A level grades

[DolphinFC]

If feel that value of an A grade ar A level has been reduced dramatically. I feel truly sorry for those very bright, hard-working students who would've got an A grade no matter what. Their deserved A grade is now lost in a pile of undeserved A grades.

What would you think it indicates then Bryony?

I think a school could legitimately claim that is their primary function, to help a pupil get the best exam results possible, and that after that it is up to the student and to the university to get the best out of them beyond that stage. I don't think that is necessarily a criticism.

It would seem to indicate that private schools are very good at getting their pupils great A level grades, but not necessarily equipping them to do any better beyond that point

Or to qualify that slightly, some independent schools train their A level students up very well to look good at interview for good Universities; some of these students secure a place but then struggle to perform particularly well after that.

These mediocre students do however get a good University on their CV; presumably that is a large part of the reason their parents paid all that money. It is quite hard to get kicked out of University and quite hard to actually fail a degree so they can have a pleasant time enjoying the social life while they scrape by.

There are of course very able students emerging from independents as well .

@herecomesthsun,

All it is really showing, though, is that independent schools add more ‘value’, so they can coach a natural B grade student to get an A.

Of course, the student has not got ‘brighter’ so, at university, will perform similarly to the B grade student that they are.

Adding exam marks is not that hard, adding real thinking skills is very hard and, to some extent, despite the (poorly evidenced) ‘growth mindset’ that most schools now espouse, is innate.

some of these students secure a place but then struggle to perform particularly well after that.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but is there any actual evidence for that?

I don't think attending a 'good' university has quite the cachet it once did. I guess if you're going into the City or law then posh public school followed by a Durham or an Exeter is still looked at favourably (disclaimer: I know very little about these professions), but so many universities have niche specialisms these days that for a lot of careers you're better off at a mid-ranking university which has a particular strength in your subject than a 'good' one which doesn't.

All it is really showing, though, is that independent schools add more ‘value’, so they can coach a natural B grade student to get an A.Of course, the student has not got ‘brighter’ so, at university, will perform similarly to the B grade student that they are

Are you saying that teaching is pointless? Replace coach with teach and that's what it sounds like. If you have a "B student" at state school and they are taught so well they get an A in the exam, is that "coaching"? Will that student revert to B student at uni?

Your arguments make absolutely no sense, at least @herecomesthensun makes no secret of her need to have a pop at private students

@Bryonyshcmyony,

Nope, you need teaching to gain knowledge. Also, teachers can improve problem solving, but it is harder and slower. Achieving optimally at school exams is also about exam technique, which can be coached. This won’t help at higher levels.

I seem to remember a great teacher vs a bad teacher can make two grades of difference (based on research)

However, no amount of teaching, however brilliant, will enable Joe or Flo Average to do brilliantly at degree level.

However, no amount of teaching, however brilliant, will enable Joe or Flo Average to do brilliantly at degree level

I completely disagree.

Has there been any explanation why there hasn't been a similar inflation in GCSE results this year?

@Bryonyshcmyony

All it is really showing, though, is that independent schools add more ‘value’, so they can coach a natural B grade student to get an A.Of course, the student has not got ‘brighter’ so, at university, will perform similarly to the B grade student that they are

Are you saying that teaching is pointless? Replace coach with teach and that's what it sounds like. If you have a "B student" at state school and they are taught so well they get an A in the exam, is that "coaching"? Will that student revert to B student at uni?

Your arguments make absolutely no sense, at least @herecomesthensun makes no secret of her need to have a pop at private students

Just speaking from my "lived experience".

I would be very surprised if having had your parents send you to a particular school in and of itself makes much difference to career prospects unless

• you went to Eton and want to become a conservative politician

• you went to the same school as your interviewer (and he had positive memories of the place, doesn't always happen)

• you made useful friends and you are applying to a bank where your best friend's dad is managing director.

-being white and male and privately school educated, that sort of thing, I'm sure will tick boxes in some quarters

Other than that, people will be looking at actual qualifications and achievements really, and evidence of initiative is pretty important.

I think that's broadly what I said a few posts earlier herecomesthesun

I'm sure there are instances when it helps, but they are becoming fewer and farther between – and thank goodness for that.I think good teaching makes a massive difference at school, not sure it makes the same sort of difference at university.

Also worth bearing in mind that at a lot of 'good' universities the staff are more interested in their own research than in teaching undergrads, so while a lecturer might be highly accomplished and well regarded in their field, they're not necessarily any good at teaching it. They might be both, but there's no de facto about it.

sorry I think I was replying to your post and got confused as to who said what

I thought teaching & discovering new ideas and how to develop one's thought was very important at University.

However, it was very different to being taught at O Level and A Level.

Some people from independent school backgrounds did really well, others found the different intellectual climate didn't suit them so much.

I think that boarding, funnily enough, might have been quite a good preparation for the old Universities in some ways.

It is interesting how much difference people think teachers can make.

As I said previously, the difference between a great teacher and an awful teacher is probably 2 grades, a great teacher and an ok teacher, probably less than a grade.

Of course, that does not take into account the ‘inspirational’ side. Of course, if a teacher inspires a bright but previously uninterested student, it can make a massive difference.

Realistically, though, what you are born with matters a lot (probably more than 50%). If the worst teacher in a school taught the top set and the best teacher in the school taught the bottom set, the top set would still massively outperform the bottom.

For those interested, the below is a link to a piece of research by Hattie, a well respected educational researcher into just this.

research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=research_conference_2003

It’s not just about the actual teacher, but the teaching they can provide.

An average teacher who has a class of 12 pupils, none of whom have extra needs, and who is teaching in a selective environment so doesn’t have behaviour issues to deal with has a lot more opportunity to make a positive impact than an outstanding teacher who has 34 in the class, 8 of whom have extra needs and who spends half their time firefighting the behaviour issues of a further 6 pupils. The actual teaching time is vastly different even before you get on to equipment differences, parental support etc.

@JustLyra,

Absolutely true, but if you look at Hattie’s pie chart of what influences the outcome, in his opinion:

50% is genetics.
5-10% is parenting.

So, between school, peers (5-10%) and principal, you are still only able to move 45% max of the end result.

Teachers themselves are the majority of the remainder (30%).

The reality is that the vast majority of the population, even with the best Maths teacher in the World, would not pass a Maths A level (picking Maths as an example where genetics is clearest).

Genetics doesn’t account for 50%. That is not what the research shows. Genetics really doesn’t count for very much at all.

Personally, I would be very surprised if there is any evidence at all that parenting is so much less a proportion of outcome than teaching (especially after all the homeschooling we have done).

Although to some extent the 2 go together in that involved parents will go a long way to make sure that the school is right for the child.

Grade inflation is real - feel sorry for the brightest - no way. If the brightest are relying on their a level success to succeed then they are screwed anyway. Hoop jumped through - move on! A levels mean very little!

That article doesn't seem to mention genetics as such at all. It does mention "the student", which makes sense, as clearly if you have an enthusiastic, clever and resourceful student they are more likely to succeed aren't they?

Hard however to separate that out from factors in the home environment around clever, supportive educated parents encouraging learning.

I believe the educational research shows that class size isn't nearly as important as parents tend to think it is.

There are of course related issues such as those which JustLyra touches on (SEN etc), but in the absence of such factors the actual number of pupils in a class is an insignificant aspect of educational outcome.

@herecomesthsun,

Yes, educational research is not great quality, as it is so hard to eliminate confounding factors.

Hattie, however, is one of the more respected of that field and, if anything, his bias is towards teachers making a difference.

The below is a more recent study, lending evidence that when it comes to nature/nurture, it is around 50/50.

The idea, when I was young, that you were either naturally bright or thick, has, thankfully, been debunked. However, the dangerous new orthodoxy in teaching is ‘growth mindset’, which is equally flawed, and puts unnecessary pressure on students and teachers alike.

No, with the right teaching and attitude, anyone cannot do anything they want. Einstein and Hawking had very special genetics.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/have-researchers-settled-nature-vs-nurture-debate/

The high percentage of A grades will certainly dilute and downgrade the result.

Hard however to separate that out from factors in the home environment around clever, supportive educated parents encouraging learning

Quite so. And peers are important too. A motivated child who is surrounded by a similarly enthusiastic/focused friendship group and doesn't get easily distracted can do very well even if they attend a struggling school.

I imagine the opposite is also true, even at a top-performing private or grammar school.

The research does show class size isn't very important for learning, but I think it makes a big difference to teachers, especially in coursework subjects. In my first 5 years of sixth form teaching, my number of students increased from about 35 to about 90 (class size from a max of about 15 to a max of about 30). So my marking load tripled. Needless to say, I left that job and they find it hard to retain teachers in it.

Ah yes, good point Phineyj, I should have clarified that I was meaning in relation to learning, sorry.

I can absolutely see how that would make a whole world of difference to a teacher!

@ShaunaTheSheep

Not the time to post this nonsense. How insensitive.

Indeed