What Mr Gove doesn't tell you about O levels

[TimeChild]

Well, if Mr G has his say, our dc will be taking O levels before long. There is one thing about the old system that's never discussed and I want to shout it from the rooftops (and mumsnet is the closest I get to it )

He says O levels are better because only a few managed top grades compared to the masses in the dumbed down GCSEs. The facts are correct but the reason is NOT, because O levels were not necessarily harder.

The true reason is that O levels were marked in a NORMATIVE way. What this means is that the grades were marked so that they fell into a normal distribution (a bell curve) so that the vast majority received the middling grades and a few got the top and bottom grades. The grades were deliberately massaged so that this was always the case. So even if in one year, there was a particularly good cohort, still only a few got the top grades. The logical conclusion is that the grade you got depended on how good you were relative to your cohort. It also meant that an A grade one year did not necessarily compare equally to one in another year.

GCSE's did away with this frankly useless system of marking. It uses a CRITERION method of assessment. This is where a benchmark is set, so that to get an A, the student had to reach some objective level of knowledge/skills. Anyone achieving that or above would get the grade. This system is much fairer as a student is assessed for him/herself not in relation to every one else. You can also compare students across years as long as the criterion used stays the same.

I am not sure what form of assessment Mr G is planning in the new improved O levels. What I am sure of is that he is deliberately misleading the public about the true worth of the O levels vis a vis GCSEs.

PS I know this as I was there as a teacher when we converted from O levels to GCSE. Perhaps he is hoping that old dinosaurs can't remember. This one does!!

My teachers always said Olevels were designed to fail you whereas GCSEs are designed to pass you. Hence why we are where we are today

OP are you living in some kind of fantasy world? Where exactly is your evidence of this throw-back to a former style of marking?

MoreBeta you said "I want not only normalisation but a single standard exam in each subject at O and A level for the entire country so that you know if you get an A in whatever subject you are always in the top 5%. That would stop the race to the bottom"

There were several exam boards for O and A'levels, with differences between them.
But I agree that one exam board and one exam would help ensure fairness.

I think we should sort out the failings of GCSEs rather than scrap them in favour of a two or three tier system.

I took my O'levels in 1981, A'levels in 1983.

"unlike now where we have almost got to the situation where an A/A* is the norm, and anything less than perfection is seen as a failure"

This sort of comment makes lower grades seem like a failure, but the stats simply do not bear it out. We should stop making these comments - many children work extremely hard, over two years of endless modules and CAs, for their high grades.

JCQ 2011 stats:

23.2% A and A*
69.8% A* to C

I am sure that there are things that could be improved about GCSEs but these are the facts.

Ameliagrey, I can't find a link right now, but I'm fairly certain that when the 'return to O levels' was announced, it did include the suggestion that there would be a return to normative marking.

I don't think it's the marking so much of these exams that is the point; it's the content of the syllabuses and the type of exam questions- such as multiple choice, coursework and pre-released material as some examples.

I took my O levels amd A levels long before most people who have posted here so far- and then began teaching.

A very simple point I'd make is that the current GCSEs appear to have been dumbed down so they have become more like CSEs of the past.

It's almost impossible to have one exam which stretches the best , considering the range of the pass grades of the old O levels- which went from grade 1 to 9 ( 6 being the lowest pass grade, 7,8, 9 being a fail) , and CSEs which had their own grading system with a Grade 1 being equal to a low O level pass.

I thought O levels went from A to E then F was fail?

Grade 1 CSE was in theory equivalent to a C at O level (this was 80s btw)

twoterrors That was my point! Under normative marking and assuming the population has a normal distribution, then we should expect that 84% of entries would get a C, 13% would be B or D and only 3% would be A or E. Most students would be average, get the (expected!) average mark and be content & pleased with it. It is ridiculous to have 25% of the population being marked as 'excellent' - in fact that was why they had to invent the A* grade, to differentiate 'really excellent' from 'ordinarily excellent'.

Takver- I'm older than you think.

Mine show grades from 1 to 9.

Grades 1-2 became an A, 3-4 a B, and 5-6 a C.

Yes sohia! I agree - you can see why people like MPs (who are all probably in that top 40%, no matter what we think of them!) like the O-Levels idea better. But a system that sent more than half of children away with a statement that "you failed to be educated, sorry" isn't worth being nostalgic for.

Sophie- are you actually aware of how many students now currently achieve grades lower than a C? ( the pass grade, in reality.) It's still around 40-50% especially in GCSE maths.

OP are you living in some kind of fantasy world? Where exactly is your evidence of this throw-back to a former style of marking?

Not quite sure what you mean by this but the point I wanted to make was that GCSE system is often criticised for the lack of the differentiation of the marks, ie too many getting A*/A and cheapened the qualification. Gove and his ilk hanker after the rigors of the old system because only a few achieved the highest grades ie was an elite system. The issue as I see it is that the reason for the difference was the normative marking and that the students weren't necessarily 'better'.

I was careful to note that I don't know what marking system will be used under the new O level, but in my view, if criterion marking was continued, you would still get the same 'problem' as now.

Yes, Senua, I realise that. And there has been grade inflation, even within the GCSE system. But I disagree that an A means excellent - that is an A nowadays surely, if the word excellent means anything (obviously for an individual child, a B may be excellent)? And the proportion of As is nothing like 25%.

According to the JCQ again (www.jcq.org.uk/attachments/published/.../GCSE%20RESULTS.pdf), the proportion of A overall in 2011 (provisional figures) was 7.8% for all subjects. You may well be right that this is too high - but the vast majority of candidates who sit the exams are not getting A, never mind those who don't sit.

My point was that comments like "everyone gets A* nowadays so they have become meaningless" which we hear so much in the press are not borne out by the facts and are not fair on the hard-working children who are just finishing two years of a treadmill of CAs and modules - either those who achieve high grades or those who don't.

The papers I have seen my DC with have no MCQs I don't think - they were common when I did O level. Are they common now and it is just chance that I haven't encountered them?

OP you said: Gove and his ilk hanker after the rigors of the old system because only a few achieved the highest grades ie was an elite system

I'd say- nothing wrong with elitism.

Maybe so few passed with high (er) because the exams were more demanding.

Nothing wrong with that either.

I have never been sure whether it is/was bell-shaped or not, and think it is important that we have transparency either way.

I did GCSEs in 1994 and we were told we were competing against every other 16 year old taking them for an A* - was that wrong? probably was, remembering the teacher who said it!

And interestingly, the figures for English and Maths are around the 5% mark getting A*.

(I looked at them as nearly everyone does them - for single physics say the numbers are much higher, but that is to some extent a self selecting group, as lost do single and double awards, so it is hard to compare).

ameliagrey whether elitism matters or not is entirely a matter of opinion.

If you do have an elitist system however, you will have to have a way of dealing with the 'lame ducks' that someone mentioned earlier. The old system had 40% of the cohort not sitting an exam at 16+ at all. In those days, the labour market was such that this was less of a problem. If Gove intends to go back to the past, he will have to come up with a system that will deal with this conundrum today.

Maybe so few passed with high (er) because the exams were more demanding.

Whether the exams were harder or easier is not clear. What is clear is that they are different now. Also the marking system today is criterion based so that there isn't a 'quota' set for each grade. Someone mentioned earlier that in the old days sometimes a difference between a B and D was a matter of a mark or two.

I do not wish to get into this debate in full.

However, I am so old even the dinosaurs are here are tackers by comparison :)

O Levels were always grades 1 - 6 for a pass grade (and marking was normative and there was a built in failure rate - so yes, they were designed to fail pupils not pass them) and 7, 8 and 9 were fail grades.

At some point in the late 1970's/early 1980's the system changed on some boards - and others followed, such that O level because graded as A - E with A, B and C being pass grades. This was after RoSLA (to 16) - so may have been to do with the larger number of pupils and broader ability taking the exam. That was really the beginning of dumbing down.

It was also confusing because A level had always been marked as A - E ( for passes) and then O level ( an O level pass on an A level paper) and then F (for fail) . Again normative marking.

A level marking also changed and we lost the O level pass and it became N and F as fail on A level.

To add to the confusion , there were then CSE's too. These were taken by those not considered able enough for O level. Mostly SM ( although the grammar schools very naughtily used them to get grades for their low ability pupils to avoid failure even though in most SM schools pupils were not allowed to take O levels.)
They were graded 1 - 5 and Unclassified. I have only ever met one girl who had an "unclassified" at CSE - and it was so rare, she could actually wear it with pride (although she did have 5 O levels) You had to go some to fail at CSE.

I am glad someone said CSE grade 1 was ?theoretically" equivalent to O level. I think that says it all.

IN fact what the it actually says on the descriptors (as I close as I recall) is that Grade 1 ( CSE) showed a level of performance which might reasonably have secured a Grade 6 pass ( bottom pass) at O level had the same course been followed.

It was not equivalent. It had ?parity" - which means different but similar. Hence it was always a second class qualification (and I am old enough to recall how CSE was discriminated against by universities and employers).

The other grades in CSE - 2 and 3 represented a level of performance above what was considered average skill/ knowledge for the whole 16 year old cohort but was not of a level which would be awarded O level ..... that was probably the worst sort of grading to get as it actually said a pupil was really very good but not good enough but still a lot better than average - especially that Grade 2 which in my experience would get at least a B or C grade on GCSE today.

Grade 4 was the grade which represented a level of performance which would be considered average ( mean average) for the whole 16 year old cohort ( that includes all those in top ability - who got an O level grade 1 (A*) and those who got a grade 5 in CSE!

So you see it was a difficult system at best. It never did justice.

O level really was just a sorting house for A level and A level a sorting house for university. It said nothing about the ability of the vast majority of pupils who did not take it (as has been said) or in fact did not take any exams at all.

However, I will add most of those pupils will have left school perfectly able to do a good days work Which seems somewhat different to now even though we have certi9ficates coming out of our ears.

I agree with whoever suggested above - the GCSE needs sorting out, not a return to this elitist approach. At least GCSE is a competitive educational mobility system rather than a sponsored one.

Have a nice day everyone. Just to make you happy - its 19 degrees but raining here. :(

jabed thank you :)

It's also worth noting though that even in those days accurately described by Jabed, there were opportunities for pupils who sat CSEs.

My grammar school inherited several SM pupils each year into the 6th form to do their A levels. They had done well at CSE and achieved a handful of Grade 1s. I found myself alongside pupils from primary school now in my A level geography class- after they had been at SM for 5 years.

They had done well at CSE and achieved a handful of Grade 1s. I found myself alongside pupils from primary school now in my A level geography class- after they had been at SM for 5 years

Even that could be a double edged sword. I was one of those who got such a number of CSE's (and a much larger number of O levels taken at night school because I was in the pre RoSLA and could have left school at15. I stayed.

I passed my "handful" of CSE?s at grade 1 including English and Mathematics and Geography and History and RE and Science and was sent (I was not really given a choice) to the grammar school. The same grammar school that I had been rejected for at 10 (even though I passed the 11+).

I joined a band of four others with similar qualifications (I don?t know if they passed the 11+ or not). It was soon clear we were second class citizens in the grammar school.

There were two "streams" in the sixth form: those taking 3 A levels and going to university (having 8 or 9 O levels and mostly above grade 4 at O level) and those taking 2 A levels and destined for teacher training college and school teaching.There were considerably more re taking O levels in that second group as well as bottom grades.

Despite (or because of?) my CSE grade 1 passes I was told I would join the second group. I was even told which A levels I would take (not my best subjects but ones deemed suitable for a ?failure? aka as a "SM upstart with ambitions above their station" by the grammar school

I had a blazing row with the grammar school teachers after I explained I was interested in a university degree and not a teacher training place and needed some specific A levels and subjects. They wouldn?t wear it. They told me I was not good enough because I only had CSE grade 1 - which was a bottom grade O level on a good day and besides I was not as good as those who had come through the system because I had failed (which I had not - and I was an angry young man - all those years of being promised and denied festered that day)

I was then told by a silly airhead girl in the sixth form that I could not ( and I will recall to the day I die) "possibly expect to be clever in grammar school as everyone was so much better and had better qualifications"

The next lesson as fate had it, it came to light that she had just 2 O levels - art and home economics. She was re sitting the others (and she had even failed to get CSE on most of her subjects as a double entry).

I saw red. I got my blazer and my bag and walked out ( the school even had the gaul to report home to my parents saying I had truanted and left without permission and tell them that I would be disciplined for this). My mother fortunately laughed and told them that at 16 I was over the school leaving age.

She did go and see them and was disgusted and tore a strip off the HT (I never thought I would see her do that!)

You have to remember I had that clutch of O levels - all much better grades
(including some 1 and 2 at O level) and it was eventually those which got me out of the school and put me in a place where I could take A levels of my choice (and where I was told basically, it?s no skin off our nose what you do and where you apply to, you can take what you like, it?s your life and your mess if you fail!) I didn?t fail. But the attitude at both grammar school and other institution were still similar for the SM Kid.

Do you really want to see a return to that?

Whilst I am at it, there was another weakness in this system. It was the difference between CSE and O level. O level was terminal examination. The questions were often phrased in difficult language and required unpicking.

The CSE was simpler and required more practical skills. Often a skill base I lacked being a cerebral person :)

The CSE also had something called mode 3 (I think it was 3 - it may have been 2) which was an exam designed by the teachers of the school, marked and graded by the school teachers as a consortium with other SM (as were all CSE - and that could be another weakness) and was largely if not entirely coursework based.

Some GCSE did follow this and many statements of poor practice have followed it. Back then they didn?t BUT it was open to abuse.

First abuse - a teacher hated your guts (as did one of mine) and he would stop you getting your grade 1. A teacher liked you and you would get passed even if you didn?t deserve it (I have seen this). This is because it was done by personal recommendation.

Second abuse- same as now, someone does the coursework for the student
(be it mum dad tutor or teacher).

Third abuse - CSE syllabii (yes that is correct) became so far removed from O level that the idea of parity or any similarity which might ?reasonably suggest a candidate would pass an O level...." was lost.

It also led to some anomalous results as O level was exam based and externally marked many miles away and CSE was internally marked and locally moderated by colleagues of the SM teachers

I am ashamed to admit this and no doubt one of my personal detractors will dine out on it. I took a CSE in art (mainly because I hated sport and it got me out of that). It?s not my best subject but I can get by.
CSE was "examined" by coursework portfolio which was put together over a year. There were two of us who took this exam. The other candidate had a father who was an artist and I suspect it was his work. Mine was my own.

I also took O level. I recall them to this day - a still life drawn on the day. A set piece also drawn on the day from one of three presented and a free composition with the paper given a week before the exam and you took a series of sketches in but completed the article on the day.

In the results, the CSE I got a grade 4 (average for the whole 16 year old year group). To this day I think my art was better than that but hey ho. Needless to say little miss with an artist daddy got a grade 1.
In the O level fortunes seemed reversed. She failed. I don?t know by what grade. I got a respectable O level grade 4. So where I ask is fairness and parity even?

Why do you think its any different today jabed. If you so Foundation gcses the maximum you can get is a C which will not get you onto many A level courses.

O level grades definitely changed earlier than the late 1970s/early 1980s. Wikipedia says they changed in 1975 but that is wrong. I took my O levels in 1970/1 (and one in 1972). The pass grades were A, C and E - no B or D grades. F was a fail. I don't think there was anything below F. I don't have my certificates in front of me but I think University of London was our examining board. The certificate doesn't show the grades so I still have the results slips at home just in case anyone wants to check. No-one has ever shown any interest in checking my O level grades.