Read this.

[teejay100000]

www.cps.org.uk/cps_catalog/why%20can%27t%20they%20read.pdf

"Explain why Pope Urban II called for a crusade at Clermont in 1095"

Please enlighten me Breton. I'm not a historian and very clearly I'm not nearly as clever as you are.

I don't think Benton is referring to the history content rather the poor wording of the question which could indicate that the Pope called for a crusade to take place at Clermont not that while attending the Council of Clermont the Pope called for a crusade ...?

mrz - thank you - but I thought 5candles could have worked it out herself!

HE isn't that elitist when my DSS got an offer last year for something like 3 Ds for a biological science (or somesuch) course

and I did A levels in 2006, yes I worked hard but they were definitely not difficult. it was so easy to be taught 'to the exam'. there was a lot of 'oh don't worry about that, they won't ask you that' etc. essay questions - especially in Law - were formulaic. it was all a bit of a joke TBH.

I was 'famous' among the faculty in my college for getting good results but I'm not some genius for getting straight As (IIRC I would've got A*s if they were available then) - I just knew how to play the system so to speak, I was good at working out what the question wanted.

MMM fivecandles is now going to ask if it was for an "old" university ...

lol. Portsmouth I think. he turned it down because for some reason he wants to do another A level. he is naturally a sharp lad, but he is one of those people who, we suspect, will be wasting his time going off to uni. such a shame and a waste of potential.

FWIW, I got into York uni (but turned it down as we decided to have babies!) - but was rejected by Oxford

(I did have an interview for Oxford BTW, just didn't cut the mustard!)

Fivecandles wrote: ?Maybe you were supposed to have a wide general knowledge but this was never ASSESSED.?

In my day it was. Your essay was marked taking into account the breadth of your knowledge of the text under consideration, the connections you could make with other similar/relevant works (not necessarily on the reading list) and your understanding of how that author's ideas and experiences affected their work.

Fivecandles wrote: ?And I'm loving the idea that all A Level literature students of yesteryear were widely read and keen.?

Of course not all A level students were the same but you have to remember that when I did my A levels it really was only a select few who got into Sixth form. Irrespective of whether it was fair or not you had to meet the required minimum standard. It wasn?t open to all and sundry. You could delay A levels and re-sit O levels to improve your grades but you had to have the required grades to get on to an A level course. Of course there would have been some A level students who didn?t put the effort into their studies but they either failed or got a low grade result which precluded them from being considered for university. They could re-sit to improve their grades, and some did.

Fivecandles wrote: Not in my college they weren't and yet they still managed to get A and B grades.?

Yes but when I took my A levels such candidates wouldn?t have obtained As and Bs. That is part of the point that I have been attempting to make over the past few days. Too many candidates nowadays ARE getting As and Bs when they clearly don?t merit those results. Why is this?

I don't wish to appear unkind, but you, who are a teacher of English to A level, couldn't recognise the syntactical problem contained in that A level History question.

I got what was considered 1986 to be really good A'levels with two Bs, a C and an E. A girl I work with now who is 24 does not even mention her E at A'Level because it is now worthless. She was really surprised that we did not get A* and I said they just did not exist as an A was really good then.

With my grades I was accepted at all the universities I applied to. I got a choice. I did not bother with Oxbridge, nowhere near clever or hardworking enough, plus you had to do an O'level in latin or greek on top of your A'Levels because we did not do it at school.

My kids will think I am really thick nowadays. Having said that my mom only got two GCEs from her grammar school in the 50s and my father thought she was a snob for that so perhaps things do have to keep developing but when you get to work, nobody is really bothered how well you did, it is more how hard you work and how creative you are so it is a real leveller.

Was 1986 a typo fsmail? Oxford and Cambridge dropped Latin O level from their matriculation requirements in the 60s - but surely you're not that old! But you are right that 4 A levels in the 80s was unusual and they certainly didn't give out top grades like they do today. I think the syllabuses were broader and woolier then too, but it may well also be true that todays teaching is more exam focussed.

Oh, good lord. Well, I sort of assumed that A Level historians would be able to work that one out!!

'In my day it was. Your essay was marked taking into account the breadth of your knowledge of the text under consideration, the connections you could make with other similar/relevant works (not necessarily on the reading list) and your understanding of how that author's ideas and experiences affected their work. '

That's such a load of shite, frankly. Where is your evidence? You were asked a question like 'Discuss the character of Macbeth' and given a mark out of 20. There were no different assessment objectives and impression markign was rife.

When did you sit your A Levels? I still have examples of papers I sat. There was no requirement for wider reading at all. And no unseen texts. No requirement for comparison at all and no sense of looking at literature by genre or historical period. And no coureswork. And you had 2 years to prepare. And you only had to do 3 A Levels.

Honestly you are sounding increasingly ignorant as well as petty minded.

I'm surprised you even passed your A Levels given you know so little about them.

'Irrespective of whether it was fair or not you had to meet the required minimum standard.'

How many bloody times????

There is still a 'required minimum standard'. Our college which is a widening participation college requires a minimum of 5 Cs at GCSE including maths and English and some subjects such as French and Maths requiring B grades.

That is low compared to many colleges and schools many of which require B grades at least in the subjects to be studied at A Level and some requiring a mixture of A and B grades as a minimum

And, once again, your experience is just that. You cannot speak for the way things were.

At my college I don't remember any minimum entry requirement at all and that was 20+ years ago.

'Yes but when I took my A levels such candidates wouldn?t have obtained As and Bs. That is part of the point that I have been attempting to make over the past few days. Too many candidates nowadays ARE getting As and Bs when they clearly don?t merit those results. Why is this?'

Your arguments are based purely on your own personal and rather limited perception. How can you possibly know that candidates who got As and Bs without wider reading when I took my A Levels wouldn't have got those grades when you took yours?

When did you take your A Levels?

Who says that 'too many candidates nowadays are getting A and B grades'? That is a subjective judgement. There is no 'correct' number of A and B grades.

In whose view do those students not 'merit' those results? Again that is subjective. It is your opinion. It is not a fact.

There is no more evidence to say that my students who get A or B grades are any less deserving than you were to get what grades again?

Have you heard of the Tomlinson report? An inquiry into exactly the concerns about A Level standards expressed here. Ultimately it concluded that there is no objective measure of standards because of the ways in which syllabus and subjects change but suggested measures which could help to ensure standards are consistent in future years. You can read it here:

image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Education/documents/2002/12/03/alevelinquiry.pdf

It says, 'Finally I believe it to be vital that there is greater public understanding
of the examination process and that as a consequence there is an end to the
annual argument about A level results. The standard has not been lowered if
an increased proportion of students meet it as a consequence of improved
teaching and hard work.'

Your personal perception which really does sound like old lady speak (Ooh, dear, back in my day) is not supported with any evidence other than your rather suspect and rose-tinted personal memories and your own perception.

Interestingly, I have failed a number of students in the A Level unit that I've marked this summer for precisely Breton's sort of woolly reasoning: failing to support arguments with evidence but relying instead on assertion, generalisation and anecdote.

This is interesting reading to all you golden age people:

'In 1957, an English literature O-level report concluded that ?too many candidates ? were unable to understand the question paper?, while a 1960 A-level maths report also complained that ?many candidates clearly had no understanding of the subject matter of most questions?. A literature O- level report in 1956 noted that ?whole groups are entered in which no more than a quarter have any chance of passing?.

Crucially, the examiners stressed these were not isolated instances. They were discussing, remember, England?s brightest youngsters. Yet if the top set in an average comprehensive school today were to be prepared for a 1950s O-level paper, would a quarter fail? And most modern top sets contain a wider range of ability than grammar schools in the past.

Furthermore, were papers in the past really as difficult as their selective use by national newspapers suggests? Dr Peter Knight, a university vice-chancellor, comments that a ?great wodge of the material I did at A-level (maths) is no longer on the syllabus and rightly so: some of the material regarded as degree level in the 1960s is now on the A- level syllabus?.

English language O-level papers would appear laughable to its target group today, the brightest 20 per cent. Essay titles from the 1959 paper, which I sat, included ?Pleasures of life in a large town?, ?Washing day? and ?Coach tours?. Candidates were asked to explain the meaning of ?humility? and show the alternative meanings of words such as ?vice? and ?lap?. Is this truly beyond today?s brightest 16-year-olds?

Even if critics were correct and examinations had become easier, this would hardly ?prove? that overall standards had dropped. One would need to determine by how much the standard had fallen in relation to the numbers taking the exam.'

www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6027579

And this from the same article:

'Detailed, subject-by-subject research by the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority and its successor, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), has not shown evidence of the wholesale slippage in standards assumed so readily by critics. Cambridge Assessment has looked at standards over time in both key stage 2 and key stage 4 English. It found that ?the experimental evidence from all subjects and key stages indicated that there has been a substantial real improvement in children?s achievement?. Although they thought national tests had exaggerated the extent of the improvement (due to teaching to the test), there had still been ?significant gains in achievement?.

Another comparison by Cambridge Assessment of GCSE English scripts of 2004 with those of 1993 and 1994, and with O-level scripts in 1980, indicated an overall improvement in standards. Spelling was better in 1980 than in either the 1990s or in 2004, but in all other respects - content, writing, vocabulary and punctuation - the scripts of 2004 were better than those of 1993 and 1994, and as good (if not better) than those of 1980, when far fewer pupils took the examination. Significantly, the improvements had taken place at all levels, not just among the brightest pupils.

Those who say there has been no real improvement in school standards also seem to happily ignore half the population. Can critics really deny that the educational levels achieved by girls have risen massively over the past 30 to 50 years? The reasons may lie partly beyond the school gates, but there is overwhelming evidence that girls have made enormous progress at every stage from pre-primary to higher education. Furthermore, international studies have demonstrated that one of the biggest determinants of a child?s success at school is the educational level attained by its mother, especially in higher secondary education.

The percentage of girls achieving A-levels rose almost 400 per cent from the cohort born in the 1940s to that of the 1960s, most the products of comprehensive education. Many of the latter now have children who have taken, or are approaching, GCSEs or A-levels. In the light of this, why is it so surprising that there has been an explosion both in the numbers taking public examinations and of those achieving higher grades? For all the allegations of deliberately lowered standards, the improvement was predictable and should surely be welcomed and built upon.'

And this!

'A recent survey showed that most 55- to 65-year-olds lack the maths skills expected of a nine-year-old today.

An examiners? report on O-level English literature in 1956 noted that ?whole groups are entered in which no more than a quarter have any chance of passing?.

This year?s OCR examiners? report on English GCSE stated that examiners were ?very impressed with the overall quality of the entry in this session and there was general agreement that standards were higher than on any other occasion?. It added: ?Many grizzled examiners found themselves astonished at the levels of emotional maturity and sophisticated understanding displayed by 15- and 16-year-old candidates in a 45-minute exam.?

I'll shut up in a minute but this is lovely because it shows how little has changed although the marking schemes have become more formalised and objective.

Sample history questions from 1951,1970 and 1990:

'June 1951
Paper 4
Question
15. What claims has Napoleon I to be regarded as a military leader of genius?

Marking guidance
No formal guidance was provided. Examiners relied on experience and comparator scripts that benchmarked performance
at different grades to assess responses.
Marking guidance
Marking schemes were provided. These were basic and allowed considerable freedom to reward original and innovative
responses. Comparator essays and the examiner?s team leader were the main point of reference.

June 1970
Paper 5
Question
21. Discuss the merit and faults of Napoleon either as a military commander or as the ruler of France.

June 1990
Paper 13
Question

1. Examine the view that Napoleon I gave France order at the expense of liberty.

Marking guidance Examiners were instructed to assess candidates on their ability to demonstrate: ? The ability to make effective use of relevant factual knowledge to demonstrate an understanding of a historical period or periods in outline and of particular topics in depth. ? The ability to evaluate and interpret source material as historical evidence and to demonstrate facility in its use. ? The ability to distinguish and assess different approaches to, interpretations of, and opinions about the past. ? The ability to express awareness of change and continuity in the past. ? The ability to present a clear, concise, logical and relevant argument. Additional guidance was provided on what a candidate might cover in his or her responses.

And the

Rollacoaster said:

"'Didactic', I believe, is about 'instruction' rather than 'teaching'.

Teaching can be done in many ways, to suit all types of learning: visual, audio, kinaesthetic, etc. Children can be actively involved in their own learning process.

'Instruction' on the other hand, implies that the children are not actively learning, but passively absorbing what the teacher is saying. This will not address all learning styles. "

Well you can't get more didactic than that. Shame she has blindly followed learning style hypothesis and not actually read the evidence (or more to the point, the lack of evidence) behind the hypothesis. She'll be recommending Brain Gym next.

What evidence behind what hypothesis tj?

fivecandles you are making some very good points. But how do you square the reports from the educational establishment and politicians, some of whom have a vested interest, with what universities themselves have been saying for a number of years.

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/3342827/Half-of-all-universities-have- to-teach-remedial-maths-and-English.html"

Couldn't it be argued that the reason for the failure of a quarter of the students taking O-level in 1950 was because the exams were difficult? Especially as in 1950, only the brightest students in the country were entered for the exams. Or do you think that this generation is really much brighter than the brightest in 1950? How does this tie up with universities having to lay on remedial classes which were not necessary in the past?

It does look like the marking schemes are much more formalised today than in the past. But isn't some of the officialese a bit like teaching granny to suck eggs?

Maybe things like
"The ability to present a clear, concise, logical and relevant argument."
were taken as read in the past? Could some of today's instructions be considered as spoonfeeding examiners?

clickable link is

to-teach-remedial-maths-and-English.html

nope, try again
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/3342827/Half-of-all-universities-have-to-teach-remedial- maths-and-English.html