GCSE exam information!

Question 1: Everywhere, it just says you take GCSEs when you're 16. What I haven't found out is this: is it either the year when you're 15 going on 16, or 16 going on 17?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure it's 15 going on 16.

Question 2: I read somewhere recently that GCSE's can span over two years. But I had the thought you just do these exams in May-June of your last school year?

Click to expand...

You do the GCSE course over two years, with the final exam in the last year. You may also have coursework, or potentially tests in modular form.

Question 3: How common is it for kids to continue doing the A-levels? What do those kids generally do who stop at GCSEs (the old "O-levels")?

Click to expand...

It's largely expected. GCSEs aren't worth very much, academically speaking. Kids who stop there may just drop out of school outright, take up an apprenticeship, take a less academic track, go to a college, simply get a job at the local cheese factory (as was the plan of quite a few folks at my old school) or return later for more. I'd hit the government's pages for the full scoop though - try starting somewhere like this.

What Richard said.
My daughter turned 15 this summer, and she is in her second year of GCSE's. However, she is at the younger end of her year, so that she could just as well be up to a year older. She is below the average age for that year, which is known as Year 11.

She is taking 8 subjects, which is pretty much the norm.
After this year she hopes to go on for A Levels, and will have to go to a so-callled 6th Form College. Most state schools simply stop after GCSE's. To get into a sixth form college she'll have to have at least 5 C grades at GCSE; depending on what A Levels she wants to take, that may have to include Maths and English.

The last couple of weeks we have been looking for a suitable Sixth Form College. She could stay at her present school as it's an Independent School, and the DO have a 6th form - but it's very expensive and it's time to get out. The impression I got from the state colleges we've seen are that they are at least as good if not better than her present school.

If you have any more questions I'd be happy to answer.

GCSEs

Tilda, I'm assuming you're not English. (You can't be or you wouldn't have said Brits. The English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish are proud of their heritages and usually call themselves so. It's the Americans and politicians who say British or the ruder Brits. I think it's like Americans not liking to be called Yanks.)Should have several smiley faces here but lost them somehow and only got a string of commands!!!) x 10 instead!

Usually children start their secondary schools at the age of eleven. Call that form one. So in the first three years of secondary school they study a range of subjects to give them the basics and a taste of things they might want to study in depth for their GCSEs. At the end of form three most children choose which subjects to study for their GCSEs.

In the fourth year in form four the children begin concentrating on their subject choices and studying them as precribed by the exam syllabuses.

In the fifth year (15 going on 16) most children take their GCSEs. Most children take 7 or 8 subjects. The bright ones may do 10 or up to 12.
Some schools allow the clever kids to take Maths and English and maybe music or art GCSEs in their fourth year.

GCSEs are the basic qualifications and rarely acceptable for jobs these days. Most students go onto the next two years of study for their A levels.
It's also a class thing. Middle and upper class families expect their children to go on to University or some other form of education or work training so their children will take A levels.
Working class kids often have to struggle to go on to higher education. Sometimes it's family expectations sometimes it's friends but the working class culture doesn't regard A levels and University as 'the best way to get on in life.' Practical experience is more valued than 'book learning'.
Percentage wise it's only around 65-70% of students who go on to take A levels but my figures are a few years old.

Hope this helps.

Hi Tilda,

Before I became a writer I was Head of Modern Languages in a 11 - 18 comprehensive school. Just to update a few details other respondents have given you:

When pupils enter secondary school they are 11 years old and start in Year 7 (the primary school runs from reception then Year 1 to Year 6). Many turn 12 in Year 7, likewise many in Year 11 - when they sit the GCSE's are already 16 nearing 17.

Most GCSE's these days are modular - which means pupils have to sit parts of the exam in Year 10 and complete the exams in Year 11 - this morning for instance I invigilated in a year 10 science GCSE exam - Modules 1 and 13. As a language teacher it was common for certain exam boards to request pupils sit listening, writing and speaking exams in Year 10, with exams in all four skills in Year 11.

From years 7 - 9 the pupils are in Key Stage 3 of the National Curriculum and continue to study all National Curriculum subjects. In Key Stage 4 - the GCSE years pupils study only the exams they intend to take at GCSE, plus Personal and Social Education lessons and also Citizenship. Most students are expected to sit 10 GCSEs. When pupils sat O levels they would usually only sit 8 - this gives you some idea of the level of difficulty of the examination.

The GCSE is a combination exam of the old GCE - or O level and CSE - an exam at a lower level. In fact when I was head of languages and came across some old CSE papers in the store cupboard I found that they were of a higher level than the GCSE's my students were sitting!

Despite this and a record number of pupils gaining A and the ridiculous A* grade each year, our government insists the exams are not getting easier. You might also want to note that pupils are now not taking the perceived academically harder subjects such as physics or modern languages, but are preferring to take media studies and IT, to increase their chances of getting a good grade.

The low expectations of GCSE has had an effect on A level students - many of my students who had got grades B or C at GCSE could not cope with the level of work they were expected to do at A Level, nor did they have the skills that the A level demanded of them - this led to the new A2 and AS examinations. A levels like GCSEs are now also taken over 2 years - half in Year 12 and half in Year 13 - and pupils can retake their year 12 exams again if they wish to increase their marks.

I hope this is of some use to you.

Kind Regards

I agree with you that GCSE's are much easier than O Levels.
For instance: GCSE English is one subject. In my day, we did two subjects, English Lit and and English Lang for O levels.
In English Lit we did one Shakespeare extremely thoroughly, and two other books, poetry and a novel. (I think Milton and Hardy) I have no idea which books my daughter is studying, but I know it's not thorough, and I know that her study of Henry V is so shallow they have not even read the play, but only passages from it for their coursework. In my day, we did one Shakespeare per term, and had to learn long passages off by heart, and say them backwards and forwards. The other day my daughter challenged me and I reeled off "The quality of mercy is not strained.." by heart, even though I have not read it in the intervening 3 odd years.
We learned so many poems off by heart. They have learned absolutely NOTHING by heart, and that's a real loss.
And that, mind you, was in a far-off corner of the British Empire, an eensy-weensy Colony, NOT in England.
Similarly, for foreign languages we had to read a work of literature in that language (though I may be treading on shaky ground here; I may be thinking of A levels)

I'd be interested in heraing your opinion on the debate on switching to the Baccalaureate instead of A levels. Are you pro or against such a move?

I went to a Grammar school in Kent, and we did two separate GCSEs for english lit and lang - 11 GCSEs overall. We did King Lear in great depth, but there was no memorising involved. Perhaps that's because they realised it's stupid? Let me guess, you also learned your 28x table.

Anyway, I then went on to take the International Baccalaureate at the same school. English, Biology and Computer Science at higher level, and Maths Methods, Psychology and French and standard level.

It was incredibly hard. On average my A-level peers had two or three times more free periods than we did, which really makes a difference. The work loads were rediculous, with dozens of essays for each subject and several exams for each at the end of the two years. Also there was the extended essay - an essay you can write on whatever you want, which has to be about 4000 words (pales in comparison to what I write now, but hard at the time)

Then there was the CAS scheme. 150 hours of combined creativity, action and service to be done in your own free time by the end of your first year. For that year I spent my Saturdays helping at a MENCAP playgroup. It's rewarding, but really gets in the way of work.

All in all my results were horribly average. If I'd have taken the A-levels, I'm sure I would have managed an AAA. But I got the equivalent of Bs across the board (level 5), with an A equivalent in comp science (level 6). Noone in my english class got an A, even though our Head of English said we were the best cohort he'd had in years. It's that hard.

Also, universities don't understand it. They think a level 7 is the equivalent of an A at A-level, even though only about 1% of the world get level 7s. So the required grades they're after are mostly impossible to achieve. A lot of my peers didn't get into the uni of their choice, and some of them actually failed the whole diploma (a fail in one subject means a fail overall)

Me... I've been working for the last six months. I might go to uni next year, but I'll have to find some place that can take my seemingly poor grades.

I'd say until universities understand what it's all about, don't bother with the IB. It's too much work for too much disappointment.

Learning Shakespeare and good poetry by heart is invaluable - it trains the mind to instinctively recognise the rythym and cadence of language; I am sure that is the reason why I am so very senstivive to the way words sound, and sound together, and why writing rythmically comes easily to you (I mean, not necessarily on this message board, where I am usually in a rush!) It's almost painful to me to read books where the rythym is out of balance.

Uncle Jim set us the task of learning IN the Neolithis Age by Rudyard Kipling by heart - and there again, the rythym is fantastic. Such exercises really do improve us as writers.

No, I did not have to learn my 28 times table and could not have anyway - I was terrible at maths. I didn't even learn my 7 times upwards. I've passed my maths weakness on to my daughter. She is so bad at it it's almost dyskalkulie. She is also dyslexic. Both problems have improved over the years, but it means she has had to struggle terribly in all her classes. That's one of the reasons we moved to England.

In Germany, where she was before, they classify children at the age of 8 or 9 and already at that age their future school career is sorted out - which kids go to which schools, leading to which careers. She was quickly sorted into the "stupid" bunch and there she;d have had to stay. But she's not at all stupid.

She is gifted in a great many ways, just not in ways that are recognised or tested within the school system - but in England there's a greater variety and flexibilty as in Germany, and children can get a chance to progress at all stages of their school career. In subjects such as "citizenship" - considered "soft" subjects - she excels, because her strength lies in people, ethics, issues, understanding what life is about. She has an EQ which is off the charts - she can sum up a person, an adult, very quickly, and get it right. She knows why people mess up their lives, and how not to mess up a life. She will not be smoking or drinking; she checks her food labels for Trans Fatty Acids, and insists on organic food and Fair Trade products. She can get right to the heart of a problem in a second, and find solutions almost intuitively. She's also very artistic, and she's funny and fun to be with and extremely popular, loved by all. But she has to work hard to keep up at school. reading and writing are terribly difficult for her.
That's why she's only doing 8 subjects at GCSE. and why she will struggle to get 5 Cs. She can probably get 3 A's, in Art, Photography and German, but she has set her heart on going to Brighton's best 6th form college and is working like mad to get those grades. She wants to do A Level psychology, for which she'll need a C in Engish and Maths; and I have the feeling she'll get there. She'd like to be a psychologist, and shed' be brilliant at that. She has such an empathy for people.

Had we stayed in Germany she'd have been shunted into a sort of "dumping school" where all the weak kids and foreigners go, and where they go on to be things like bakers and hairdressers. All honourable professions; but I know that's mnot at all where she belongs.

I agree with you about the Bac. If A levels are too easy, then just make them harder, for heaven's sake! I also don't like the compulsory nature of the bac, ie, that certain subjects are madatory on order to get the so-called "breadth". In Germany, the Abitur is similar: you HAVE to do maths, for instance; which means that I could never in a million years have gone to a Gymansium, which is the school the bright children move to when they are ten. Yet I was good at languages and Literature and writing; and most definitely not stupid. in Gremany my strengths wouldn't have counted. Bac-style qualifications are only good for all-rounders; if you're strong in one area but not in others you've had it. And then you get that nonsense of having to re-sit the whole exam just because you failed in one subject.

Its actually scary how little I know about the whole GSCEs considering I'm taking my options in about 2 months! :Smack:
Oh dear!

pdr said:

Tilda, I'm assuming you're not English. (You can't be or you wouldn't have said Brits. The English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish are proud of their heritages and usually call themselves so. It's the Americans and politicians who say British or the ruder Brits.

Click to expand...

You're right that "Brits" is not a word British people generally use, but as for "British," I haven't found this to be the case: they call themselves British regardless of which of the four British countries (Eng-Scot-Wal-NI) they come from. (Of course, lots of people from Northern Ireland don't consider themselves British at all, but I'm talking about the ones who do). There's no contradiction--using "British" doesn't mean they're less proud of or attached to their specific heritage: it's not like they consider themselves either British or something else, it's British and something else (English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, or any of the other ethnicities in the British Isles: Asian, West Indian, etc.).

pdr said:

In the fourth year in form four

Click to expand...

Just as a tip for everyone here who wants to write about British people, they use ordinal numbers (first, second, third) instead of cardinal ones (one, two, three) when talking about forms in school: fourth form, fifth form, etc. Actually, this is just like what we do in the US: first grade, second grade, etc.

I call myself British but only because from being on the US dominated internet so much. In normal conversation, however, it's about as standard to call yourself British as it is to call yourself European.

If you're American and you talk to English people, then you'll be the one calling them British. They just won't protest, because technically you're right.

And about the whole numbering system - the ordinal system isn't really used any more. It's "class" up until "class six", where you change to secondary school. It's then "year seven" all the way to "year thirteen".

Year twelve and year thirteen are collectively known as the "Sixth Form", which is the only ordinal number applied.

I know in harry potter Hagrid calls everyone "Firs' years", but Jo Rowling obviously used the system she was used to, which is about thirty odd years old.

pdr said:

And we haven't even got into the different world of private education at the 'public' schools and what they label their forms!



​

Click to expand...

In my daughter's (private) prep school, it was first, second fourth, fifth and sixth form.
After that, in the Senior School, it is First Year, then Lower Fifth, Upper Fifth, Lower Sixth, Upper Sixth.

in my own day - and that was several decades ago - it was Lower and Upper Two and Three, and then Lower and Upper Fourth, Fifth and Sixth.

PDR wouldnt agree with your theories on the working class

I'm Irish and working class and for my family and my friends family going to university and getting a good education was a big thing. It meant that with higher qualifications that you would get real careers with better expectations and wages.For our family education was the way to go, I completed my GCSES in the normal two years and went on to do three A'Levels just as my siblings and my friends had done and then to university

I wouldnt say that for the working class that the majority of us dont go to university and think experience is more important than education, those working class that do find experience more impoortant than education are in a minority. The number of working class university students are growing and you only have to look at the number of student loans been taking by working class individuals to pay for their education. So the working class going to university is growing and becoming the majority

In my immediate family the highest qualification is a Masters Degree and among my friends the highest qualification is a Doctorate Degree. When I went to university the majority of people I met and attended lectures with were all from working class background

aruna said:

Learning Shakespeare and good poetry by heart is invaluable - it trains the mind to instinctively recognise the rhythm and cadence of language...

Click to expand...

Had to highlight this to tell you how much I agree with you there.

Yes, but...

'I'm Irish and working class and for my family and my friends family going to university and getting a good education was a big thing. It meant that with higher qualifications that you would get real careers with better expectations and wages.For our family education was the way to go,...'

Now mind you, I'm a kiwi and we are meant to be a classless society, (joke!) so I'm no expert but according my old British university education classes those educational aspirations makes you middle class!!!!

Sigh!!! Nothing is ever black and white is it?

British Education...England university...pdr

I attended university in Scotland, so I do know the facts about the the English Education system so to speak, my aspirations for university were not that of a middle class just that of a working class family...so was my friends...friends of friends, so I guess were all thinking above our station lol

But then again as you said your a kiwi who just went to an English university well you had four year experience of english education where as I who live in Northern Ireland which is part of Britain, I started my English education at age 4 and ended at 21 years so I have alot more experience of English education system, so I think I know what I'm talking about as far as English Education system is concerned and as far as working class is concerned seeing as far as I fit into that category

Im not really that shocked by your answer because after living and working in New Zealand for a time. The fact that you say your kiwi explains alot to me. There are alot of nice kiwi's and then there is as the English would say The Plonkers

Dear me!

Charlotte, you seem to have taken my comments personally and I'm sorry about that.

One of the things so-called sociology experts in Britain use as a measure of the British middle class is educational aspirations. People who aspire to university and further education after compulsory schooling are showing traits the sociology 'experts' ascribe to the middle classes. This is their definition not mine.

I too spent the first 21 years of my life being 'well educated back home' as the Kiwi expression goes. That means I attended an English private school from Kindergarten through to the sixth form. I've also worked in the British education systems as well as the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand with shorter working spells thrown in education systems in Asia, the USA and Europe. I'm currently in Japan again, working in universities. I would never claim to 'know' all about these systems but I do know something about them from my own experience and therefore feel I am able to make comments about them.

PDR

All I got say is, what a plonker do you shine up your resume and pat yourself on the back, once in a blue moon or everyday so you can watch that ever expanding ego grow.

Just because you went to English boarding school in kiwi land doesn’t make you a running authority on the English Education System. Like you call it Kindergarten but if you really knew about the English Education System you would know that we don’t refer to it as Kindergarten. We have another name for that first year of primary school, before primary school there is also another place that some children go to.

And you know being an exchange teacher for a little while in Britain doesn’t mean that you’re the leading authority on the English Education system. For e.g. did you know that according to educational static’s in the UK there are over 51% of working class students in universities today and the numbers are growing each year.

I would also like to ask you what you working in the USA have got to do with the English Education System. Don’t you know that the American and the English Education Systems are two different things? As is the Canadian, Australian etc Education Systems completely different than the English Education System, so why bring this up? I guess you wanted to take your resume out for a shine to see if people would oooh and ahhhh at it. Sorry I'm not impressed at all you've just proved you haven’t got much of a clue. You may have an outline of the English Education System but that makes you no expert in my book.

I've lived and worked in eight different places, I don’t feel the need to name every single one of them, because I traveled for the experience of different cultures and societies and gain knowledge, so that as a journalist I could get a better understanding of lifestyles across the seas and oceans of the world. And not so that I could brag about all the places I've been or how welll educated I am.

Ok, that's enough. Charlotte, this is not the place to start throwing insults at other members, especially on the basis of differing experience.

The original question concerned the age at which GCSE exams are taken, and as far as I can see it's been answered. If anyone has any further constructive comment, or wishes to rethink and amend any name-calling, now would be a good time.

I''m extremely blunt what I think I say, that was the last discussion post. I was not name calling simply stating the situatin as it was or appeared to be, I wont be posting in this thread again

bye, bye

Speaking your mind is one thing; selective reading is quite another. And this is another still...

All I got say is, what a plonker do you shine up your resume and pat yourself on the back, once in a blue moon or everyday so you can watch that ever expanding ego grow.

Click to expand...

This is not reasoned argument, it's name-calling - and it won't go over well in any thread.

Ok, thank you for your contribution. Happy trails.