Did you know GCSE A* grades are being slashed this year?

Just to be clear the 38 out of 60 for the A* in Chemistry was in June 2012 i.e. second sitting of the unit 1 module. Those who took the same module in January 2012 needed 48 out of 60 for the same grade.

Agreed that the top students should be distinguishable with an A* grade, which is what the January grade boundaries represent but those who sat in June have a significant advantage with the total ums that they now carry forward toward their overall grade.

At my Daughters school they have averaged 40%+ papers at A* in science subjects but in January 2012 this fell to under 5%. Students who re-sat in June 2012 improved their grades significantly.

The percentage of students nationally getting A* in Chemistry in January 2012 was 2% but in June 2012 it was 11.53%. For Biology it was 0.90% in January but 11.67% in June 2012. This is not surprising given the grade boundaries.

Saying that the January 2012 cohort were not good enough to get A just does not stack up from a statistical analysis perspective, it is very irregular. Also the grade boundary score for 100ums in Biology was 57 out of 60 and for Chemistry 58 out of 60 i.e. much higher than June 2012. This would indicate that the January papers were on the easy side. It still begs the question as to why so few students were deemed worthy of an A in January compared to June 2012 (harder papers according to the grade boundaries).

The percentage of students achieving A* grades can fluctuate year on year, but by a few percentage points. For the January to June comparison we are looking at variances in a multiple of 10!

I think it is possible. I helped a dc mark past papers from the old science specs this year, and the papers did vary in difficulty a lot. There were also questions which to the naked eye were badly phrased, given the answers in the mark scheme. We sometimes then checked the examiners' reports and they sometimes said very few of even the most able had got the marks for particular questions, or there was widespread confusion even though other questions were answered well...mmmm!. However, the UMS were surprisingly consistent, so that bit did seem to work, in our very unscientific sample.

When I sat 'O' levels (early 80s), 70% got you an A as standard, I think

I think the extent of grade inflation has been exaggerated in the media - which is also unfair on all the children. I agree it has happened to some extent, and that its effects are negative.

Lots of academic schools don't do January sittings, so it is perfectly possible there is wide variation in Jan-June cohorts.

I fail to see though how 63% (38/60) could ever have been deemed worthy of an A. If those were the previous boundaries then I agree they need to be revised.*

Why not? If the questions are all highly challenging then it is perfectly possible. It suggests the paper was set at too high a level perhaps, but the mark gained is utterly irrelevant unless you take into account the level of diffuculty of the paper.

Whatever amount is deemed worthy of an A (the papers referred to are only taken by higher ability students to start with) the problem at the moment as we seem to have lost any consistency in the system. DS is in year 11 and what sort of standard does he needs to be to get A's and A's next June? I have no idea and he is my third to take GCSEs. Will they leave English alone this time or will Maths get the "Gove" treatment or maybe they'll just pull the rug out from under the kids in every subject.

In response to BringBack1996:
New syllabuses were introduced in September 2011 for the seperate science subjects Biology, Chemistry and Physics. They were introduced to bring additional rigour to these subjects. Ofqual have said that the January 2012 modules were harder than the previous syllabus as a result. I am only talking about the seperate science subjects so these results only relate to the more able students. No re-sits would have been applicable as this was the first cohort to sit the new syllabus. Re-sits would have been against the old syllabus. However, it was the grade boundaries that were the issue:

Raw scores for Biology:
January 57/60 = 100ums and 48/60 = 90ums A*
June 46/60 = 100ums and 39/60 = 90ums A*

Raw scores for Chemistry:
January 58/60 = 100ums and 48/60 = 90ums A*
June 46/60 = 100ums and 38/60 = 90ums A*

As you can see from the above if you scored 46 out of 60 in June you would have got A with 100ums but in January only grade A and less than 90ums. If you then look at the percentage of students who achieved an A in January compared to June in my original post - most irregular.

I stated the percentage of students who got A in the previous year as it helps to show the massive dip in numbers getting A in January compared to the previous year and the next paper in June.

data, not date!

I've not read that article, but that date does seem to make some sense. It is not at all beyond belief that the January exam was harder. Likewise, it is also easy to see why the students might have been of a lower ability as January is regularly used as an opportunity for students to re-sit, most commonly for that magical 'C' grade.
Finally, the module grade results for B1, C1 and P1 are not comparable to the final grades awarded for Biology, Chemistry and Physics. This is because only 'top' students sit separate award science, and you would expect a high number of students to get the best grades.

That's just my take on it, but without reading the article I don't take that info as being overly suspicious.

Further to this debate the unit 1 module grade boundaries for the exams sat in June 2012 reverted to pre January 2012 levels leaving the students who sat these modules in January stranded at a massive disadvantage.

In the January 2012 chemistry exam you needed 97% to achieve an A with 100 UMS but in June 2012 for the same module you needed just 77% to obtain the same. In Biology you needed 95% in January for an A with 100 UMS but in June 2012 just 77%.

To expand further if you took the January 2012 Chemistry module 1 exam you needed a raw mark of 38 out of 60 to achieve an A grade but in June of the same year a raw mark of 38 out of 60 would give you an A* grade with more UMS points.

Similarly in the January 2012 Biology exam you needed a raw mark of 39 out of 60 to achieve an A grade but in June of the same year a raw mark of 39 out of 60 would give you an A* grade with more UMS points.

To put this into perspective:

In Biology in January less than 1% of students achieved A* compared to June 10.67%.

In Chemistry it was 2% in January compared to 11.53% in June

In Physics 1.32% in January compared to 8.38% in June.

Set this against the fact that the final award grades for 2012 in these subjects saw the percentage of students achieving an A* grade Biology 17.7%, Chemistry 20.7% and Physics 19.2%. (These statistics from the Joint Council for Qualifications).

From a statistical outcomes perspective this is highly irregular given the number of students involved. Ofqual are saying this is down to variances in paper difficulty and student ability! Ten times more students capable of getting an A* in biology in June than in January!? It beggars belief. The grade boundaries answer the question as you only needed to get 39 marks in June compared to 48 in January. It seems obvious to me.

The January modules need to be re-graded.

This issue was reported by the BBC:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19599279

There is not necessarily a direct correlation twixt GCSE and A Level marks anyway..... got 6 O levels (and not maths) - not very good grades but did considerably better at A Level in robust academic subjects (B, C, C) - which in my day was good enough for a goodish Russell Group Uni.

bringback it is less than half marks for a B on some specifications. 90/200 would have gained a B grade on March 2012 linear edexcel maths. What this means is that children who have very little idea of algebra at all and may not even have been taught all the GCSE higher level concepts can get B grades - they will then struggle at A level.

But it is a difficult thing for schools because some children with B grades and sufficient motivation can go on to A level and achieve well.

Around here sixth forms seem to require an A for A level maths and a B for other subjects, and I agree you need to be able to identify those who will cope with an A level course. But I don't see the need to identify the top 0.5% (or whatever the tiny figure was the OP mentioned) at GCSE level. The percentage capable of good grades at A level is clearly much greater than this, and the chance of an A* grade can be so dependent on the school in many subjects.

gramercy, I believe in GCSE maths you need just over half marks for a B so it's not surprising that B grade students can't keep up.

IMO I think schools need to stop encouraging so many people who a C/B borderline students to go on to do A levels as they are just setting them up for a fall. Sadly I think with the changes to careers guidance schools will blindly encourage anyone who wants to do A levels to do them, in the process encouraging those who skills would be better used in another form of education or training.

Both DD's school insist on A/A for the subjects they want to do at A' level and DD1's school insists on A for certain courses. They also refuse to let anyone without the triple sciences do A level in science subjects and insist on girls joining from other schools who are doing French in their Sixth Form to come to the school during the summer to do a catch up course. They say this is because the pace of the teaching is so fast. They expect girls to get high grades at A' level as well as GCSE.

I recall the jump between the old O' level and A' level being much bigger than between A' level and degree but in those days top grades were not as important; these days everyone is expected to get A/B at least.

I thought that the double science and single (triple) science papers were different? My DD (year 10 - AQA triple science option) is taking 3 separate papers (1 for each science) that last an hour each for unit 1 (and then will take units 2 & 3 in year 11). The double science students take 1 combined paper that lasts 90 minutes (30mins per science) and then a second paper later on for their 1st GCSE. It is very confusing.

Well, actually, I rather think it is important to differentiate. I was talking to someone about the A Level maths course at the local sixth form college. Apparently the GCSE B grade students can't keep up at all. I don't know what the mark is for a B, but clearly for maths that kind of grade does not a mathematician make.

In my day (the old refrain, I'm afraid) a B wasn't too bad. Now a B is clearly the third level down so imo not good enough to embark on an A Level course.

Gramercy is it really important to identify "outstanding* pupils at GCSE level? I can see the case for A levels, but I suppose I see GCSEs as a basic school-leaving qualification. As an employer I would think that good GCSE results show a person to be well-educated at a very general level and hardworking, but would not expect more than that as the content is pretty limited. This is not a criticism, the pupils are only 15/16, or even younger nowadays. If you want more than basic skills as an employer or university then you would be looking at a person's A levels and further qualifications.

yy gramercy

Or, indeed, rebrand them back to a 'new level' with 1,2, 3 etc - even more gardes could be available that way if they wanted more definition of 'the top'.

Oh, and stop Government interference - that is what has led to grade inflation (Labour being soft) and what is leading to grade deflation (Gove being a control freak with rose tinted glasses)

They say it matters for Uni but Uni's are in education, they know what is going on, and can easily adjust for the cohort year GCSEs are taken or provide entrance exams - like Medical students have to take. Unis are expected to adjust anyway, I thought, allowing some slack for the student who went to a in special measures dump comprehensive and 'only' got a row of A's over the public school child who managed A* across the board.

Employers don't have this knowledge: what they need is stability. It doesn't matter where the stability lies - just make it stable so they know themselves what a C, B, A etc means.

All that is happening here is more instability - just in the other direction!

There should be a re-branding. Grade the exams 1, 2, 3 etc which would make it clear that that candidates were sitting a different exam from someone else who had achieved A, B, C.

I agree a problem is that it is so much more difficult for an outstanding candidate to demonstrate that they are, indeed, outstanding if good, but not exceptional people can also achieve that grade. It's like the SATS exams. I know they're not a test of the pupils, but a test of the school, but still it seems daft when nearly every kid in ds's school achieved a Level 5 when you know that within that Level 5 the abilities vary hugely.

They have made the science exams harder.

the reason is becuase "they weren't sufficiently rigorous"

The theory is that it won't matter because it will affect the same cohort equally.

it will matter because when you apply for jobs etc you are not just up against everyone in your same GCSE year...

Thanks for that I totally agree. I think the children do work hard and I know the teaching in my daughter's school is excellent. Changing the goal posts by suddenly slashing grades is not the right way forward.

The 23% is for those doing the separate science Biology. The results for Additional Science ("double science") are listed further up on the table in your link, and show that 6.3% got an A*. There are no results for single award Core Science for some reason, but I imagine they might be lower still.

As suggested earlier, you would expect the results to be much higher as only the most able usually take the triple science option. I have heard that the same happens with other "hard" GCSEs e.g. that most people who take Ancient Greek get an A/A, simply because only a few are capable of doing it in the first place. Even looking at that table, you can see that for some harder GCSEs the A rate is even higher (e.g.Italian 42%) whereas for the "soft" Leisure and Tourism it is 0.5%. Does anyone think this is a more "rigourous" GCSE? It seems clear to me that these results reflect the profile of the pupils taking them. A large percentage of those taking triple will be very able and motivated, perhaps in selective schools (there are still school that don't offer it even for their top set), working very hard to get 90%+.

It is so demoralising for those going through the system at the moment to hear their efforts constantly diminished by this superficial view of results. I know my children work far harder than I ever did and deserve every A* they get.