Is school harder now than it used to be?

At my grammar school in the early 70s we could take a single science O level so that’s a big change. Most do all three now but in less depth one would assume. I cannot really comment on the difficulty of exams now but I do know that at my local secondary moderns nearly everyone took the CSEs. Back then people didn’t like the two tier system. It might now be more acceptable to have higher and lower levels in all GCSEs but then some people wouldn’t like that.

We now have huge numbers going to university. Back in the 60s snd 70s this wasn’t the case. At my grammar only half the 6th form went and many pupils hadn’t stayed on anyway. Now everyone in a grammar will expect to go and plenty from comprehensives too. This adds to pressure.

I'm not sure that the earliest iteration of GCSEs were "easy", though - we had to do calculus, for example, which I believe isn't taught until A level now.

The thing is, for everyone sitting them, they are the hardest exams they've ever done, so in that sense, it doesn't particularly matter if the material included is "easier" as it isn't for that cohort

Likewise, there's a reason that Science degrees switched to being 4 years "Master" level - students were coming in lacking the fundamental learning that enabled people originally to get through the material to reach graduate level in 3 years. Obviously, there'd have been an outcry if people were expected to study for a further year for the same qualification, hence the rise of the undergraduate master's. (At least, according to the Science dons and academics I know) It doesn't mean, though, that A levels are objectively easier, necessarily, because the students have been taught different material.

I don't think the pressure has increased - admittedly, I went to an extremely academic school, but everyone took at least 12 GCSEs and 3-5 A levels. We sat unseen exams in every subject every term from the age of 4, and grades were read out to the whole year group, although we were also streamed on ability. It's quite a useful lesson, to be honest, that no one comes top of everything/all the time, good preparation for how university was in those days, based on three hour unseen exams (it was actually easier in that sense than A levels, where you had at least 3 3 hour exams per subject) - but again, we knew no different.

I am not sure, as a result, how helpful it is comparing generations in this way, as it's not really like with like, especially as there are so many additional variables.

I was going to come on and say “of course not”, but I have been helping DS (Y6) with his maths homework this afternoon, and it’s stuff I didn’t do until what used to be called 4th year of secondary school -Y10? - for O level maths. I was the last year of O levels in 1987.

It is the pressure. Back in my day (1980s), people aimed for C grades and only the swottiest were looking at A's. You could get pretty decent jobs with 5 O levels at grade C and above inc English & Maths. You could get into pretty decent Unis with A level grade Cs. Nowadays, you're made out to be a failure if you don't get As with the odd B and decent jobs require a degree (which mean you needed good A levels to get into Uni!).

I think there is a lot more pressure on children today

I agree. I don't see a great deal of difference between what I remember doing for o level and the GCSE content.

It's the pressure to achieve targets and how high those targets are that's changed.

I think there is a lot more pressure on children today, ds does his GCSE's next summer & the pressure is really being piled on, 3 sets of mocks, I only did one set, he has extra classes nearly every night of the week. The level of things that are taught is much higher, ds was doing what I was doing in Y8 in Y5/6.

I am old enough to have done O'Levels (took them in mid 70's). I thin the Science GCSEs now seem pretty similar to what we covered , though Maths seems a bit harder even I'd say. English, Languages and History seem similar in terms of difficulty, though it is hard to judge exactly as they don't do as much memorising as we did and history seems to involve a lot more interpreting of original sources which we did not do at all

However as already posted, we had CSEs for those who couldn't manage the O'Levels,. Now everyone seems to be expected to pass O'level standard work which is pretty ridiculous really

Also the O Levels and CSEs did not have grade boundaries,
really?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Secondary_Education

There is a table not too far down with them all in.

I did O Levels and thens spent 6 weeks in Australia which included an evening at house with a teenager so (I was a geek even then) I got to have a look at her 'Leavers' exams.

They were fairly similar.

But you have to remember the history of GCSEs. Way back in the day there were O Levels for people who stayed at school until 16, which mean the academic children of families who could afford their child not to be working.

Once education became compulsory for all then CSEs became available. So the 'top' 20% did O Levels, the next 30% did CSEs and the remaining 50% did no external exams, with the possible exception of something like city and guilds typing.

GCSEs came into replace both O Level and CSE but it became the expectation that every child would pass some exams so they were initially easy.

Also the O Levels and CSEs did not have grade boundaries, 50% were graded below C for O Level and I can't remember what they did for CSEs. But basically if you were in a cohort that achieved higher scores you might come out with a D which in another year might have been a B. Your grade depended not only on how well YOU did but how well or badly others' did.

With GCSEs if you got 95* you got an A, regardless of how others did.

The new GCSEs are more like O Levels were, but we expect all children to take and pass which is ridiculous.

It is certainly different to how it was when I was at school but I am not sure it is either easier or more difficult. Obviously in the sciences there is more content due to so much having been discovered or invented in recent years. When I was at University in the 80s we were learning about the synthesis of human insulin with awe as it was such new technology but I think my children covered that at GCSE or possibly sooner. But as the curriculum is broader I think some things are covered in less detail.
There seems to be less reliance on memorising things, which makes sense really as we all have facts at our fingertips now thanks to the internet. I am sure everyone from my era had teachers telling them that they won't have a calculator with them all the time for instance, but of course most of us do now.
I do think there is more emphasis on critical thinking now, which is really important given the vast amount of unfiltered information that our children have access to now. I think that learning to question the validity of sources of information is one of the most important things that yiung people need to do nowadays.
Overall, I am impressed by the quality of the education that my children have had so far. There is less rote learning and more thinking than in my day which can only be a good thing, and the breadth of topics they have covered from primary school onwards has been great. We do have very good schools locally though - I appreciate their experience may not be typical.
The only subjects I have been less impressed with are the languages my children have done. When my DD was doing GCSE German for instance I think I could still speak the language better than her and it was over 30 years since I did my O level. She got an A, but I bet she has forgotten it all by now and it is only a few years ago whereas I can still "get by" in French and German with relative ease.
I don't really agree with the EBacc as I think it limits choice and will be very damaging to the smaller subjects. My elder DS was one of only 11 to take Music GCSE out of a year group of over 150 and that was when the school was only "strongly encouraging" EBacc. From this year they are insisting upon it unless there exceptional circumstances. That leaves those choosing their options at our school this year with only one completely free choice of GCSE which I fear will very quickly lead to subjects like Music being dropped from the curriculum due to lack of numbers.

I did OLevels and what is different for bright to average ability children is not the content but the pressure put on them.We weren't really aware of exams,we had yearly ones with the rest of the school but for your final exams you were in the hall or gym,and it was later in the year and usually really hot.
The whole of year 6 is spent(wasted) teaching to the sats.The whole of year 11 is the same pressured environment with extra revision classes(triple science as timetabling meant they had the same lesson time as the combined science),meetings to tell parents how to help their children revise,PSE lessons on how to relax and how important this year was etc.
And the paper are designed to stretch the bright so we have 3 grades designed for them.What about everyone else(the majority)how do these exams really cater for them.And why do our kids have to do 10 subjects?I had to do 10 but we took English Language and Geography at 15 so just studied 8 in our GCSE year.

I think it is harder now. Young people are under so much pressure.
I was a pupil in the early '70s. We had access to exam papers going back ten years from then and the earlier questions were so, so easy. As a teacher from 1992 to 2014, I noticed that Year 9 were doing work that used to be GCSE level. I can't imagine the trend has changed, as the education system seems to be designed mainly to punish both children and teachers. Oops. My bitterness showed.

DS1’s maths A-level had less content than I remember in mine.
Same for English Lit I think.
We weren’t expected to know about marking schemes etc though so it’s an extra level of analysis they have to apply on top.

I'm surprised that everyone can remember so much about their o-level/GCSE syllabus. I couldn't actually tell you how dd's current GCSEs compare in difficulty to the exams that I did 30 years ago. Am I the only one who has forgotten most of it?!

(I did O' Levels. But I definitely think GCSE's are harder)

I was testing my son on all the DNA/Chromosome stuff they do in GCSE biology. So difficult - all I remember is drawing a carrot with a couple of labels back in the day!

People need to look back to the mid 80s when GCSE was brought in. For the first time most subjects had a coursework element, brought in for all sorts of reasons. Then a while later it was realised that coursework was often done with parental help and in some cases BY parents, so "controlled " coursework was brought in, which could be taken over and over again if the scores were not high enough.
Finally coursework was abandoned, it was realised that this element had dumbed down GCSE grades, skewed the results of the children from more affluent backgrounds and more rigour was needed.
So the pendulum swung back towards if not exactly back to old style O levels and CSEs.
Those who never did the old O levels think the new GCSEs are hard. They are hardER than old GCSEs but not that hard. They just rely on slightly different skills.
Kids are adaptable and accepting of their situation. For them it becomes normal.They don't know any different really except if others around them compare what they did or what their elder siblings did, none of which is helpful.
I taught old style O level/CSE before it was replaced as well as GCSE so I can state absolutely categorically that O level was much harder than new style GCSE. Kids may take fewer of the new ones but they will still do as well as they should, after all, it is the same for all of them. Try not to worry about it!

daisy
There's literally people saying the exams have been watered down (probably with little or no experience of the specs)

I don’t think anyone has said the new GCSEs are way easier. Quite the contrary. Everyone thinks they are harder than the old GCSE.

I get the impression exams have been watered down. I think for one A-level maths exam this year you only needed 55% for an A.

This is the kind of thing that is bandied about in the media on exam results days and it is really unfair to students especially with the new curriculum which is more rigorous. It is not really the students fault that the exams are set up like this.

It is irritating reading posts that say yes it is way easier.
The new GCSE curriculum is very very hard, and much more rigorous than mine ever were. Unless you have a child that is doing them right now, or you are teaching then how can you even have a view?!

They are extremely hard op, we are shocked at the level esp in Maths, and yes it is very advanced. I have bright kids and it is even testing my husband at time, and he is a mathematical whizz.

I feel for our children, especially those that struggle anyway. It must be a nightmare for them.

Science is much more advanced. Other subjects include more stuff that was taught later in the past now being studied at a younger age.

History, RE and most subjects seem to be less memorising facts and more understanding and application of the knowledge.

Maths seems more applied.

There is less repetition of the syllabus. There seems more focus on consolidating ideas and teaching in more organised, well thought out plans.

Everything seems better taught. Teachers seem to have better knowledge of how to teach and their subject area. Students are expected to be more independent with homework and need to search online for answers. There is more interaction in classrooms. Children are asked to share their opinions.

The subject areas are taught in a more interesting way. I do think lower ability students struggle more and find the exams difficult. Higher ability students seem to thrive more.

Wayland
The pass mark tells you nothing.
The content is more difficult.
Ideally, if I remember correctly from something I read on assessment, a well designed assessment shouldn't have everyone getting super high marks.

So in my subject the grade boundaries are lower, but that's because what's required to get into the highest band for English Literature is significantly more difficult than before. There's no way it would be reasonable to expect loads of students to access those highest bands, but they are there to stretch and appropriately reward the very brightest. I've called back some of my papers in recent years where students have got 90+% on the paper and what they have had to do to get that mark is exceptional for a 15 year old.

Way That's not watering down, that's because the content is harder! (But they still wanted the same pass rate).

I get the impression exams have been watered down. I think for one A-level maths exam this year you only needed 55% for an A.