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!!

Jabed well, I'm not making it up! It is true that some academic state schools demand a B grade as a prerequiste for A levels.

This happened in both my DCs schools. Not that long ago as I pointed out.

Have you ever taught A level?

If you had you will know there is nothing worse than a pupil struggling with it, when they should have chosen a different subject.

Jabed well, I'm not making it up! It is true that some academic state schools demand a B grade as a prerequisite for A levels

I am not suggesting you are making it up. I am aware of some colleges who do set higher grades. I am aware I have had colleagues in my own school who have tried to do this in an attempt to ensure top grades and a good academic profile for their departments - they have been stamped on hard by the Head.

I have also seen many other practices which limit opportunity for less able (although still respectable A level students) and for more disadvantaged students.

I understand why it happens - increasing targets in league tables for schools and higher targets for individual teacher?s or Dept's

Have you ever taught A level?

Yes I have taught A level for over 20 years.

It is all I do. I would consider myself something of an expert in teaching A level. I have a number of years experience. Even when I was working as a university lecturer I taught A level on part time courses in the local College and for evening classes.

If you had you will know there is nothing worse than a pupil struggling with it, when they should have chosen a different subject

I have. Whilst I agree that it is difficult if a pupil is inappropriate an inappropriate subject or course, I do not agree that inappropriates are inappropriate because a pupil has not achieved an A or A* at GCSE. I think that is a form of discrimination and limits choice. It is especially limiting for those pupils who may have socio economic difficulties which affect their GCSE performance

I think setting such levels does many decent students a disservice. Its not something I do and even though I say it myself, I get good results and most students are happy at the end of the course. If I can do it, then so can others. They just either are not good enough or have no will for it.

I have. Whilst I agree that it is difficult if a pupil is inappropriate an inappropriate subject or course, I do not agree that inappropriates are inappropriate because a pupil has not achieved an A or A at GCSE*

Letme correct this to make sense.

WhilstI agree that it is difficult if a pupil chooses an inappropriate subject or course I do not agree that inappropriate courses are inappropriate because a pupil does not have an A* or A at GCSE.

and I will add - many students can do well with a C at GCSE with decent teaching and a willingness to work at it. They should not be dismissed.

Which subject do you teach?

maths

But wasn't there a subtle hierarchy even within the O and A level examining boards?

Oxford & Cambridge being the most difficult. Then you had in this order of prestige: London, Joint Matriculation and the Associated Examining Boards.

At my old school AEB was for the "thickos".

NickL - what year did you do your exams. I did mine within a couple of years of 1980 and Oxford & Cambs Board was considered too easy for a posh grammar school like mine. We did London and AEB which were considered hardest.

Nowadays I hear from DD that OCR is the hardest (assuming the examiners can add up!) and Edexcel or AQA the easiest depending on subject. The poor kids can't win - an OCR A* is worth more than an Edexcel - what a load of crap!

At my old school AEB was for the "thickos"

The Always Easy Board? When I was a youngster at school I was never aware of this and I went to through university and many years beyond not knowing it but apparently some people did think so.

I recall that being said to me one year when I taught some A levels and the students had mediocre results ( not a good school and students did as well as I would have expected and it was pre ALIS, so no targets other than those the school set.

After that I became wise and realised that some syllabi were more straightforward than others but it was not as simple as AEB = Always Easy. At that time a friend in another school pointed me to the NEAB ( the old JMB) and I was far more successful. The NEAB was then swollowed up by the Always Easy Board and they became AQA and things changed again. It is not safe to consider AQA "easiest" or to sugggest OCR the "hardest". Although AQA and OCR do have far more issues with marking and such making them inconsistent.

I would say that it is certainly true that the differences in specifications now do make for some boards being more suitable for some types of pupil. But it isn?t one board is easiest.

A levels in the late 1970s at a well regarded top twenty, at the time, exam sausage machine day school.

Wasn't there a Cambridge Board that was meant to be easier?

There used to be the Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination board. That became UCLES and then OCR. Some people said....

Its always ben a case of greener grass elsewhere.

I am resurrecting this thread as have just come across some background information about this summer's GCSE's grading debacle.

As I was abroad on holiday at the time, I missed the initial hoohah but came across these two links which explains some of the reasons - and its a scandal!

I did not know this but the exam boards have been told to use a system called 'comparative outcomes' which is a mishmash of normative and criterion referencing. For eg. last year, exam boards were asked to limit percentage of A level A's to 27% regardless of the actual results.

Quote from Channel 4 article - "When the "comparable outcomes" policy was introduced for A-level, exam boards assessed a cohort's potential capabilities based on their GCSE performance, and then ensured there was not a dramatic rise in performance at A-level. However when this is applied to GCSE, exam boards will use a cohort's Key Stage 2 results sat at age 11 as an indicator of their achievement."

So in a panic about grade inflation, the exam boards have been told to massage the grades. It is just a PR exercise.

Makes me furious that Gove (as surely he is responsible) can play about so cavalierly with our children's future for his government's political ends.

Read these for the full story.

electmartin1.blogspot.co.uk

channel 4 news

I am sorry to have missed this discussion and found it to be very interesting.

What I would want to say is that there is a very strong element of normative assessment in today's GCSEs and GCEs because of the UMS system.

I am not nostalgic for O'levels and CSEs.

The divide between those of us who did O'levels and those who did CSE was no better than the Grammar school divide of old.

My DSIS did CSEs and she does feel she "failed"school.

She'd have passed O'level English, but the hard cut off in schools setting maths and English meant she didn't get the chance.

DSIS went off to secretarial collage and passed a pile of typing and word processing exams and has since taught herself loads of computer skills.

She can do all kinds of things I can't. Spell for a start!

Today I think the divide is still there, but it's even worse because there are so many As and A* that almost anything else is seen as failing. This is clearly stupid and puts huge pressure on the students and the teachers to perform and equal pressure on exam boards to produce exams where very high marks are possible.

I don't know if these exams are "easier" but I think they are divided into very more sections and short questions. What candidates are expected to know is very clear.

I have 8 A grade O'levels for 2 months revision, and the arrogant self confidence of youth. I could write an essay that sounded reasonably convincing when I actually hadn't done that topic at all.