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

The 23% A* refers only to Biology results for people who have done triple Science and have separate GCSEs in Biology, Chemistry and Physics.

Only 6.8% of people who got a qualification in additional Science got an A*.

You can't work out from that table how many people got an A* in each Biology module.

OK thanks, so do the results for Biology on the AQA website - the 23% receiving an A* that OP referred to - reflect all the candidates sitting the papers or just those who did three Biology papers and are awarded a GCSE in that.

store.aqa.org.uk/over/stat_pdf/AQA-GCSE-FC-STATS-JUNE11.PDF

BeingFluffy The exams are exactly the same for everyone, it's just that the "separate science" candidates take an extra three modules. So, everyone takes Core Science (single award) which consists of three modules - B1,C1 and P1 - and gives you one GCSE. Those taking dual or triple award (Additional Science or the three separate GCSEs) then take another three modules - B2,C2 and P2 - ending up with a total of 6 modules, which gives them a second GCSE. Those doing triple science then take a further three modules and end up with 9, which are then regarded as three separate GCSEs. But the first 6 modules are the same for everyone. IME the sciences are taught separately to everyone anyway. A major difference is that those with a single or double award have their marks averaged out between the sciences (so you might get,e.g., an A for Physics, B for Chemistry and C for Biology but end up with a B as your overall grade), whereas those doing triple will get a separate grade for each science.

Generally - schools here offer Biology, Physics, Chemistry to those getting level 6 at year 9. Some are even more strict and offer it only to level 7's. They are, at that point, making the triple science suite of exams likely to have a very high A to C pass rate and quite low D grades or lower. So, you would also expect a very high % get A.

Double Science does, indeed, cover a bit of all Sciences. Most sitting this set of exams are those who are, in year 9, the level 5s plus the 6's 7+'s who, while good at Science, aren't interested in them enough to do 7.5 hours a week on it.

Then you have Btec Science for those who struggle at Science or struggle with Science exams. While they may be better doing something they are good at I think our Government make them do 5 hours of Science a week as a core subject.

So, you can see the cohorts of each route are very different in expected ability and some routes - especially the triple, are almost entirely made up of very able scientists. The very students you expect to be looking at high grades.

Now I'm really confused. DD is doing the three sciences, Physics, Chemistry and Biology as separate subjects; surely the double award or single award do different exams - I always thought they mixed up the sciences and they covered more basic topics?

Sorry, my figures are taken from TiggyTape's post, not the OP's. But the principle still stands that 23% of people getting an A at GCSE does not mean that 23% of people who take a module get an A.

I also thinks it is entirely fair for 23% of students to get an A in a subject if only the most able students are taking the subject. If, for example, Computing was assessed at a very high level (I've no idea if computing is more or less difficult, just using it as an example), and so schools only put very able students in for the exam, it would be perfectly reasonable if almost everyone got an A or A.

Isn't the OP not comparing like with like?

The first figure - 23% is for GCSE Biology as a qualification.

The second figure - 5% is for GCSE Biology module.

Most people who sit a GCSE Biology module are not sitting the qualification GCSE Biology; they are sitting some other GCSE Science qualification.

So to simplify, if approx 20% of the GCSE Biology candidates got an A and no other candidates got an A, and GCSE Biology candidates make up 25% of the pupils sitting a GCSE Biology module, then only 5% of people sitting the module get an A*.

100 students sit a Biology module.
25 students as part of GCSE Biology single award.
75 students as part of Dual award or single award science.
5 of the 25 students (20%) get an A*.
The same 5 out of the 100 sitting the module (5%) get an A*.

Exactly Kes100 iGCSE or similar could stop all of this grade inflation. They are not perfect by any means but perhaps more realsitic. My nephew worked pretty hard for his GCSEs a few years ago and bagged all A* and As but he did so many resits in addition to the coursework he did at home. I am glad for him but I am not sure that its a fair assessment of his ability - he did average in his A Levels - 2 B's and a C.

Will there be a sudden need for markers though? With modular there are often more exams than the linear equivalent so science for example might be tested over 6 papers rather than 9 for the triple award IYSWIM? Likewise for maths with linear exams it will be 1/2 papers rather than 3. Sorry if I'm not making much sense, I blame the heat!

I seem to think in the olden days when I did mine, exams were marked then graded against a distribution graph so the top few % got As, then next whatever % got Bs so it was clear to unis, employers, etc how clever you were rather than as clever as the rest of the exceptional 23%!

When everything goes linear there will be a sudden need for more markers. Teachers have been marking and assessing all this controlled assessment stuff as part and parcel of their ordinary job.
It could be quite an expensive process to mark everything as a linear exam.

If everything is going linear, why do they not just all do iGCSEs?

Also, will controlled assessments go, so everything is tested linear at the end? (Mixed thoughts on this - quite good for assessing over time but soooo much teaching time lost)

Actually from the chat I had with Science teachers this year there are 3 syllabuses. The one year 11 are doing, very modular but already toughened up from years before. The one for year 10, with limited resist, and a certain percentage in year 11. And the year 9 one, which is yet to be released but will be all linear (unless you are in Wales).

your ds, sorry.

Bringback there are two sets of syllabuses, one for year 11s which covers all science modules for core science, additional science and separate sciences and thsi is what your dd will be doing (some others who did do modules early may be doing resits too).

The other set of syllabuses is for those who will generally certificate next year (so for the year 10s), and only includes modules for core science which can be certificated this year because a lot of schools do core science one year (usually yr 10 and additional science the following year (yr 11) but both need to be in the same syllabus. The additional science and separate science modules for the new syllabus won't be available until next year.

Does that make sense? Your dd will be doing the old syllabus as she is in year 11, but she will be sitting different papers to the year 10s doing just core science this year.

So although DS's in year 11 he's doing the same modules as current year 10s as they don't do early entry. Will the grade boundaries be higher for him because they didn't do early modules? Will he be disadvantaged because he didn't do exams last summer when the grade boundaries were lower?

I'm very confused by this

Thanks for looking that up Rezolution. DD2 will be sitting GCSEs in 2013/14/15 as her school has a policy of doing the option subjects as one year courses. I think she will be disadvantaged compared to her elder sister not only because of the grade boundaries changing but the change to linear exams. She is dyslexic but generally able and in the top set, but gets very nervous in exams and finds it difficult to memorise large chunks of information. She will also be penalised for spelling - not a lot of marks but it will still have an effect. Inevitably she will compare her results to those of DD1.

I have just looked this up on the Ofqual website and the linear exams will be introduced for first teaching from September 2012. Sorry if my previous post was a bit confused.

Personally, when we were O Level (and that dates me) even at grammar schools, it was usually only the top 20% who got A Grades (unless the year was very, very bright or the teacher(s) was/were truly inspirational and exceptional). So it was extraordinarily rare for anyone, even the uber-clever, to get 11 or 12 A Grades - SIL got 14 O Levels of which 7 were A, 6 were B and 1 C and she was always regarded as a swot by her peers and went to Cambridge.

I just don't buy it that so many children have suddenly become so much cleverer than in our day. It is right to reduce the numbers getting A* because I think for our generation(s) we tend to regard such widespread high achieving with a level of suspicion, maybe some of it unfounded but not in a lot of cases.

The problem is that those going through that stage from now onwards and possibly the next five-ten years will have their grades compared to those who mega-achieved in the past ten years - and will look on paper to be less clever/academic even though it's not necessarily the case.

It would be a lot easier really if they rebranded the GCSE level so that there is no confusion about who got what grades in what era.... If that makes sense.

I welcome it in the interests of academic rigour!

I have DCs in Y11 and year 9. Posted on this before.
I thought the exam pressure was tough on my elder son who is in mid GCSE but I think his 14 year old brother will have an even harder time.

dear cardymow,

I feel for you with your DD, we don't want pupils who achieve an acceptable standard to fail - that is why GCSE's were brought in, and D is seen as a fail by many although , of course, it is close to average outcome. It is important to keep a safe level of C's. Too many failures at 16 is disastrous for young people and their self esteem and prospects. GCSEs are not all about A*s and universities but a general education for all.

BeingFluffy I have two DDs in Year 9 and I am interested in your comment about a change to linear exams when your DD is in Year 11.
What about the pace of change in set-up? Surely that will take at least two/three years? Not being controversial by the way. Just thinking aloud on screen if you like. It may well be changed for "First teaching from September 2013" which will be after they start their GCSE courses. Hope for the best.

It is a bit confusing. I think the part in roisin's link that says they are using a different statistical method to set the A* may mean they are using 'comparable outcomes' as described in my link rather than 'comparable performance' which has been used in the past. If so, this isn't a big difference (basically just prevents year on year grade creep) and the key issue this year will be with the year 10 core science results (and their subsequent science results) which will be going back to 2008 levels, with strengthened versions of English Lit, maths geography and history gradually coming in over the next couple of years.

oddboots the inflation has actually been mostly concentrated at the points in time when the syllabuses have changed not spread out as you say (so the 2008 science was very much harder than 2009). Also a return to 2008 levels is only 5 years not 20.

I am relieved as my DS is close to a grade boundary in his Physics - which will be awarded this summer.

I do agree a more open approach for Yr 10 pupils would be fairer. By the time my DD gets to Yr 11, it will be established, so not such a bother - she is currently in Yr 7. Those in Yr 10 and Yr 9 are going to feel disappointed as are employers not going to understand.

I'm an employer and only know because I am on here and have children caught in the backfire. I personally can't see why it can't just stay as it is without any more inflation so we start a stable process rather than go through yet another rollercoaster, but in the opposite direction. Or, a sun den change but with a new name or grading system - such as 1,2,3 etc.

If they don't then, yes, I would also advise my children to put the date of entry described on their CV.