Will new GCSE's bring a halt to Social Mobility?

The only point of GCSEs in so many subjects and results seems to be like SATs, assessing the schools for their capacity to deliver syllabus based teaching. Is it worth the stress to candidates, the cost of administration or the problems with categorising DCs academic abilities so early for subjects like medicine? I don't think so.

cressetmama - I agree - I'm not sure why DC need to take exams in so many subjects at the age of 16. Other countries/systems manage without such extensive testing at the end of middle school (which is, effectively, what English 11-16 education is).

As Ricardian points out, the question never asked is, if it is more or less compulsory to remain in full-time education or training until the age of 18, why does the system persist in examining students at GCSE in subjects they will drop and which are not of further relevance? Clearly, there's an argument for attesting to a wider base of achievement in literacy and numeracy and especially MFL, but wouldn't an age-normed paper at the end of studying that subject record it sufficiently, or am I being dense?

I'm not defending the French and Philosophy situation (which is absurd). I haven't made up my mind about the no remarking situation, however. It doesn't actually matter in France, where HE offers are not contingent on individual bac marks.

Sometimes even very good students slip up in exams, though.
Absolutely but the problem is that when marking cannot be checked there remains uncertainty. Very good students blame themselves and therefore are less likely to question aberrancies.

As a senior academic I mark medical student exam papers. This is a very standardised process. However differentiating between a student who regurgitates information and one that is clearly better at complex problem solving and has read at a deeper level will depend on the type of question and the expertise of the examiner in recognising that an answer without some of the key words shoukd not necessarily lose marks.
I think that it must be so much harder in subjects with subjectivity in assessing style of writing as well as content. I therefore take with a pinch of salt that A or 9 at GCSE or A level English Lit = all best candidates as Ricardian* seems to think, especially with variable expertise of markers.

An exam which is quite interesting is IELTS. It is highly standardised and designed to be very reliable and yet even very good students sometimes get an unexpected mark (confirmed after a remark).

Sometimes even very good students slip up in exams, though.

If you talk to lycées who track these things, the only subjects that they have consistent issues with are French and Philosophy. There is no will at all to reform...

2013: 3.3%
2014: 3.6%
2015: 3.1%

Bobo although I would agree that Philosophy and French are the most unreliable marking wise I know a student who had a below 10 for geo despite being a well prepared student and achieving 19,5 overall in the BacS. In the end it did n't matter obviously but errors even for tick box type answers in more standardised subjects still occur and the French system despite all the standardisation still has problems with marking.

We've already seen a drop in As in the current system in English Language (for two years running IIRC)*

2013: 3.3%
2014: 3.6%
2014: 3.1%

(cf. 1994 1.8%, 1999 2.5%: it was below 3% from 1994 to 2000).

It did peak at 4.7% in 2011, but I think the reasons behind that have been pretty well explored.

I'm in two minds about this (and my hands are dirty, because both my children got twelve Astar, the younger under the newer all-terminal system, and with 90%+ UMS in many of them would would imply they would have got a substantial number of 9s under the new system). On the one hand, I can just about see that there is some argument for extending and delineating the very able. On the other hand, GCSE work is usually of a pretty basic standard so I'm not certain that being able to get 99% rather than 95% on a GCSE exam proves a huge amount other than diligence, and I don't see that the GCSE system exists for, or should even pay any attention to, the admission requirements of a tiny minority of courses at a tiny minority of universities.

Until we decide what GCSEs are for we're all potentially arguing at cross-purposes.

If, for example, they're purely about university admission, then we should go back to A Level circa 1980 and norm-reference, solving the "fine distinctions at the top" by just publishing centiles. Anyone numerate would realise it has error bars a mile wide and the distinction between 97th centile and 99th centile would be meaningless, but university admission is done by smart people who can deal with that.

If they're criteria referenced then at GCSE the argument that the distinctions at the top are meaningless are even stronger (it would be like trying to tell Lewis Hamilton from a journeyman DTM driver by getting them to take a UK driving test and seeing how differently they did) but criteria referencing is what we need for "can you do an A Level in this?" or "are you literate enough to work in my company?", for which norm-referencing is hopeless.

As no-one will answer the question of the purpose for which GCSE is most intended (they appear to be the spiritual inheritors of school certificate, but in a world where study is largely expected to continue to 18) debates about its marking and grading are a bit pointless.

"Marks for humanity subjects are not infrequently unexpected with regards the track record and ability of a candidate."

This is true for French and for Philosophy but not for MFL or for History-Geography, where marking is sufficiently reliable.

Marking for e.g. Mathematics is highly reliable and a mark of 18/20 in the French bac for Mathematics is far more highly indicative of exceptional talent and achievement than A-level A*.

ricardian I don't think expecting an 8/9 is unreasonable.

However, I'm concerned that applicants from the state sector are going to be able to achieve those scores in the sorts of numbers we'd like to see in order to continue widening access.

We've already seen a drop in A*s in the current system in English Language (for two years running IIRC). I can't see why those fortunes would change under the new system.

To achieve those grades students don't just need to have the ability. The resources and teaching has to be there alongside. I just can't see where that's going to come from.

Perhaps maths will fare better? State schools currently produce A students in higher quantities than they do for English. Perhaps those A students will translate into 8/9s?

I know in the OP I have talked about GCSE's but surely grades 1-9 will be extended to A Levels in time.

Perhaps, but since the current A Level reforms don't do this and aren't set to be complete (ie, all subjects under the new regime) for a couple of years, it's unlikely that any such scheme is going to happen until the next cycle of change.

There's also not much reason to believe there needs to be finer distinctions at the top end of A Level. The only substantial subject complaining they can't get the distinctions are maths departments asking for STEP, and even they are in a tiny minority. There are departments asking for pre offer aptitude testing, but that's not going to be helped by messing about with A Level: places that want to ask for UMS scores in AS can, and the changes to the AS system - which strike me as incomprehensible - are the problem, but the hypothetic lack of an A** at A2.

(In passing, one of the obvious problems with the current AS/A2 thing, which I confess I didn't realise until I had children doing A Levels, is that the AS is in a sense "easy marks". Strong candidates do AS-standard work, which is not as advanced as A2 work, but get marks of the same weight as A2. So candidates who got 90%+ UMS at AS,have an easy ride to AAA because they only need to achieve high Cs in the A2 exams. The Astar fixes this at the top end because of the requirement to get 90%+ in the terminal exams - ie, a candidate who gets 100% UMS at As and 80% UMS at A2 gets an A, not an Astar - but a candidate who gets 92% at AS and 68% at A2 gets an A, which could be argued to be wrong. But that could be trivially fixed by re-weighting the years (ie 40:60 rather than 50:50), and abolishing the current AS pathway seems a kneejerk reaction. After all, it's now routine for 2nd year courses to count towards degree classifications.)

Introducing further distinction is unlikely to help if state schools struggle to get those 8 and 9s

If you currently expect A* in both Englishes, why would asking for Grade 8 be unreasonable?

Is there a concern that there are people who would currently properly get A*, but won't get 8? Why not?

I mean marking must be appropriate for how the questions are seeking to differentiate between the higher grades.

The French system is a very good example of how a standardised exam (one board equivalent) with great capacity of differentiation is only as good as its marking particularly for the humanities. Marks for humanity subjects are not infrequently unexpected with regards the track record and ability of a candidate. There is the added disadvantage of lack of transparency for marking as remarks are not possible.

For any system to work the marking of exam scripts must be consistent and appropriate.

In the UK, and in particular in England, no exam system can, of itself, have a positive impact on widening participation. However, a more transparent and better differentiated exam system can increase awareness of discrepancies in achievement between schools and pupils, which at the very least will allow those pupils (and their parents) who so desire it to add to their educational experience and cover the ground that will allow them to have a shot at top grades.

More transparency is always fairer for those who lack access to insider information.

I agree bobo.

And if I genuinely believed that this new system was ultimately going to lead to the most able pupils getting a better deal than they do now and thus widen participation at the most selective tertiary level, I would wholeheartedly support it and say schools/teachers will just have to suck it up!

But I have a lot of reservations.

I guess I will just have to wait and see (and be very grateful that my own DC have already taken their GCSEs).

I tend to think that the implementation of transparency and differentiation within the exam system are, necessarily, going to precede buy in to the concept by the wider population. People pretty much generally hate change before it happens and they have experience of it.

There won't be any extra resources.
Schools will have to redirect resources. Or not.

Whilst I would consider differentiation of assessment at the upper end no bad thing, it is fairly pointless unless it is coupled with extra resources or redirected resources (more likely) and a 'buy in' by schools and teachers in respect of the concept.

This is going to require an entirely different paradigm in many comprehensive schools. Schools which are already spread as thinly as Value margarine and already struggling to serve the most able under the current system.

It is indeed.

But I can't foresee a standard exam system being implemented any time soon. The different boards are an industry in themselves. And whilst the government can bring the state sector into line regarding early GCSEs/IGCSEs etc it can do nothing meaningful about the independent sector and has no will in any event.

I think there are arguments for a single examination board for English schools. The current system is a bit of a mess.