in thinking that in a few years time it'll be impossible to fail an 'A' level?

[BarmyArmy]

A level pass rate up

"The pass rate for A-levels rose for the 28th year in a row, with 97.6% of entries gaining an E or above, up from 97.5% in 2009."

The problem (for I see it as that, rather than evidence of increasing 'hard work') began under the Tories, when they introduced the GCSE in 1986.

Traditional 'bell curve' grade allocation was replaced with marks awarded to a particular 'standard', meaning it is perfectly possible for everyone to pass, or indeed everyone to gain the same grade - depending on where the grade boundaries lie.

Under the old bell curve system, grades were allocated according to the percentile bands in which you lay - i.e. the top 20% of any given intake received an A, the next a B and so on.

What do people think?

snobear - I think that if somebody works hard for two years, and reaches a certain level of competence and understanding, they should not end up with nothing because they fail within an arbitrarily decided percentage who must all fail, even if someone with the same mark passed the previous year.

Soggy - On the question of languages for all - ime it is waste of time for some students if you want them to pass a traditional exam. Example yr 7 student on a part time table from a pupil referral unit in a class mainly full of traveller children and other students with extremely weak literacy and numeracy skills. Keeping bums on seats for 50 mins and getting students to learn, making it interesting, engaging and of academic worth in a mfl is a challenge I've faced. Some would argue it is a waste of my time and theirs to learn an mfl. But then an education isn't about exam results.

They got something else out of the lessons. But to refuse or not give them a taster does smack of educational apartheid. But if you gave most students the option not to choose mfl over pe or dance ( an option block often double mfl is up against - guesswho wins?!)

On the otherhand I've taught non linguists

( ie having no knack/ ear for it). Who were too lazy to apply themselves properly and just desperate for a grade to get on their uni course. That's a challenge to show them how hard the exam is and they need to play the exam game if they just want a grade. That's how crammer courses work . Sometimes you can just fluke it if you have a bit about you. But you don't get top grades like that , not even at gsce.

What do we want from our Education system? And how do we intend to decide whether we have delivered the goods?

Exams results are probably the easiest way for any Govt to showcase how their own policies have 'improved' standards.

Personally, I would advocate a move towards the International Bac (IB). Where standards could be realistically measured against schools around the world.

What complexnumber said, or something similar.

I forgot to congratulate all of the A' level students (and their teachers) who worked really hard to achieve their results, regardless of whether they are A* or not.

Oh and the poster who can't remember any French from nine years ago. Gcse French at c grade is a general standard for simple conversational French with 3 tenses past present and future and recently mainly transactional touristy stuff. Allocation of curriculum time is at best 3 hours per week for approx 18 months. I bet you can manage to order a beer or understand a menu 10 years on. You need to study language to degree level to be more fluent and to "speak" French in Britain. As/ a2 is an introduction to that plus building up the more complex grammar, essay writing and debating skills plus literature, current affairs.. a lot to cram into effectively 18 months. I could go . Google scenes from the battleground blog or go have a look at the tes public forums if your interest is piqued in current educational affairs.
I'm bowing out now. Well done all the students who achieved today but as I said earlier education is not always necessarily about exam results.

I agree that schools teach to rote for gcse and a levels. AND I did an as level 3 years ago and got an A.

I think that whats happened now is that its so long since the way the papers are set out has changed that whats taught is whats likely to appear - and tbh this makes sense.

I do actually think tho that a levels are harder than gcses, and that its the growth of media thats helped students get higher grades not necessarily easier papers.

For example.

1. students can access past paper type questions from the internet and
2. students can access programmes that teach them how to answer exam questions and
3. students can get much more depth of knowledge simply through a search engine.

I think anyone who has passed an A level today and got exceptional grades should be congratulated and not have their grade undermined whatever the reasons they got it - unless they cheated

A variety of views on here, as one would hope and expect!

I remain in need of convincing that the recent changes in education have been for the better but have an open mind.

I think it has become apparent that the 2 kinds of grade allocation serve 2 different aims and perhaps to conflate them is misguided.

The "bell curve" helps to discriminate between people's abilities, but without reference to what they have actually learned.

The "grade according to a given level of knowledge" indicates the extent to which one has learned the material, but without reference to comparative achievement.

It's a moot point as to which is more important. My wish is to know who are the 'best', hence my preference for the bell curve. Many here differ from that view, which is fair enough.

This is the first year of A2 papers in their current format, so everything has changed!

They change approx every 10 years.

Teachers come and go too.

Um, concerning the mathematics papers. When we do comparisons, are we comparing like for like?

When you take GCSE Maths, I think you have to take at least two different papers, whereas I'm getting the impression that you oldies took one O-level paper. Whether you consider that easier or harder, is, of course, subjective.

Agree with the OP Alevels will become impossible to fail soon. The only exam with any real integrity these days is the 11+ where it still exists. They can't change the mess arount with it to let more kids pass as the schools only have a finite number of places.

sorry meant "they can't mess around with it"

I don't see why anyone would think the bell curve was a better way of marking exams. It is only comparing you within your own year group and once you are looking for a job you are not only up against people your own age! Surely its better to have a set pass mark so a future employer can judge exactly how much you knew.

I took my A levels last year and i don't get everyone saying they are easier. I was in the library every evening and worked really hard for my results (AAAA in Maths, Further Maths, Physics & Biology, would be AAA*A under the new system i think). Same goes for my ASs and GCSEs.

My school did a brilliant experiment with a local journalist when I was in year 12. She had been going on about how easy the exams were becoming so my school challenged her to put her money where her mouth was and resit an A level english exam. She got a C . Strangely enough she never mentioned how easy the exams were when the results came out!

I think A levels now are trying to do something different from what they were 30, or even 15 years ago - not better or worse, but different. As others have pointed out, a much larger proportion of teenagers now take A-levels than they did, including many who would have gone into work at 16 not long ago. I think this is overall a good thing, but it certainly increases the challenge for a teacher faced with a range of ability at A-level that you wouldn't have found beyond GCSE in the past.

As a result, the nature of the exams and the mode of assessment has changed to quite a considerable degree. One practical difficulty that has resulted - although it's really only a problem for university admissions tutors and a very small section of students - is that A-levels have become much less useful for distinguishing between the very strongest students - both because a much larger proportion get the top grades (even full marks in modules); and also because the nature of the questions now allows less scope for the most exceptional students to demonstrate their additional breadth and insight.

I am involved in university admissions and actually I don't think this is a problem with A-levels at all - it is a challenge for universities, who will need to begin to develop other ways of distinguishing between their applicants, while also making sure that the methods they develop are equally accessible to all students regardless of background. Quite a lot of course already do in various ways; and there are pre-U courses and so on (just as, in fact, there were S-levels and STEP levels running alongside A-levels in the past).

A-levels have changed, and in the process they've become much better at certain things and less useful for others. Personally, I'd like to see something a bit closer to the IB, but all the same for the great majority of 16-18 year olds I think it is an improvement.

exactly what musicmadness said!

I have just read the whole thread then had the words taken out of my mouth by the last post :D

Also agree with others who said that AS levels come before A levels and those that fail these do not progress onto A Level. Also nowadays pupils are encouraged to study at a level which is relevant to them and would not be accepted on an A level course if the college/tutor did not think they would succeed. Therefore in theory the 'fail' rate should be low.

My little sis got her results today and she has worked so hard for her A, B & C :D

for anyone that wants a go at the january paper

Physics paper

no cheating :)

I'm very at the idea that 'The only exam with any real integrity these days is the 11+ where it still exists' The 11+ is a complete failure as an exam imo and often seems little better than a lottery. A levels are supposed to test what you know & do that quite well. The only quibble is how many get what grades and whether they discriminate enough at the top end imo. The 11+ is supposed to test potential, but only does this in a very crude fashion and scores are supposed to not improve with practice (other than familiarisation) but do. Everyone I know who has been to a grammar says there are a sizable number of children there who they don't know how they got in and there are also plenty of children who are evidently extremely capable who fail the 11+.

I am starting to think that the decline in standards has been deliberate. O and A levels used to be rigorous and of a very high standard, as the 1968 Maths O level paper showed. The 2009 GCSE Maths paper was very easy in comparison. Some of it was only slightly more difficult than 11+ maths.

People are now talking about IB as a possible replacement for A levels. I wonder if the politicians are moving us slowly towards this situation as they follow a possible European harmonisation policy. I expect A level results to keep rising inexorably until eventually the IB becomes the only possible solution. That would probably put a smile on the faces of the Brussels bureaucrats.

Okay, people.

Let's have a look at the non-calculator paper for Higher GCSE Maths, as offered by AQA.
store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-4306-1H-W-QP-JUN09.PDF

Candidates had to take that, as well as store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-4306-2H-W-QP-JUN09.PDF which I beleive was already linked.

*believe, sorry
Non-calculator: store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-4306-1H-W-QP-JUN09.PDF

Calculator: store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-4306-2H-W-QP-JUN09.PDF

that is shockingly easy. Have a look at some 11+ maths papers, and you will see that there is not too much difference.

I posted those links four minutes ago. Have you really read through both papers, completely, already?

If so, well done. If you only looked at the first couple of question, be reminded that the questions get more difficult as you progress through the paper.

no wonder so many get A* grades. Anyone who passed 11+ maths would have to do no work at all for the next 5 years to fail that.

I only looked at the first 5 questions to be fair. Will have a look at the rest.

Okay, I've been looking for 11+ papers.

Is this the kind of standard you meant?