Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Britain: `Boring and mindless' GCSEs scrapped by independent schools for tougher courses

The GCSE [Middle school exam] is no longer considered tough enough by leading independent schools, which release their results today. Nine of the top ten in The Times independent schools league table offer the International GCSE (IGCSE), which is considered more rigorous, partly because it does not include coursework. Many other independent schools use the IGCSE in at least one subject. The qualification is not recognised by the Government, so such schools fare badly in official statistics, arguably making them less accurate than those in The Times.

One in five independent schools offers some subjects in IGCSE. They include Wycombe Abbey, a girls' school in Buckinghamshire, which came top with more than 98 per cent of examinations marked at A* to B grades. It uses the IGCSE for science and mathematics.

Cynthia Hall, the headmistress, said: "There was a feeling that, with GCSE maths, the coursework was really quite a waste of time. A lot of the material was not very stimulating - it was really rather dull for bright girls."

Mrs Hall said that the IGCSE in science was factually more rigorous but needed to be balanced with the larger amount of laboratory work offered in the GCSE. Andrew Halls, Head Master of King's College School in Wimbledon, southwest London, said that GCSEs were "no longer good enough" as they offered boring syllabuses and mindless coursework. He said: "We are increasingly moving away from standard GCSEs, with a sense of sadness. Frankly, they are no longer good enough. There are so many top grades that they're not proving fit for purpose."

The school for boys uses the IGCSE in maths and the three sciences and is likely to introduce it for more subjects. Guildford High School introduced the IGCSE this year for maths. Fiona Bolton, headmistress of the girls' school in Surrey, said: "It's the first year we've done the IGCSE and we chose it because it is significantly more challenging than GCSE. "It's a better preparation for A level. The girls weren't being challenged enough by the normal GCSE."

Girls dominated the league table of this year's independent school GCSE results, making up three quarters of the top 20. More boys' schools would have come higher were it not for a boycott of tables by 56 head teachers, who refused to release results. They included Eton, Radley and Winchester colleges and St Paul's School, southwest London.

St Paul's published some GCSE results on its website, saying that this year's pupils had broken all records. It used IGCSEs in four subjects and achieved 100 per cent A*s in chemistry and Italian and 98 per cent A*s in maths, but did not provide results for any other subjects.

Boys at Manchester Grammar School, which also declined to publish its results, attained 85 per cent A* and A grades at GCSE, according to the school's website. At Eastbourne College, which takes girls and boys, 64 per cent of exams were marked A* or A. Results from 552 schools were released through the Independent Schools Council.

They showed that 28.5 per cent of GCSE entries were marked A*, nearly two percentage points higher than last year and the fourth consecutive annual rise. Almost three fifths of independent schools' GCSE papers were graded A or A*, compared with one fifth of pupils nationally.

Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas, the chairwoman of the council, said: "These results show that ISC schools continue to deliver high quality teaching and learning. This is a time to focus on celebrating the success of all the individuals concerned." Candidates took an average 9.6 subjects each. More than 95 per cent achieved grades A* to C, compared with two thirds of pupils nationally.

This year almost half the 585 independent schools had at least one entrant for an IGCSE, compared with a third last year. Three schools offered it exclusively.

Source





Harold Ford says Obama Should Focus On Education Reform

Barack Obama made history this week by becoming the first black man to claim the presidential nomination of a major American political party. He almost certainly won't be the last. Another rising -- and arguably more substantive -- star is former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr. Mr. Ford is just 38 years old. But he's been thinking deeply about politics for a long time. In 2002, when he was a mere 32, the Tennessee congressman challenged his party in the House of Representatives to elect him leader, saying that Democrats were "O and five" in congressional elections because they needed to move to the political center.

He lost that race to California's Nancy Pelosi. But Mr. Ford continued to push his party to embrace a more muscular foreign policy (he voted for the Iraq war in 2003) and not shy away from entitlement reform (he was willing to talk to President George W. Bush about Social Security reform in 2005). In 2006, after losing a bid for the Senate, he was tapped to be chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. This was a post Bill Clinton once used to credential himself as a "Third Way," moderate Democrat on his way to the White House.

Mr. Ford is optimistic about the party's chances to control the House, Senate and presidency come January. But he says the stakes for Democrats will only be higher if they're in charge: "If we don't produce, it is likely we won't hold the majorities in both places, and it could hurt our president's chances at re-election."

When I sat down with Mr. Ford at The Wall Street Journal's offices recently, I looked forward to hearing what he would say about the direction of his party and its liberal presidential nominee. I wanted to know what he thought of the party's leftward tilt on taxes, trade, energy and education. Mr. Ford's answer: that his party was able to win control of Congress two years ago by running moderate Democratic candidates in Republican districts. That, he says, is what it needs to do to stay in power.

"If you look at the congressmen who won in 2006, the 'red to blue' as they call them as a group, not those who may have succeeded Democrats and are holding safe Democratic seats," Mr. Ford said, "and you consider the special election races this year, in the last couple of months in Mississippi, Louisiana and Illinois, what you will see clearly in the ascendancy in the party is a moderate, mainstream, Democratic approach to taxes, to fiscal policy, to spending as a whole, to national security, foreign policy. "I would contend that the Democratic majority is due to a moderate, mainstream, conservative philosophy -- conservative, a lot of people interpret that the wrong way, but just a moderate mainstream philosophy in the party being on the ascendancy, as opposed to [a philosophy that is] sometimes further to the left, some may call liberal."

On the numbers, I couldn't disagree. House Speaker Pelosi owes her gavel today to Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, and about a score of other conservative or moderate Democrats who won by promising voters a certain level of independence from the Democratic Party's liberal wing. (Mr. Shuler won his seat in 2006 by telling voters he wouldn't "automatically" vote for Mrs. Pelosi to be speaker if elected.) But I'm skeptical of a conservative ascendancy in a party that promises tax hikes for the "wealthy," balks at expanding domestic oil drilling, and opposes nearly every form of school choice that would give poor children a way out of failing public schools. So I press Mr. Ford on the apparent divergence between the DLC's moderate agenda and that of Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party.

"I don't think there are as many differences as people may think," he said pointing to Mr. Obama's recent proposal, sketched out on these pages, to return the top capital gains tax rate to 20% -- a rate almost a third lower than the rate set by Ronald Reagan in the 1986 tax reform. He also cites Mr. Obama's support for teacher merit pay. "How we build an innovative agenda is what I am most concerned about," Mr. Ford said. "There are some slight differences . . . There is a real difference on trade. I want to be clear, we don't make ourselves more competitive by closing our borders."

But, he said of Mr. Obama on education, "I think he is open-minded. Let me put it this way, he hasn't come out in opposition [to school choice]. He is a pragmatist. . . . He's not looking to antagonize anyone. But he's not afraid to stir things up." Education is one of Mr. Ford's top priorities. That's because be sees fixing the public-school system as something that is essential for a dynamic, competitive economy -- and as the means for creating opportunities for millions of kids. Education is also an issue he is passionate about because, in part, he launched his political career from inside a kindergarten classroom.

In 1996, Mr. Ford ran for a seat in Congress that his father was vacating. But he soon found that being a 26-year-old scion of a political family had its disadvantages. He was attacked on talk radio for his lack of experience, and he had trouble lining up speaking engagements until finally two women lined up graduations for him at which to speak. "I spoke to 32 kindergarten graduations. True story," he says now with a laugh. "It was a weird thing, because these kids couldn't vote. I didn't know how I was helping myself. But I didn't have anywhere else to be, so I spoke at the graduations. . . ."

"Whatever works, in various communities, is what I support," Mr. Ford told me. "On the education front, if we are unwilling to take head on the issues that are facing our schools, meaning teacher quality, meaning classroom size, meaning accountability, then we kid ourselves if we think we're going to solve these problems. "We adopt a one-size-fits-all [model] in education, and it doesn't work. . . . I love charters, the charter school idea. Why? Because in some areas it actually works and it works well."

In Congress, Mr. Ford supported creating a school-voucher program in Washington, D.C., that is now being used by hundreds of students to get a better education. It enjoys the support of the city's Democratic Mayor Adrian Fenty. But Democrats in Congress threatened to kill the program this year by starving it of federal funds. So I asked Mr. Ford if the program will be crushed by Democrats in the near future. "It probably won't be," he said. "Don't get me wrong, they've had to fight to keep it alive. They had to go up against their own member of Congress, their own delegate, who is opposed to it. The mayor wants it, and I view the mayor of D.C. almost like a governor because it is essentially a state."

Mr. Ford stresses that education is among "the types of things Democrats are going to have to focus on . . . Not because we want to win elections, but because the country needs it. "Without a serious, broad-based competitiveness plan for the country that organizes around energy and education, the country will continue to falter. The next 10 to 15 years, we'll be fine. But if you look past that 15 year horizon, we cannot expect to be the No. 1 center for innovation, for technology, for job creation, the No. 1 economic center, indefinitely."

What Mr. Ford sees in Mr. Obama is the potential to break the logjam on education and other issues that has prevented fundamental reforms from passing in Washington. "I think the country could invest in him and may be willing to align itself with his vision, if he has a broad enough vision to change the country 10, 20, 30 years down the road. "And those changes will obviously have to involve education, energy . . . entitlement reform, and will involve, frankly, thinking about these things outside of a Democrat/Republican box. . . . I think he may have the 12-to-18 month window [to pass real reforms]. He's gotta put some runs up on the board for people to say, 'I'm going to stick with him. I'm staying with him.'"

What's his advice for Mr. Obama? "Be bold, be daring and be big. Be realistic. . . . Lay out where you want to take us and say 'Here's why I believe we need to do this.'" Moving forward, he said, "We got the majority, the question now is can we govern. And to govern, we're going to have to realize that that mainstream, moderate, ascendancy in the party has got to be reflected in the kind of priorities that we set."

Source

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Obama needs dumb, uneducated, masses to control.
So if he becomes president and starts "changing" education, he's liable to make sure kids don't learn anything except how to cheer at Party rallies.