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.

Wouldn't we be horrified if our children weren't achieving better grades than we were? The teenagers of today have had access to so much information and resource compared to the generation before and with more educated people bringing them up than would ever be the case before.

"the old exam courses without coursework which were phased out and replaced with modulated courses were also considered a failure, wouldn't it?"

well it's either that or that the politicians broke a fixed system deliberately so that they could trumpet improving exam results for their own benefit and for social engineering purposes.

I think it was part of a dumbing down process, and even suspect that the aim is to undermine A levels and introduce the IB as part of some sort of Euro harmonisation procedure.

I agree that teaching methods and exam structures have changed beyond recognition from (ahem) my day. I work with a lot of younger people (in their 20's and 30's) and what I find on a daily basis is that they have very little in the way of broad, general knowledge. It's not their fault; it's what they've been taught to do and what will get them exam passes and good grades. Whereas I went off reading masses of books that weren't strictly to do with passing the actual exam, there's now a tendency to focus very precisely on what is needed to get the result; there seems little point in reading around their subject because it won't help them pass the exam. I'm not saying they're working any less hard, or that their achievement isn't to be celebrated - but the concept of what 'an education' should be has changed massively, I think. I feel I've gained a lifetime's pleasure in being interested in all sorts of subjects, and my idea of heaven is to sit with a book and lose myself. And luckily for me, I wasn't competing with thousands of other teenagers with an array of A* results and very few university places. I wouldn't want to be young today, I have to say!

Yes, I know how to do links but there is no square bracket on an Ipad keyboard, unfortunately. Big problem.

I just don't get it.

If people are complaining that GCSE's are too easy, then what do they want to acheive by saying this? Do they want fewer children with qualifications and therefore more of the population with fewer life chances? Or do they think the market will change to suit this? And, if so, while the market is changing what do the children do in the mean time?

Or do people want to see higher than A grade to differentiate between the rest...in which case we already have the A* grade.

Or is it about competition rather than actual achieving?

There are square brackets on an iPad keyboard.
Click the number nut ton, then the symbol button.

Number button (FFS)

Well, I have just done that and found the square brackets, thanks!

"Do they want fewer children with qualifications"

If everyone can get a great grade, the qualifications are meaningless.

but not everyone does get a grade-that is not true. I know of children who have failed their GCSE's!

it's about quality and not undermining standards. Lower grades would still have value under a more rigorous system. Now it is getting crazy, where more and more As are needed to get into university. Soon 50% of pupils will get As and eventually someone will have the courage to say that the emperor has got no clothes and they will start looking to find the people that destroyed a world respected British education system.

I did hear that there are talks about bringing GCSEs to the age of 14 as standard but I'm not sure how they would fill the 2 year gap that leaves.

"but not everyone does get a grade-that is not true. I know of children who have failed their GCSE's!"

And when i was at school, those are the children who would have been sitting the easier CSE exams rather than O Levels. I don't think they have been done any favours with the current exams, they are being failed by them as much as the extremely bright are.

Yes I want fewer people to gain a piece of paper which means little more than that they attended school/college for a couple of years and filled in an 'exam form' on the correct day.

I want us all to be able to differentiate between our talents. I want our children/young adults to realise that some of them have academic abilities, some have more practical skills, some are born to be carers, and I want our qualification authorities and employers to recognise that all these aspects are important.

Saying "everyone must have 5 GCSE s" then lowering the standard so that everyone can get them is pointless.

Lego - there are thousands more students applying than there are university places available. So something, somewhere has to give. When I went to school on the brightest went to university - if it's something that everyone expects to achieve then it's just an extension of school.

I want exams that truly test children - that make the bright ones work really hard to get their grades. Having got a double distinction a few years' ago when I did my BTEC I didn't feel anywhere near the satisfaction that I did when I got Bs at A level because I worked my socks off to get them. We're denying our young people the chance to really challenge and stretch themselves and that doesn't do them any favours whatsoever.

When I did GCSEs at my inner city state school, the second year after they were introduced, I was well taught by my teachers on a large variety of topics. Some of it had a coursework component, some of it was a case of revise all the topics and it is the luck of the draw what comes up on the day.

From what I gather, these days, teachers are forced to teach a much narrower syllabus, and they are teaching what the kids are going to be examined on. Therefore, there is a less scattergun approach, and a much greater chance of exam success.

However, the children end up less well educated. They do not have a broad base of knowledge. It is not fair on them. The whole thing is devalued.

But additionally the bar has been lowered a lot.

Both my parents and several of my friends work in Higher Education (where believe me, things are pretty shit these days, teaching standards have fallen as staff pursue their compulsory research and publishing) - they have no doubt that grades are vastly inflated over the last 20 years and in fact many universities have to run remedial courses to correct this.

Some kids doing English Lit GCSEs do not even read the whole text, just excerpts that they are going to be examined on.

I had the opportunity to tackle a GCSE biology paper from a couple of years ago (experiment with teacher friend) and I scored 92% - and I didn't even do GCSE biology! All my answers were remembered from science lessons years 7-9 (18 years ago) - if that doesn't indicate that they have got easier then I don't know what does.

It is not the kids fault - many of them do work hard and would rise to the challenge if the exams were tougher - it is the education system that is at fault here.

Its all the continuous assessment nonesense that bothers me in the exams kids take today.

In my day 32 years ago there were 2 exams in maths O Level as there was in all the other subjects. You sat there for 4 hours and that was it. There were no retakes, very little course work if any and proper subjects.

Only 10% got an A. Now huge numbers get an A. That statistic alone proves they must be easier. Not saying the kids dont work hard but the fact is the best candidates do not get a chance to stand out.

Even an average candidate gets an A now.

I see what you are saying, but where is the actual proof/evidence from someone who actually knows. I don't mean some layperson saying they think it's harder/easier, I mean an academic bod. Are standards really lowered-where is the hard academic proof??

As for CSE's-wasn't that why GCSE's were introduced? It was a combination of O'levels and CSE's. Was it not also in part because the education system was failing working class pupils, there was a divide. Now it is more equal, not enough, but more. CSE's were like writing pupils off at age 13. GCSE's were meant to be more inclusive weren't they?

Off the top of my head, employers want GCSE's/qualifications now, no matter what job you you want they all want qualifications. Lots of people apply for uni, and lots of people do not get there. Even fewer now with the cuts. But, what choice do young people have when employers demand what they do. It is all market driven. Maybe that is where the problem lies?

I know what you are saying, but those children 'born to be carers' or more 'practical' children, are they likely to be the ones from private schools? I think not. Where is all the manufacturing work for those children who don't get GCSE's for example?

The market has changed, jobs have changed. These jobs these days mostly require todays qualifications don't they? Is it the chicken or egg?

Of course I could be wrong and I know you will all let me know!

there are lots of articles from academics admitting that standards have fallen, but the professional liars (politicians), particularly the socialist social engineers keep on saying that they are rising

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/apr/29/ministers-meddling-threatens-exam-standards

ClumsyMum is so right, and this is why Tony Blair wanting 50% of people to go to uni is such a nonsense - 50% don't need to go to uni, 50% of jobs aren't graduate level, so a load of 18 year olds are fighting to get into uni to do slightly pointless degrees that won't get them a job and leave them up to their eyes in debt. And schools should be making this clear to sixth formers, and their parents too, otherwise I feel they are being sold a dream that won't come true, which is so unfair on them. And it suggest that those who don't go to uni have failed in some way which again is so wrong.

Oooh, it makes me quite cross. Surely schooling should be about preparing people for life, and that life can be incredibly varied, and that one way is not 'better' than another.