Yes, there have been trial pilots; however, the schools who took up the initial trials were those already sympathetic to the new way of assessment and effective dumbing down of content. Others were encouraged by school hierarchy to get on board to get a head start. Many teachers who were happy with existing syllabus were not given any choice.
The 800 teachers who were involved hardly had a choice! The new syllabus was implemented, so you had to try and get advice on how to implement it at a school level. You wouldn’t say people attended by their own choice; they saw it as a matter of survival.
Now I see it as divide and conquer. They want teachers to supply their names for a conference. They then have schools to target, and/or staff. I would be dubious of this. Like I say, while some Principals are sympathetic to what is happening, they are very reluctant to “take on” QSA.
Students who enjoy science often pick 2 or 3 senior sciences. What they are then faced with is an exceptional workload in terms of preparing large written tasks. EEI and ERT by their very nature involve a lot of preparation and extended writing. If students are studying three sciences, biol, chem and physics, they are constantly barraged with large tasks that consume a lot of time. This includes drafting before the final report/article etc. These students would complete 3 EEI’s and 3 ERT’s one year! Try fitting that into a crowded curriculum, and added to this, assignments in Mathematics and English. No wonder kids are stressed! This is before you look at the work load on teachers.
Assigning grades A level to E level. Descriptors in syllabus use verbs that indicate student operating at this level. Some distinctions are meaningless. Eg an “A” standard is complex and challenging, and a “B” standard is complex or challenging. So it’s down to “and or or”. OK, so a student operates at an “A” level at verification. Where do you put them on the R6? At position 5, in the middle, or at the very top of the band. They have achieved all what has been asked at an “A” level. The panel would no doubt say not at VHA 10, they are not A+ standard. But there are no descriptors written for an “A+” level. The student can say they have not been given opportunity to show this. Or do we just use that “gut feel”, they are an A but a really good one? Why, because I have 25 years experience and I know. Is this fair?
Are all the doctors, nurses, physio’s, chemists, mathematicians that have graduated from the past syllabus so bad? Has the past system failed them?
