ofqual says exams have become easier

[Ouluckyduck]

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/may/01/gcse-alevels-easier-says-ofqual?newsfeed=true

I really hope they turn this around, it's not doing anyone any favours.

The Times run a similar article and printed a GCSE Biology question which basically involved interpreting a very basic bar chart. My fairly average year 1, 6 year old DD could answer it without any help from me and that included reading the question

I wish Ofqual would just fuck off - the kids taking the exams now have no choice - and being told their exams are worth less than other years is an insult quite frankly.

Ironically, I have a copy of last January's AQA biology Higher Tier Unit 3 paper beside me as DD is revising, I don't think it is possible to answer any of the questions based on general knowledge. So that makes me think that the question in The Times was for the lower tier and maybe a warm up question to give candidates some confidence. Looking at this biology paper compared to the ones I did many years ago for O' level, I am struck by how much more analysis is required, not just rote learning and regurgitation which is what I remember. I also did a multiple choice paper all those years ago which from memory was I think was about 40 per cent of the mark - I imagine if they had those now people would be screaming and clamouring about how easy it was.

And what exactly do you think making the exams harder will achieve for most of the children who have to take them? How will making them harder being doing anyone any favours do you think? Making exams harder is good because.....??

"Making exams harder is good because.....??"
... the raised standards may come just in time to avoid three A*s being the standard offer in some universities, when three Cs were good enough twenty odd years ago.

The current standard offer is already two A*s and and A. That's all but unworkable especially when students struggle with basic skills when they're on the courses.

One would hope they could avoid the worst examples from before and now, in any review of papers.

Beingfluffy I really hope you're right - I'd hate to think that the exams had been dumbed down to a year 1 level! I assume (hope) that The Times chose a deliberately simple question

When exams are set the examiners have to set some questions at every level. Naturally those aimed at grade G will be very easy and it is always those questions that newspapers trot out to illustrate how easy exams are which is totally flawed. They quite probably are getting easier, but you need to look at more than the easiest question to judge that.

"The current standard offer is already two A*s and and A" There are very few courses anywhere for which this is the standard offer, it's certainly not a generic standard offer.

faintpinkline, believe me, the standards in teaching and exams are higher than they were 30 years ago.

I went to a well reputed girls grammar school in London. I did no work for the two years. I did my O' levels and somehow managed to pass the 8 I was entered for, mainly by question spotting and memorising just before the exam. I deserved a U grade for my Geography for example as I knew nothing and literally made it up but got an A. On the other hand the only subject I was good at, English Lit, I just got a C. I got 3 As at A level by using the same study (or more accurately non-study) technique. Even the teachers thought the allocation of grades was more or less random, at the whim of the exam boards.

My DD is a clever girl (much cleverer than me) knows a great deal more than I ever did at 15 or 16, works hard and should get mainly A/A*. The teaching has improved dramatically and the exam boards reflect the work put into teaching to the syllabus which it never did in my day. Be assured the exams are different but more challenging in my view.

I agree with Being Fluffy. My dd is doing GCSEs and looking at her Unit 3 biol and chem papers today, there are some questions there that really need thinking about. My head hurt and my eyes swam (I have a very rusty degree in science and do not remember having to think at O level very much at all. Biology certainly was mostly learning diagrams of the body).

SO it is easy for a paper to publish one question, often from the foundation paper or one of the easier warm up ones. People should try doing question 8 on C3!

I don't know anything about grade boundaries work, whether it is hard enough to get an A/A*, etc. But i agree that it is very unfair on the children currently sweating their way through hard practice papers to simplify like this - and that's another things that has changed - past papers on internet, mark schemes, there, everything.

The trouble is that no-one can agree what exams are for. Are they
a) an indicator that the student has absorbed and can regurgitate a certain level of knowledge, in which case everyone can (in theory) get an A grade, or
b) an indicator of how a student ranks within their cohort, in which case most students would get a C grade with a small minority at each end of the spectrum getting an A or a E grade.

I think that it would solve a lot of problems if we had (a) for GCSE and (b) for A Levels.

Good point senua. I'm afraid I see school qualifications simply as notes of experience and indicators of next steps. So a C means nothing either way if it does the job. You call someone "Dr" when you go for treatment, you don't challenge them as to why they got three Cs while you have three As and can't even make the undergraduate Biochemistry course.

A A A is not only the standard offer in the more sought after universities, but they also have their own tests of suitability to further differentiate potential. So, I suppose if we continue as we are, it doesn't really matter because all that is needed is to design more tests of real potential that do the job of sorting out which students can cope.

I can't understand all the talk about how difficult GCSEs are, 16+ exams have always been ones children had to "sweat" over. Whether you sweat them at 9 or 11 or 13 or 16 could indicate the change in standards. We have so many more young children achieving 16+ exams these days. Good teaching goes a long way, but to say that standards are similar does not make them similar. The more academic schools have to run their own tests for sixth form applicants exactly because potential is not necessarily obvious from GCSE results. Again, it's no matter if standards stay as they are, since better opportunities are already subject to extra tests used to supplement GCSEs and A levels.

Hope that won't give rise to cries of unfairness. After all, additional tests of potential and competence are open to all. There will always be some "universities" that don't use them and still charge £9000 tuition. So everyone can access a degree, and tell themselves that all degrees are the same.

Thirdhill, can you point to a link to show that the standard offer for "the more sought after universities" is AAA, as it does not seem likely to me.

I know people with substantially lower offers than that for RG universities, for example.

According to this www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14558490, 27% of grades last year were A or A*, with most of these being As.

Basically agree with senua.

However, if you decide that a GCSE is to demonstrate that the student has absorbed and can regurgitate a certain level of knowledge and that therefore everyone can get an A grade, you still have to set the A grade to the level of knowledge that everyone can absorb.

And in that case, what's the point of having grades? It should be like the driving test - entirely clear what the point of the test is, not much argument about what the test subject has to demonstrate, and you either pass of fail.

Actuallly, now I have rambled a bit I might have argued myself out of agreeing with you.

The problem perhaps with GCSEs is what is their purpose? The purpose is different for different pupils. Some are for instance studying Physics as the first stage in a career as a scientist or engineer. They have to learn certain things to progress to the next stage of their training. For others a Science GCSE is going to function mainly to show colleges or employers that they have a basic ability to pay attention and revise and apply themselves. The same goes for other subjects, such as my French O level which left me unable to speak French but acted basically as an IQ test for employers.