May 15, 2011 by staff
English GCSE, The education secretary, Michael Gove has accepted the recommendations of the review of training, led by Professor Alison Wolf. Students who fail to obtain at least C in GCSE Mathematics and English subjects should be studied until 18. The Government has also approved the idea of?? The new standings that reflect the achievements of students with low and high schools.
Currently, schools are evaluated based on the percentage of students achieving grade C or above in GCSE Mathematics, English and three other subjects. Professor Wolf said that this could easily lead to neglect their schools, “the less successful academically.”
The Secretary of Education also explicitly recognized the need to reform vocational training. But he warned that changes would not be felt quickly. NTQuMjA0LjEzMC45NA==
“For too long the vocational training system has been devalued by attempts to pretend that all ratings are inherently equal. Young people have taken courses that have gone nowhere,” said Gove. However, the Education Ministry was optimistic that despite the changes will take time, but “[the changes] will transform the lives of young people.”
Professor Wolf has criticized the current system as a vocation “bureaucratic and expensive” that pushed students to “dead end” vocational training. According to the report, only 70% of vocational courses on offer are worth the labor market.
She continued that “a good level of English and mathematics are still those of a more general professional, useful and valuable information about the offer, and all students should have those skills after leaving school.
The shadow education secretary, Andy Burnham welcomed the report and the emphasis on math and English.
But teaching unions according to the report Wolf. Christine Blower of the nut that holds the current training courses is not easy choices for students contradicting the report.
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.