Having seen a couple of forthcoming GCSE textbooks I can confirm Mr Stephen's comments. The Science has been almost completely removed from the syllabus.

Posted by: Bishop Hill at January 11, 2006 08:22 PM

During a visit to a (very academic) secondary school, whilst examining options for my daughter, I looked at the A level Physics test books and syllabus. I'm a Physics graduate and I commented to the head of department that the maths content seemed to be greatly reduced since my time at school. Her response was interesting - she agreed, but said that very few pupils now go on to university to do subjects that require maths-based science, e.g. physics and engineering. So the syllabus now caters for those that need to do science A levels for, scientifically speaking, softer options, especially medicine.

Given that medicine, for example, offers well paid secure employment and physics and engineering most certainly do not, this is perhaps logical. But in the long term it will be highly damaging for the economy.

Posted by: HJHJ at January 12, 2006 08:38 AM

Not only Science. As well as "Citizenship" lessons, exactly the same thing is happening in Geography, apparently http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DB23.htm

History has been heading that way for years. "ICT" (Computing) is moving closer and closer to being purely presentational and non-functional.

The Science syllabus is the worst though ; I'm glad I don't teach Science. It's a totally inadequate preparation for any form of scientific study.

Posted by: Paul Robson at January 12, 2006 08:48 AM

Although this school's move to IGCSEs shows what we really need to drive up standards: competing qualifications and exam boards.

At the moment schools often choose GCSEs or A Levels from the board they perceive to be most likely to award high marks - and this was the case when I sat my A Levels in 1995. Obviously they can do this because to employers and universities an A Level is an A Level.

But if you had competing qualifications, schools would find the pressures changed. If the universities or employers thought GCSE science, for example, was a joke then pressure would be placed by parents for the more respected IGCSE to be taken.

Posted by: James Hellyer at January 12, 2006 11:44 AM

I agree with James Hellyer.

When I was at school, there were many more (competing)examination boards. I remember that my school used different boards according to how good they thought the syllabuses and how high the standards were. In those day before league tables, they invariably picked the ones they thought were most academically rigorous.

Posted by: HJHJ at January 12, 2006 04:05 PM

I have just learnt this evening that Godolphin and Latymer, the girls' school in London, is similarly moving to the international GCSE for science next September.

Posted by: James Bartholomew at January 12, 2006 07:20 PM

That's interesting. If enough schools move to the IGCSE and make their reasons for doing so clear, it can only service to highlight concerns about the current state supported qualifications. The same is true of schools moving to the IB from A Level.

Posted by: James Hellyer at January 12, 2006 08:48 PM

Why do people who wouldn't dream of living in a council house or dread ending up in a council run old peoples home think that council schools are a good idea and of good quality? I suppose if you've no alternative it does help to delude yourself.

Posted by: simon at January 12, 2006 11:03 PM

State schools will probably be stopped from moving to the IGCSE.

Posted by: Paul Robson at January 13, 2006 10:29 AM

State schools will be stopped from moving to GCSE, just as they are stopped from moving to the international baccalaureate as an alternative to "A" Level. However as increasing numbers of private schools offer the more rigourous qualifications, and they become better known to employers, pressure will increase on the government to change its ways. People will want to know why their children are condemned to joke qualifications in the state sector.

Posted by: James Hellyer at January 13, 2006 12:21 PM

My error - state schools aren't stopped from offering the IB, although it effectively discouraged by its treatment in league tables. The IGCSE is in an even worse position, not being counted for league table purposes.

Posted by: James Hellyer at January 13, 2006 02:57 PM

Don't know if any of you guys read the Times Educational Supplement (or gals !).

In today's there's a most entertaining article showing the correlation between joke qualifications and the "most improved schools", which is, as we all know, rather high.

So, with the new Science GCSE (Sample question: is this a picture of (a) a battery (b) a test tube (c) a tree, expect yet more people with 130% pass rate !

Posted by: Paul Robson at January 13, 2006 05:26 PM

My error - state schools aren't stopped from offering the IB, although it effectively discouraged by its treatment in league tables. The IGCSE is in an even worse position, not being counted for league table purposes.

I have done some research into this, and the other main problem faced by (state) schools in terms of adopting the more rigourous qualifications is that because they are more rigorous the less able students will have a harder time passing them, and in the process make the school look bad. There is also the "cost" issue: the IB does cost a bit more in terms of marking/admin/etc. (though, obviously, the costs are far outweighed by the benefits).

The ideal result, would be for the school to let the clever people follow the IB diploma route, and the not-so-bright people follow the AS/A2-Level route.

Of course, state schools simply do not have the resources (teachers/classrooms/etc.) to offer this mix of qualifications. The bottom line is that the state monopoly on education is breeding mediocrity, where, simply, everyone does pretty well -- and nobody is pushed.

It's ridiculous.

Posted by: Raw Carrot at January 14, 2006 12:52 AM