Hmm, it seems I'm not the only one who despairs over this

[gonewithoutjam]

Ok, today I was probably going to post about something unimportant as usual. Instead, I'm going to link this. Because when I read the new 'science' GCSE specifications, the sentiments contained in that article perfectly match what I was thinking

Comments

[norus]

I had quite a lot of economics (not as bad as in that GCSE physics thing) in my A Level biology. It was all "blahblah malaria eradication schemes" and one was supposed to come out with advantages and disadvantages of them - and there's me going for increased resistance in the population and so on, and there's the mark scheme asking for things about the cost of DEET-spraying and so on. Um. Right. And to do that to physics is just a joke.

Seriously, can someone please explain to the government once and for all that it's just plain NOT POSSIBLE to get 100% of students as "above average". The most basic maths will tell you that. Get over it, just because it's hard doesn't mean we should change the requirements; it means we should invest more in helping kids who struggle with these things learn them properly. Not that that will make them all above average, but it might stop them becoming complete imbeciles.

Ho hum. I do often think my own qualifications are of very low value, never mind the new set.

[gonewithoutjam]

Way back when I was in the first group of students taking Double Award Science, my A* grade in that subject meant my predicted grade for A-Level physics was only a B. My school didn't offer Triple Award, and I know many schools still don't. Since then they've systematically replaced theory and calculation with discussion and while I think discussion definitely has its place, it shouldn't be the main focus of a science qualification.