GCSE results - how are one one in five children getting top grades?

[angelos02]

If more than one in five children are getting an A or A*, how can we identify the super-bright? When I was at school - a really decent one - very few kids got top grades and those that did, went to Oxbridge. This was about 40 years ago though. Or are children just very much more intelligent now?

I suppose it depends on what you think the purpose of GCSEs is - are they a test of intelligence or evidence a child has understood the content of the syllabus in any given subject and the grade is a measure of how much content they have understood. Universities and courses which require the 'super bright' will have their own exams which are what they deem to be tests of aptitude in the required course. For example medicine has the UCAT exam and most medicine courses use that as a hard filter, not GCSEs (though these are still taken into account).

Well GCSEs are now graded in numbers not letters, 9-1.

So the 7 8 and 9 would be top grade (old A and A star) with the super bright (i believe only 3%) get a grade 9.

Most of that one in 5 will be grade 7, fewer again getting grade 8.

Less than half of the pupils get 5 and above in both English and Maths.

The more academic progress to A levels and the grades spread out then?

Is there really a need to separate out a smaller amount than the top 20% at 15/16 years though?

No there isn't.

And the splitting of 9s from 8s just puts ridiculous pressure on some high achievers.

I think it's helpful to compare it to people trying to run a mile in shorter times. Roger Bannister famously managed to break the four minute mile in 1954, running it in three minutes and 59 seconds, but this record has been broken thousands of times since then and the current record holder holder is Josh Kerr at three minutes 42 seconds.

Is the mile getting shorter? No, but there is a lot more understanding of the science and technology behind running now. Runners train more effectively, have improved understanding of nutrition, and their trainers are better! These factors help them run a little faster.

Similarly, I think there is much more understanding of how to teach more thoroughly, revise more effectively - and kids now spend months practicing past papers, honing their answers to common types of question. They're not more intelligent now (in fact, there is research to suggest they're actually slightly less intelligent) but bright, motivated kids in good schools become extremely good at producing near-perfect answers to exam questions and I think this is why we see increasing numbers of children scooping up top grades.

The top grade is 9, that is how the brightest are distinguished.

There's always talk of exams getting "easier" when results come out. The same appeared in the press when I did mine, last millennium! Anyone who has supported a teen through this recently will know it's not true.

Exam techniques are taught much more than in the past. There's huge focus on how to answer questions now, practicing past papers and if an able student listens to feedback then they have every chance of getting good grades.

Schools and teachers and students are all judged by the grades achieved. With such importance put on the marks teaching has had to adapt.

Taught science for nearly 20 years. The answer is teach to the test. Endless practice of exam technique and drilling in key points from the specification. It's sad really it leaves no room for adding in any interesting little nuggets of information. Even a couple of minutes spent on maybe something in the news would have kids demanding to know if it will be in the exam.