option I could use on subjects I considered more valuable to my career path.

Some of these qualifications afford less able students the opportunity to sit relevant and valuable qualifications, and a way into the workplace. When I was at school, if you weren’t considered clever enough to take the GCSE, you were placed in the bottom set, took the exam, and came away with a demoralising F. However, some of these new subjects offer students the opportunity to gain points towards wider-reaching qualifications (key skills exams are taken in other subjects like Maths and English, for instance) and they come out of school with GCSE grades that employers demand.

For the cynic, these ‘easier’ qualifications allow the government to sweep the issue of underachievement under the carpet, and make league tables look good. However, for the teacher and the student, they often provide the valuable moral boost that less able, disaffected or disengaged pupils need to give them a ‘leg up’ into the world of work.

]]>