[Z]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23925033

Teenagers who fail to score at least a Grade C in English and maths GCSEs will have to continue studying the subjects, the government has announced.

It is thought the change could affect more than 250,000 young people in education or training in England.

The education secretary said the subjects were the ones "employers demand before all others".

The reform coincides with another change which sees the education participation age raised to 17.

It means 17-year-olds are legally required to be in college or school or some form of job-based training. The age will rise again to 18 in 2015.

'Severely disadvantaged'

Teenagers who fail to get a decent score in English and maths will now have to carry on studying until they achieve at least a Grade C.

Up until now, pupils have been able to drop the subjects at the age of 16 without having gained a qualification in them.

Many would never study these subjects again, prompting concerns from employers that too many young people lack skills necessary for work.

Last year, there were more than a quarter of a million 19-year-olds without a C grade in English and maths.

The intention is for teenagers who missed C grades to re-take GCSEs in maths and English, but there will also be an option to take other types of maths and English lessons.

The importance of developing basic skills beyond the age of 16 was emphasised by Professor Alison Wolf in her report on improving vocational education for 14 to 19-year-olds.

She found that too many vocational qualifications lacked value for employers and too many youngsters were entering adult life without adequate skills in literacy and numeracy.

"Good English and maths grades are fundamental to young people's employment and education prospects," she said.

"Individuals with very low literacy and numeracy are severely disadvantaged in the labour market."

Speaking after the announcement, Prof Wolf welcomed the implementation of her proposals.

“Every other country in the developed world concentrates on improving the language and maths skills of its post-16 students, and so should England. Recognising the central place of English and maths skills in society is long overdue.”

But Labour’s shadow education secretary, Stephen Twigg, said more urgent action was needed.

"In 2012 Labour set out ambitious plans for all children to study English and maths to 18.

“A whole wasted year later and the government have only got half way there. This isn't good enough. [Prime Minister] David Cameron needs to listen to employers - they want all young people to continue building these key skills to 18."

Alison Sherratt, president of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, is not convinced about the change.

"It's going to be hard because they're going to obviously have to find a lot more English and maths teachers to put this into place," she told BBC Breakfast.

Education Secretary Michael Gove said: “Good qualifications in English and maths are what employers demand before all others.

"They are, quite simply, the most important vocational skills a young person can have. Young people must be able to demonstrate their understanding of these subjects.”

What do you think of these reforms? Is it fair to demand that everyone has Grade C or above at GCSE English and Maths or is there no point forcing people to study something they aren't good at?

I'm from Scotland so I studied under a different academic system, but if the equivalent was applied up here, I think it'd be okay... you should have to have a basic qualification in English and Maths... but I only did up to Intermediate 2 Maths - it was not my strong point at all and I gladly dropped it ASAP. I believe all of my grades would have suffered if I had been forced to study Maths all the way through school... but I did it up to the basic level required so that's good enough I think.

[Kizzy]

They have this already I think, my lad started college today and he has to study maths and English alongside.
He gets a dyslexia assessment too which they wouldn't do while he was in school.

I'm sort of torn with this. I think that ultimately everyone should be required to leave school with a basic standard of education, especially in English, but unless you actually go on to further education in Maths, or go into a field where maths is essential, like engineering, then it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to my life if I'd ended up with an F.

Although I wouldn't have been able to correct Jakes basic errors.

[Z]

See I think Maths is put on this pedestal by education authorities when it really shouldn't be... A basic qualification in arithmetic is essential; but the subject of Maths doesn't focus on that, it's focusing on theorems and equations, which are only necessary for certain careers and jobs. If they were two separate subjects, then I'd understand needing English and Arithmetic; but they're not and I think it's a shame on students - you can be fine with basic arithmetic but be clueless about mathematics and end up failing the course because of that.

Arithmetic I need on a daily basis at work:

Addition
Subtraction
Multiplication
Division
Calculating percentages

...and that's about it

[T*]

I agree with this, But I wish they'd stop ****ing about with our exams. We were told that we were gonna to O levels, and now that's been scrapped (Yay!) But they should stop saying that they're gonna do this, and they're gonna do that, when they should leave it alone.

[Redway]

I have to agree with Jesus. on this. English is essential and it's the government's duty to ensure that everyone leaves with at least a basic standard of education but chances are, if they're getting Ds or below in maths, it's not what they wish to pursue later on. 99.9% of the subject post-KS2 is unnecessary and pretty much a waste of time if the course you want to do doesn't contain a lot of it.

[smudgie]

I am all for encouraging further education.
My problem with this though is that if someone is doing their very best and cannot get the A-C required in English and Maths it will be a complete waste of time and do nothing for their confidence.

Half the battle with low grades is kids bunking off or totally disinterested, good luck to the poor teachers.

[Apple202]

it's a good idea

[the truth]

loads of people I know who have maths gcse cant count....incredible but true. what a fiasco

[Black Dagger]

Oh ffs, I have to do it at college for another year then, they didn't put it on my timetable on Friday

[MeMyselfAndI]

I agree, and think It's a good idea. I'm **** at English and I got a B in both English lit & English Lang

[DanaC]

If they want to tackle low literacy levels they need to be dealing with that at a much earlier stage.

With regards to maths: as long as someone can count, add and subtract and deal with basic money transactions, then they have what they need to cope in life.

The problem is (as was mentioned in the article) employers want people with grades A-C in Maths and English. Actually, what most employers really want is someone who won't go to pieces if they have to work out a 20 per cent discount, or add vat to a bill. And someone who can competently put together a short report, or send an email or letter, or who can comprehend written instructions and rules.

GSCE Maths and English requires much more of people than that. If someone has D grades in English and Maths then they can almost certainly do all of those things.

Far better (imo) is to have a basic literacy and numeracy test which all children have to take alongside their GSCEs in Maths and English. That way, an employer looking to take on warehouse staff isn't requiring their employees to know how to analyse a piece of writing for bias, or work out square roots.

[NickUhasRocks]

Ah this is interesting. Recently here in my area of eastern Canada, the required pass mark increased from 60 to 70. But this only applied to English. Math marks remain at a must be 60+.

The thing with this is that English is easier to deal with than math. For English, yeah, I get it. English is very important, and it's the mark managers pay the most attention to along with the marks related to the actual job they're hiring for.

As for math, the topic branches off to so many parts. Calculus, algebra, trigonometry, statistics, geometry, etc... etc... and not all parts are always useful. I want to be a writer and English teacher. I'm not going to need math for that. I'm not measuring book sizes or weight or stuff like that. Math is definitely important for a load of future programs from business to science to engineering to computing, and I think the degree of math you get and the marks you need to have should relate to future goals and the general importance the role the math will play in it. Here I HAVE to take at least two general maths and either two calculus, two algebra, two trig, or one of two of them. This is regardless of what future goals were, this was regardless of general math skills. Math is notoriously the most difficult subject for a lot of students world wide. That is why I don't think mark increases should be forced on students unless it's absolutely vital to career choices.

[Niall]

It makes sense I suppose, but already it's virtually unavoidable to expect to leave school and get a decent job or a place at Uni without a C in the three basic subjects (English, Maths, Science) so this is sort of stating the obvious.

I will agree with Jesus however, that some elements of Maths are completely superfluous. Algebra, for example, is something I will never want nor need to use in the future, or in any future careers I want to pursue, yet I was forced to learn it. Sort of a waste of time on both the part of the school and me really.

[Kizzy]

The shake up of the curriculum should focus on ensuring that spelling, composition, reading and grammar are competent as well as mental arithmetic, basic geometry and measures and money are covered as basics for all.
For some students this would be much better than expecting them to achieve a C, foundation GCSE is a joke.

[Tom4784]

Most college courses will require you to resit Maths and English if you didn't get good grades in them anyway so this seems pointless to me. Some students will quite simply never be C grade in one of these subjects though, I for one was notoriously bad at maths because I had no patience for anything within it that wasn't useful in every day life and I would be furious if I was forced to take another year in school and derail everything else in a vain attempt to improve my marks.

They should consider creating a Maths GCSE that basically deals with the basics and just makes sure everyone will be able to function in their adult lives. The more technical stuff should be an option for students to pursue if they want to do it.

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The shake up of the curriculum should focus on ensuring that spelling, composition, reading and grammar are competent as well as mental arithmetic, basic geometry and measures and money are covered as basics for all.
For some students this would be much better than expecting them to achieve a C, foundation GCSE is a joke.

I think maths does need a good shake up more than the other two. I might have learnt a lot of theoretical stuff through my years of being taught in it, but I didn't learn anything practical about taxes or financial stuff? That's everyday, must have stuff. It's a mystery to me as to why the maths side of the curriculum at GCSE doesn't go near it at all..

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Niall

I think maths does need a good shake up more than the other two. I might have learnt a lot of theoretical stuff through my years of being taught in it, but I didn't learn anything practical about taxes or financial stuff? That's everyday, must have stuff. It's a mystery to me as to why the maths side of the curriculum at GCSE doesn't go near it at all..

I know, I was really surprised when having taken a foundation access GCSE course at college my daughters higher papers seemed easier to me as they had lots of questions that related to being in the adult world such a VAT, interest and such. I eventually paid Ł25 to change exam papers as you had to attain 40% of the marks available to pass at higher, I honestly wasn't confident I would achieve the 70% required to pass at foundation level.
The top mark at foundation is a C too which is very unfair.

[Jake.]

As others have said, pretty pointless

[MeMyselfAndI]

Maths is very important and shows off so many skills a person has, It's actually valued more than English in most jobs, so stop saying it's worthless.

[Ninastar]

this is good. what would be the point in going to school for 18 years if you didn't come out with at least a pass?

[Kizzy]

Nobody is saying it's worthless, but the content could be more vocation based maybe? to achieve a C grade pass.

[Z]

I think if they reformed the subject of Maths it would be great. You could have two separate subjects - basic Maths and pure Maths. The latter would be stuff like square roots, Pythagoras, all that sorta stuff. The basic course would deal with basic arithmetic, calculating percentages like how to add on VAT or how to figure out a 25% discount, how to deal with taxes and finances. I think it's appalling that our education system doesn't teach kids stuff they actually need to know for the rest of their lives. It annoys me that I don't understand daily intake percentages that are printed on food packaging. It annoys me that I don't know anything about how wage slips work; having to learn what all the various deductions are and how to claim them back on your own shouldn't have to be the case. When I'm at work and I have to figure out discount prices and I'm frantically bashing a calculator trying to remember how to figure it out because the last time I was taught about percentages was maybe ten years ago. It's stupid. The subject of maths is useful for a lot of things, but everyday life, it is not - so why do education authorities enforce the subject as if it does?

As DanaC said, it's the same with English really. Being able to analyse literature is a different skill from being able to read, write and have a good understanding of grammar and spelling. I know medical students who can't spell for **** and people who left school at 16 who could sweep the board at a spelling bee - yet the medical student is always the one who'll be revered as the genius. Perhaps that's fair enough, but I immediately think if you don't understand basic English, you are not as smart as I am. Maybe that's judgmental of me, but I think it ought to be a basic requirement that you know the difference between your/you're; its/it's; their/there/they're; knowing that it's "should have" and not "should of" etc...

[Kizzy]

''The shake up of the curriculum should focus on ensuring that spelling, composition, reading and grammar are competent as well as mental arithmetic, basic geometry and measures and money are covered as basics for all.
For some students this would be much better than expecting them to achieve a C, foundation GCSE is a joke.''

Do you EVER read my posts?......

[Z]

I read everything in the thread, I feel the same way too lol