New GSCEs too difficult?

[Trishtrash]

"In GCSE English it's all exams – there is no coursework – and pupils are not allowed to bring in any of the texts. They effectively have to memorise three texts and 18 poems. The expectation is killing them.'

The above is a quote from today's Daily Mail - sorry!

Am I being unreasonable to think that that is not an unreasonable thing to require of an A-Level Student? I did my A-Levels over 30 years ago in a bog-standard comprehensive and we couldn't do any coursework ahead of the game and we certainly couldn't take any of the texts into the exam (that would have made it so much easier!!).

I remember having to memorise vast swathes of poetry (Keats, Wordsworth, Somerset Maugham etc...) and chunks of text (Doris Lessing, Return of the Native, A Winter's Tale are ones that I vaguely remember) in the expectation that we would need to quote from the poetry/texts to support a variety of themes/ideas that we might be asked questions on.

I have no idea about the rest of the curriculum as I did Art, English and History. I definitely had to memorise tons for the History element (I did modern History so stuff about Russian Revolution, WW1 & 2 and the EEC). I know that kids are under enormous pressure now and I got an A for my English Literature but there was no A* around then from what I remember (it WAS a long time ago!)

Is the problem that the teachers haven't been adequately prepared or supported to teach for this style of exam? If the kids are going in after two years of expecting another style of exam then I really feel for them but is this the case?

Uyulala

There were meant to be controls around 'Controlled Assessment'. There was neither the time nor the willingness to implement them in the schools I worked in.

Student A thinks his CA is on
Tuesday P4 but his teacher has been ill and the only time an English specialist can be arranged for cover is Monday so instead it's been moved to Monday P5. He didn't bring his textbook on Monday and school has no spares so they say okay, he can do it on Wednesday when the teacher is back. There is nobody to supervise on Wednesday so he does it in the faculty office on his own, where he accesses his phone and plagiarises an essay he finds online.

Happened constantly, and many iterations of the same problem. If you insist hundreds of thousands of people do multiple assessments in a classroom environment, at least some of them are going to be unreliable in the final grading.

Uyulala

I don't think you can do very well in an exam without having worked at least consistently during school, no.

Yes, some kids mess up on the day and don't do quite as well as they might have done on a different day, but generally, most kids do their best.

I agree that MFL exams had become a joke. They were just a memory test and I agree that you could potentially do quite well in a language that you had no prior knowledge of: just learn a few paragraphs off by heart and bob's your uncle. (Personal experience here - I took another GCSE language a couple of years ago.)

I have just acquired an O Level French paper to show dd. Blimey! How we did it I have no idea. The translations were brutal and back in those days there was no "approved" vocabulary list to learn in advance. You had to write a story using past and imperfect tenses and in this particular paper the picture story was of boys eating poisonous mushrooms and being ill. If you didn't know the words for poisonous or mushrooms you were sunk!

environment, at least some of them are going to be unreliable in the final grading.

Yes, but I'm also of the opinion that some exam results are going to be unreliable in their assessment.

Uyulala

They might be, but the difference is, the exam result won't be any better than it ought to be. It might be worse, but that isn't going to concern a university or employer as much as endemic inflation of what someone is capable of is going to.

I don't think you can do very well in an exam without having worked at least consistently during school, no.
You should see some of my old report sheets then. Then the grade I received in the exam. Even I was fucking shocked tbh. But then we had study leave and I actually spent it studying, and my homework was always better than what I produced in lesson. The ability and knowledge was there, I was just easily distracted in class.

This improved when I moved to a college where I didn't know anybody!

I had no idea there was an approved vocabulary list. When I did French O Level we had to answer questions in french about a newspaper article in french, where a cleaner had got stuck on the lift and died. It was hard.
The language lab test I remember having a series of cartoon drawings telling a story about a chip pan fire, and we had to say in french what was happening.
There are sample O level maths papers here for 2018. They are not A Level or degree material, but simply a range of easy and hard questions exploring O level style knowledge

www.cambridgeinternational.org/programmes-and-qualifications/cambridge-o-level-mathematics-d-4024/past-papers/

When I look at actual sample papers for 2018, they all look reasonable for O level. Yes of course there will be some very hard questions in there. There is no other way to differentiate the top students from other students.

I honestly can't believe how much everything seems to have changed in such a short period (or at least it feels that way) of time. It makes me feel old

((please don't take that as an insult - those that did O-Levels etc, not meant that way))

Uyulala

If you didn't work at school - over a period of years - it doesn't matter how hard you studied during study leave. Unless you got every mark going, you didn't achieve to your potential. And that's okay - your life! - but let's not pretend most students who don't work hard do as well as students who do. They don't. They might well pass, but their marks will not reflect their ability.

I can't help thinking that we may need to come full circle and have some sort of CSEs (renamed).

I think all kids need to display functional Maths and English and probably some basic Science. Like SATS, really.

Everyone taking the same exam (and plenty doing very badly) is demoralising and wasteful. Taking strings of GCSEs is unnecessary for many kids.

The UK system is piss easy.

Try sitting the Bac

The Bac isn’t comparable to GCSEs. It’s more accurate to compare GCSEs to the diplôme national du brevet. The Bac is comparable to A levels and I would agree that both the French Bac and the IB better combine breadth and rigour than A levels do.

The Times was saying on Sunday that private schools will look like they have done a lot better, as they mostly do IGCSEs which are deemed to be a bit easier (they have coursework, for a start). These are also graded 1-9 which seems a bit unfair.

Dd2 is doing IGCSE English lit and there is no coursework.

IGCSEs used to be seen as harder (than the old GCSEs) - that was one reason that one private school I worked at did them! I wouldn’t be surprised if new GCSE was now harder but I don't know as I’m not familiar enough with the content of a wide enough range of them. English Language IGCSE was harder than old English Language GCSE in my opinion.

I agree about an alternative exam, Irma. Maths showing you have basic competency and ability like you’ll need in many jobs, and wold be good to be able to show you had a good grade in it (even if you’d be felled by the harder maths GCSE). English testing comprehension and ability to write reasonably competently in a range of registers, without needing a fab memory or extensive vocabulary. That’s what a lot of people need, and would be able to do, without being made to feel like stupid failures for however many years the GCSE is taught at school.

My DD was the first year to sit the new English and maths GCSEs last year. She said that they were hard but she always remembered to look around and she saw everyone who had done GCSEs and Alevels and it made her believe that she could do it! Maybe try that advice with any children you have preparing for GCSEs. She achieved 7s when she sat hers

IGCSE is now easier than GCSE in the view of the teachers at the schools DDs go to - there is also the grade boundary thing to consider where an A can be seen as a middle 8, so a high 8 or 9 is considered "better" than an A (for IGCSEs which maintain the letter system)

First World Problem, I know, but what will Oxbridge do about the new numbers? Ds and his crew were just told 6A*s minimum to apply (I know, I know, not necessarily, but Oxford especially appears to have this sift) so will it be minimum number of 9s? . I guess it will (as intended) sort the wheat from the chaff but they'll have about 23 applicants!

"The UK system is piss easy. Try sitting the Bac"

The Bac isn't an equivalent to a GCSE, and is less in depth than A levels,. compared to the new A levels its a walk in the park.

Ds went to a school event at Cambridge in March where they said they would treat 8s and 9s as the same for admissions purposes

@topcat1980
I was drawing parallels between the bac and a levels.

And yes a levels are piss easy in comparison.

Who cares how in-depth they are? With the bac you have to actually study "hard" subjects whether or not you have any affinity to them, the point being to produce adults with a broad grasp of most subjects.

With a levels you could just study English and drama and get into university.

Is the Bac the same as the ibac?

I would say no @Gretol .