to be a bit sick of people on here going on about how much harder GCSE's/O levels were in their day...blah blah blah...

[purplefish]

Some of us are very proud of our DC and know how hard they have worked to get the grades they got.

No one is knocking our children - don't be silly. I did a BTEC in Horticulture a couple of years ago - it's equivalent to an A level. As long as I wrote the right things I was guaranteed good marks - my sentence structure, creativity, strength of argument were irrelevant.

Our children are examined according to the exams of the day - I think our current system really lets them down. And Skyrg - you may feel that but the skills have definitely declined in the 15 years I have been working with graduate trainees. I'm sorry to say that but it's a fact. Again, I don't think it's their fault - I think that the system is fucked and it brings everyone down to a level of average. It can't possibly stretch really bright children.

I really dislike this debate year after year.

Although as adults, we might be aware that this same bullshit is trotted out yearly, for those children who have just completed their exams and had their results, it can really take the shine of doing well for them.

The exams are different to years ago, coursework features heavily now, teaching methods are different and much improved to the 'chalk and talk' type of teaching I had in the late 70's/80's. Parents are often more involved with their children's schoolwork, and for lots of teenagers it is expected that they will go to university, so they know that they have to achieve high grades to get there.

To my mind, it all smacks a little of sour grapes!

5 year olds are passing GCSEs. As Elmer Fudd used to say "there's something fishy around here."

claig that doesn't really prove anything - there have always been a few exceptionally able children who would have been able to do this, but years ago they wouldn't have had the opportunity.

I'm not disagreeing with you Lady, just expressing my surprise! I graduated this year, and certainly don't think I'm lacking in analytical or debating skills (I can debate for England and if anything I over-analyse).
I do agree about the system. I utterly lost interest in school when I was not challenged at all. They had a 'gifted and talented' reading group, which literally consisted of work sheets regarding 'they're, there and their' FFS if I'm gifted and talented reading I already know that...

Parents are really responsible for what their children know and the skills they have. Schools are useless really..

A couple of other points: BTECs are generally more vocational than A-Levels in my experience, they test your knowledge, not your English ability.
Secondly, I do think that in fact, top universities can have a negative effect on students, who may be too firmly drilled. We were helped, but encouraged to think for ourselves. Top Universities worry too much about results.

I'm not sure.

I hate the element of "Eee by gum, we had it tougher in our day".

But, in "my day" (1987 for A Levels) an A at A level was an absolute stunner, perhaps 1 in every school.

But I think education has really, really moved on and it is much more "customer led".

Times are different, they still had the cane and no National Curriculum. All of which is unthinkable today.

Maybe our DCs are more able to learn in an environment which is more geared to them than in the past.

It's just Daily Mail tripe.

somebody posted the 1962 O level maths and the 2009 GCSE level maths on one of BarmyArmy's threads. I was staggered by how easy the 2009 paper was in comparison. Some of the questions asked were barely above 11 plus level. I know because I am tutoring my DS for the 11 plus now. I doubt that any 5 year old could have passed the 1962 O level paper.

It's not the children's fault, it's the exam boards that have dumbed it down. I think the Tories may possibly turn things around.

The exams are not easier, the teaching is better.

When I went to secondary school, the teachers taught you anything they felt like. This included dancing on tables, fantastic stories about their lives before they became teachers, random facts in no specific order vaguely related to the subject.

When my DDs were in secondary school, what they were taught was what they were tested on.

The learning was much more structured and focused.

What does it really matter if they are easier? It seems to me that the vast majority of children in the 1950s failed all their exams which seems like a completely pointless exercise.

ScaredofCows - quite.

Why can't teenagers who have worked hard and done well be able to proud for, I dunno, 5 minutes at least?

I agree with UQD. I was the first girl in my secondary school to get all As at A level in 1989, but it's routine now. The teachers do teach to the exam, and the students are better-prepared, but do not have the breadth of subject knowledge that they used to. It's hardly their fault, but a result of the expansion of higher education.

That doesn't quite make sense does it?

I mean of course that they should be allowed to have a sense of achievement and also feel proud of their hard work.

I'm glad to know that about BTECs - it's been a while since I did an A level :)

I'm sure your debating skills are great sky (certainly appear to be) - what I question is if the system is not challenging you and other bright students then school really isn't doing its job. I learned loads of stuff at school that I couldn't possibly have learned at home and it gave me a foundation for my degree. But if students are coming into degrees with fewer skills (and again, I am not denigrating the students, just the system) then they are not going to leave it at the same level either.

It's ridiculous that we can't discuss this subject because it might upset our children. For goodness' sake - isn't it in all our children's interests to have the best education system possible?

I think grade inflation matters, because it undermines the quality of British education. It diminishes our worldwide reputation and eventually foreign students will opt for the US rather than here. It also means our young people are not receiving a top quality education and it means that thousands who get A grades find that they can't get university places. It lets down the students who have worked so hard. Finally it damages our international competitiveness because other countries have a higher standard education system and their kids are at a more advanced level than ours.

"The exams are not easier, the teaching is better"

I don't think it is, not to that extent.

"When my DDs were in secondary school, what they were taught was what they were tested on"

So was I! many moons ago.

i think they are easier. that doesn't take anything away from how hard your children may or may not have worked. when i sat mine, you were graded on what you did on the day and that was it.

People who are saying I am not right about the German thing because it didn't apply to their DC are missing the point. There are several boards. It is likely that they didn't take the one I am referring to.

Thinking about it, if I am wrong (and I could be), then it's about the exam this refers to - it could have been AS Level, not GCSE. But that's even worse if so!

Students don't have a choice in the exams they take. Whilst they can choose subjects, they can't decide to take O-levels from 1970. It seems mean to then tell them that their exams are easy.

UnquietDad
AEB hasn't been an exam board for 10 years

Lady - Thank you! :)
I agree the system is at fault - personally I envy the German system where schools are still separated by ability. I have visited one of the schools and it certainly seems to work. They were busy debating politics in English when we arrived!
They also start school later there, which I think could be extremely beneficial. A German teacher I knew told how her children (educated in the UK) only ever coloured pictures in, while their cousins (educated in Germany) were always drawing their own pictures and being generally more creative. She always put it down to the fact they'd started school later, and had a chance to develop their creativity and personalities before getting trapped in exam obsessed education (the last bit being my words, not hers).

I do think the system fails children by leaving large gaps in their education. (Why are 18 year olds allowed to vote without ever learning about politics?)
I don't have any children myself, but I intend to try and teach my nephew some German in a few years since it looks like he will no longer be required to learn a language in comprehensive school.

I don't think anyone objects to the debate over the quality of education, but rather over it being discussed as 'exams getting easier' and the fact it's ALWAYS raised just when kids get their results. It is unfair.

YANBU.

Have only skimmed the threads here, but I am pretty sick of it too.

There was simply less need to get qualifications in the 'olden days'. It was something that only the well off children did.

Children and their parents and teachers are responding to the market and working very hard and making sure their education counts. GCSE's have coursework as just an examination isn't fair to assess the knowledge that children have-it is more inclusive. It is the same reason that SAT's are unfair-it is not a true picture of a childs ability.

As for teaching to the exam-well with ofsted ratings and league tables...no wonder! Also though on the other hand, without ofsted inspectors, you may end up with teachers like I had who just sat and read the paper through the whole lesson and threw wooden blackboard rubbers at kids when they spoke.

Lastly, sorry going on here, but I actually took O'Levels and GCSE's and I found them as difficult/challenging as eachother and got about the same grades in each!

Well done children getting your GCSE's!!