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!!

prh47bridge I think it was 1976 when the grading changed as I took mine that year and I think we were the first under the new system. And yes you're right, I don't think I've ever had to show my certificates either!

I took my O levels in 1970 and my CSE in 1971 and additional O levels in 1972 (further maths). I took my A levls in 1973 . The boards were NUJMB and AEB . Both NUJMB and AEB graded 1 - 6 and 7, 8 and 9 . The CSE was graded 1 - 8 ( and unclassified) The A level was A - E and O level and fail. I know the Oxford and Cambridge Board also graded on 1- 6 and 7,8,9 at that time as I have one O level from that board. Their A levels were uniform to AEB abd NUJMB

I have no idea what London did. :)

I have been working since 1989. For the first 17 years of my career nobody was interested in my O level grades. I'd even stopped listing them on my CV in the interests of brevity. For my current role, for which I was headhunted 5 years ago (so, no competitive interviewing process) I was required to furnish O level and A level certs in addition to BA, MA and professional qualification certs. This is still the policy of my firm and many other firms in the City (my sister was required to do the same when joining a MC firm and then moving (again, headhunted) to another). Why? because city firms realised that there was a massive industry in fake qualifications and that significant numbers of people were overstating or completely fabricating some or all of their qualification history. So now, everyone has to put their medals on the table. I'd kept all my certificates so I was fine. My sister hadn't and had to stump up c£100 to various exam boards to get her various O and A level certs replaced. A friend of mine who was seconded to HK earlier in the decade had to do exactly the same thing.

sorry - CSE 1 -6 ( not 8 ) as above)

If the grading did change in 1975 - and it may well have done - that would be in line with my suggestion that it was in connection with RoSLA which happened at that time too.

I took olevels in 1979 and
pass marks were A,B,C
Fail was
D less than 5% off a pass
E and finally U for unclassified

Bruffin , in my school, if you geta grade C, no matter which paper,you would be allowed to take A levels. I have been known to take students with grade D if they come along. That is the policy in sixth form. I do know some schools/ colleges . especially state schools and grammar schools try to reduce their risk of poorgradesat A level by refusing to take students with lower grade GCSE.

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.

prh47bridge, this is one thing that Wikipedia is right about as the grading system did change in 1975. Prior to that the examining boards used number grades (1-6 pass and 7-9 fail), with the sole exception of London University board which used letter grades, as you said, with pass grades A, C and E - no B or D grades; F was a fail and H was a more serious fail. Your grades did not appear on your certificate and if a subject was not passed it was not listed on the certificate.

In 1975, the grading system was standardised across all the exam boards and A-C were pass grades, and D-E fail grades. All grades were now listed on certificates including the D-E fail grades. If you look up GCSEs on Wikipedia (not GCEs where there is a lot of misinformation) there is a handy little table showing eqivalents.

DS has been to a 6th form induction last week, and friends children have been to inductions in the last few weeks in different counties even in technical colleges and they are all being told the chances of failing A level on anything less than an A are fairly high, something like 55% for maths, even an A has a 1 in 6 chance of faiing. DCs school want A* to take further maths, but will take an A in exceptional circumstances. Even the school that let anyone in to take A levels have started to want a minimum grade a gcse.

Back in the early 80s my school would only let you take an A level if you had got at least a B in that subject for O level. And for the subjects which were new at A level - for economics you had to have a B at O level maths, for government and politics and sociology you had to have a B in English either Lit or Lang (but preferably both). For maths you had to have an A at O level to do normal maths and to do further maths you had to be the sort of person who had been getting 80% or higher in all your term exams during the two year O level course. For context, more than 50% at my school got an A in O level maths in 1983 and there were at least 10 candidates who met the further maths criteria (although only 3 of us actually took that at A level and we did it as the equivalent of what they call 'twilight' exams these days - half the recommended number of classes fitted in in lunch hours and after school).

DS has been to a 6th form induction last week, and friends children have been to inductions in the last few weeks in different counties even in technical colleges and they are all being told the chances of failing A level on anything less than an A are fairly high, something like 55% for maths, even an A has a 1 in 6 chance of faiing. DCs school want A to take further maths, but will take an A in exceptional circumstances. Even the school that let anyone in to take A levels have started to want a minimum grade a gcse*

That seems to me to be an extreme position. ALIS would certainly not predict anything like that. I have a mixed ability intake at A level. I am usually on ALIS level predictions or better. Even with a grade C at GCSE I would say a student can pass an A level. They would be unlikely to obtain an A grade but a respectable C grade is possible. I accept lower grades are likely with lower GCSE passes. But passes, not fail.

Either that or I am an exceptional teacher but I think not. As I said though, I know some schools /colleges do set high requirements (too high). I guess they are trying to look good at A level and fill their less academic courses to boot.

I think I must have been in an experimental year for an exam called 16 +. I took my Olevels in 1984 under the JMB board. Those of use sat the O level exam also automatically got a CSE qualification as well if our Olevels were graded A-C, CSE 2 if grade D and CSE 3 if grade E. i was never quite sure why we were also awarded CSEs as well prehaps someone out there knows the answer.

Forgot to add you got a CSE grade 1 as well if you achieved Olevel grades A-C

@mumzy that's weird. My sister took her O levels in 1985 and it was just standard O level grades she got. Although there was a peculiar exam the middle set for maths took, which was capable of throwing up either an O level or CSE grade depending on how well you did (so that if you would have got a fail grade at O level you instead got a lower (i.e. 2 or 3) CSE grade). So maybe that was the same sort of deal that you had? She didn't sit that exam though since she was in the top set.

I have a vague recollection somewhere at the back of my mind about this 18+ exam which was an attempt to be a forerunner of the GCSE. However I cannot recall if it was a pilot scheme carried out in one or two places or if it was more widespread. I know it didnt last. In 1989 the first GCSE cohort came through

Jabed- yours is a sorry tale- but it is just your tale. Others would not have those experiences.

I don't think things are that different now. It's 5 years since my DS left school and they were not allowed to do an A level unless they had a B for GCSE . I fully agree with that- especially now when GCSEs are "easier" and the gap between A level and GCSE is significant.

I did O'levels in 1987 - the last year - and some of them were 16+. Basically you got an O'level and a CSE certificate. I think it was to do with the exam boards gradually changing to GCSEs.

OP, universities in Holland are not selective by grades. If you have pass marks in the subjects they demand, you get in. The exception to this is medicine, which is always heavily oversubscribed - people there get in by lottery.

However, whilst it is much easier to get into a Dutch university, it is much harder to graduate. There are no tutorials, and students are expected to work a lot more independently. To graduate you don't just sit exams at the end of each year, you must produce several pieces of independent research within your subject. You must also write articles, present information independently and do a lot of field work. The drop-out rate is much higher than it is in the UK, because it is at university that you are truly tested. I think that's how it should be, because by that time you're an adult.

jabed puts it all so much better than I could - and again I have to say here that the Dutch system is superior. The school does not decide whether you are entered for exams or not. In a sense the Dutch system does stream - based on results at primary, it's decided whether you go into a more vocational type of education or a more academic one. however, there is flexibility to move for late bloomers.

Once you are accepted into an A-level school, you bypass the GCSE-equivalent exam completely. In the 4th year of secondary (at age 16-ish) you choose your final exam subjects. If you are completely unrealistic and choose a subject you are completely rubbish in (like me and physics) you will not be allowed to take physics. However, if you are plausibly someone who will pass (note: not someone who will be brilliant and make the school look good) then you will be allowed to take the subject.

Having been accepted to take the subject, the school can then not refuse to let you sit the exam. It's possible to fail and repeat a year in the Dutch system, but if you get through the 6th and final year, you will sit the exam. Schools are not allowed to distort the statistics on pass levels by not allowing someone to take the exam at the last minutes.

No system is perfect, but what Michael Gove seems to be proposing is to go back to all the bad bits of the old system whilst completely discarding all the good bits about the current system. Not to mention ignoring the enormous body of knowledge we now have about how people learn, of course.

you can't beat nostalgia though

DH insists O levels were harder than the GCSEs i took

And if they were reinstated...he would say the same

Gove is a twat

Slightly off the point did anyone ever take the S level which our teachers said was the equivalent of the first year of an undergraduate degree. A few of the brain boxes in my year did and went to oxbridge etc. I can't imagine the current A* Grade Alevel being its equivalent!

Jabed- yours is a sorry tale- but it is just your tale. Others would not have those experiences

The experience of others may have been worse. They may not have even been allowed to take A levels. The problem was that the selective system was so complete that it all but prevented anyone getting further than the system dictated. I certainly do know though of that handful who went to the grammar school with me I was the only one who completed A levels. The others left.

I know of a dozen or so more who went to technical colleges who did obtain A levels. Most of those didnt progress further. Of those who did, most went into teaching. Notable in my own peers were one who became a Minister and is now a University Chaplain and one who became an MP. I also know one chappie who was in school with me who made a very successful career in acting and in later life completed a degree and a Ph.D. He didnt even have the chance to take A levels from the SM. I suspect his story would be mirrored in many mature students across the years. Of those who went to grammar school, I cannot think of one who amounted to anything at all. That has to be as damning as it gets.

I don't think things are that different now. It's 5 years since my DS left school and they were not allowed to do an A level unless they had a B for GCSE . I fully agree with that- especially now when GCSEs are "easier" and the gap between A level and GCSE is significant

I know I am often accused of being elitist here however I find this so hard to believe. Never at anytime in my career when teaching A level have I seen in school or college or had a policy myself of refusing pupils onto A level courses because they did not have A or B at GCSE. I have coleagues who oft bemoan that they students are of lowe ability and they cannot do this etc. - so they too must have students who are not getting those A and B grades.

My school has a policy of 5 GCSE, grade C or better secures a place in the sixth form and all A levels are open to any student from that point.

I really do think your tale is a sorry one but not universal either.

Slightly off the point did anyone ever take the S level

Yes.

Never at anytime in my career when teaching A level have I seen in school or college or had a policy myself of refusing pupils onto A level courses because they did not have A or B at GCSE

The schools and colleges i know in hertfordshire and essex all have this policy for maths and science.

Mumzy, yes, I have a couple of S levels (they had 3 levels, as far as I remember - Pass, Merit and Distinction) and yes, I was a brainbox and I did go to Oxbridge.

They were very similar to the old Cambridge entrance exam. Not 'harder' in terms of syllabus content - so I would argue with the 'undergraduate' comment, the syllabus content was definitely A-level material - but requiring significant extra thought and analysis and lateral thinking.