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?

[Dungeondragon15]

The weather, the arrangement of the exams on the day, a new syllabus/changes to the syllabus, and yes varying ability, it doesn't take many higher results to pull the curve upward.

The weather is not going to make much difference in this country. What do you mean by "arrangement of exams"? It would have to be something that affects all schools across the country and even then I doubt it would have much effect. There is no way that ability will change much in one year compared with the previous year if you are looking at 1000s of children across the country. You might as well argue that children could be significantly taller one year compared with the same age the previous year. It just doesn't happen suddenly.

Yes, a new syllabus or changes could make a difference but that is because it could be easier or harder as can the questions!! It's impossible to make the level of difficulty exactly the same if you are teaching different things and asking different questions!

[Dungeondragon15]

Remembering that during O levels, only 20% of the school age population took them, and far fewer students took A levels, we can talk about a tens, or maybe a few hundred results influencing the curve.

It might have been as low as that in the 60s, when children could leave school at 15 before they had taken them, but I'm pretty sure that it was quite a lot higher than that by the 80s. I went to a comprehensive and I would say that about half the year took five or more O levels and many of those that didn't did O levels the following year. A fairly large proportion of those that did five or more O levels went on to do at least two A levels.

[TeenTimesTwo]

I've been wondering about this.

Would it be possible to have a fixed standard to achieve a pass, and only then grade all passes on a bell curve?

This would enable rising standards to ensure all those who deserved it to pass, but would stop or at least hold back the 'grade inflation' aspect?

it seems unfair on the students who work hard and reach a standard that last year would be good enough for a pass, but this year isn't because of fixed pass rates.
Plus how are schools going to show they are improving teaching if overall results are a zero sum game?

[topcat1980]

Grade inflation is a poor term, it implies that the grades are not deserved, they are. Its a much fairer and more democratic way of dealing with the issue.

Setting the standard of a % mark is far fairer than basing it on the year that you are in.

[iamthere123]

I’m 32 and we weren’t allowed texts, or I forgot to take mine - I’m not sure which! That’s all well and good as I love Lit and I can easily memorise stuff that I’m interested in - books, films etc. But for people like my dad that struggle to remember stuff like that it must be so disheartening. He can watch the same episode of Miss Marple theee weeks in a row and still not remember who dunnit!

[IrmaFayLear]

ah, iamthere123, the cruelties of ageing...

You too will find that one day you will be able to remember every detailed plot point of King Lear and three quotes by Gloucester, yet struggle to recall the name of someone you met the day before...

[Fantasticday09]

I think it was higher than 20% too. I went to a small secondary which was 3 form entry. Top set took o levels and the other two sets cse. However those at the top of the middle set double entered. I was one such child and ended up with five o levels including grade b English. Took GCSE this year and found it much harder.

[sashh]

I have a good working memory and would have been fine with memorising texts... but as an employer, in terms of transferable skills I’d much rather see analytical and critical thinking developed. It’s absolute nonsense to put so much emphasis on memorising.

But that's not true of all employers and all employees.

If I turn up at A and E with chest pain I want medical staff who can look at an ECG and start treating me appropriately.

[crunchymint]

Yes I am sure it was much higher than 20%. I went to a school in a very poor area, and it really was the totally unacademic kids who did CSE. Unless you are talking about before 1972, when lots of kids left at 15, so sat no exams. In 1972 the school leaving age was raised to 16.

[crunchymint]

topcat Look at papers over a number of years. They had got easier.

[SharronNeedles]

It's testing a fish and a squirrel on their ability to climb a tree.
Exams are just stupid at the moment.
I was very bright in school. I hardly did any revisions but I did very well in my exams. My teachers used to describe me as effortlessly clever. I was really good at memorising things.
I failed at uni because I had only learned how to pass an exam and absorb facts. I didn't really understand much of what I churned out.
Even now people are often amazed to find out how good I was in school because I do lack some pretty major skills.

[reetgood]

@sashh I would hope that someone operating an ecg is able to critically apply their medical knowledge and analyse the image, rather than memorise it....

[topcat1980]

It was the top 20%, the data supports that.

The exams didn't get easier, just the grades were awarded once boundaries were reached. Limiting the number of grades is an unfair practice because those boundaries vary from year to year and it isn't a fair comparison for achievement outside of your year.

[hairnightmare17]

I haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to say I did my gcse 30 years ago too and got a B. I did Macbeth and can't remember what else. I got that B without reading the play. I would partially pay attention in class. I had a very vague understanding of what it was about and remembered some key phrases...out damned spot, etc.

I'm pretty certain the exam had a few comprehensions, so perhaps I made up marks on those. I was pretty intelligent, at the time and relied on that, rather than actual graft but looking back, can it really have made the difference? Maybe they were just easier then?

My son has done his English gcse recently and worked so hard for it. However, he doesn't grasp themes and meanings as easily as me. So maybe that gave me the edge. He's done it a year early.

He's currently working on his end of year 10 maths and it is so hard. I got a C back in the day but don't think I would ever get that on what he has to do. I'd have to have the most amazing teacher to get me to understand it.

I went on to do English a level and got a D. I didn't read any of those books either! I obviously had a fuzzy understanding but didn't really know the ins and outs. A D would be crap now, whilst it wasn't amazing then I still managed to get into Uni with 2 D's, B and C. Well done to the history teacher, who drummed everything into us and scared me into working. She made me hate history but got me the B.

Anyway my point is, I didn't work nearly hard enough and passed everything. I'm reasonably intelligent but no genius and still passed. So maybe they were easier!

[Cblue]

@hairnightmare17 - sounds like we have very similar experiences of GCSES vs O Levels. When you couldn't be bothered to read the whole book you could get through just skimming the Letts Keynotes (anyone remember them? About 30 in a pack of postcard sized cards. You could pass pretty much anything by spending an hour mins flicking through them)

I did O Levels in the early 80s so perhaps standards had already slumped by then - what years are you guys referring to when you say things are easier now ?

[Solasshole]

The state I went to school in Australia makes English compulsory for anyone doing A levels which is just ridiculous imo I was very good at maths/science subjects at school and had no desire to do anything remotely English or language based at university/career/life in general. My communication and English language was perfectly adequate at 16 years old to function in society and the last 2 years of compulsory English did nothing for me other than bring my average grades down because I despised studying English and am not good at analysing books/poetry/etc. I got A* in chemistry, maths and physics, and B in biology and health studies but couldn't get into the course I wanted to because my average was brought down by my D in English. Such a load of absolute rubbish to force everyone to study English at (the equivalent) of A levels in Australia. I'm still angry about it. They don't force students who want to go into language or arts based careers/degrees/etc to study calculus so why the fuck do they force people who want to go into medicine/science/etc to study Shakespeare at A levels. I got into my chosen career eventually but I guarantee my patients have no benefited at all from those 2 compulsory years of English.

[hairnightmare17]

@Cblue I was the first year to do gcse in 1986. I didn't exactly think they were easy at the time. If I was doing ok, I probably smugly thought i was clever and didn't need to work. Now looking back was I, or were they easier, perhaps it was more likely the latter.

[Cblue]

@hairnightmare17 - I meant that you could wing it in the olden days which you can't now.
Mind you, winging it has been the greatest skill I learnt.....and it's probably more useful than being able to recite entire chunks of a chemistry text book which seems to be the current requirement

[hairnightmare17]

@Cblue oh yes! I see what you mean! I agree re. Winging....I think!!

[topcat1980]

Winging it might be the best lesson of all.

When I realised all other grown ups were making it up as they go along, just like me, I felt a lot better

[DuchyDuke]

They aren’t too difficult, it’s just that as always they seem to be implemented with no thought to how students have spent the past 5 years preparing for them.

[oxcat1]

But surely it is still testing understanding rather than memory? The ability to select from the texts which bits to memorise?

I remember, for all my Eng. Lit exams, pouring through the texts to find 'useful' passages to learn. Some were just very clear examples to support one particular argument, but a 'good' quote, in this instance, was one that could be used in a number of different ways, to answer different questions.

You never learnt it all off by heart, but selecting which passages to learn, and how then yo use them, was part of the skill...?

My degree was in English and marked solely through final examinations, all done without texts.

[reetgood]

@oxcat1 I would be willing to lay down money that gcse students are being directed which passages to memorise. Time, resources, league tables.

[Dungeondragon15]

It was the top 20%, the data supports that.

What data? This link states that from 1976, 36% did O levels of those who were entered for an exam (which was most people btw). My experience was that more than that took some O levels at 16 with many who did CSEs doing o levels a year later.
In 1979, 245,500 people did Maths O level which is a large population.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

hairnightmare17

How did you manage to take GCSEs two years before the first exams were sat?

They were taught from 86.