97 % pass rate for A-Levels ; how did that happen?

[m1m1rie]

I took my A-levels in 1989 and passed all three, and was in the minority amongst my peers. Most people failed at least one and only the really, really clever ones could achieve A-grades. Now, with so many passing and record numbers achieving A-grades how do we differentiate between those who are genuinely talented and those who are not? A girl I know has just passed 3 A-levels. She spends her days chatting on her mobile, obsessing about herself and often didn't bother going into college if she didn't feel like it. She even turned up late for one of her exams. As far as being 'clever' is concerned, she couldn't hold a conversation with you unless it was about celebrities or herself, and yet she has managed to pass all three A-levels. I am dumbstruck. I find it demeans those who do put effort into learning as they will all just be lumped in together now and treated with disdain by those who think that all kids are thick and only have A-levels because the exams are easier to pass now. Whatever is going on with the current system, it's not doing anyone any favours, it only serves to make Government stats look good.

Sorry, but call me biased but if your student wants to practice medicine in this country then his english should be up to the standard required, second language or not. And yes education should be available to those that want it. But as clumsymum says not all of us went to university (and no I didn't go to Uni either, but am still very proud of my achievements)and still studied hard to get where we are today. I believe that the system as it is now is going to create more problems than it is going to solve.

My student, along with many others, has got a 'reasonable standard' at English. He got a grade c at English GCSE and English is his second language. I am an English teacher with a grade C in Mathematics (and I scraped that). Does that mean I shouldn't have been allowed to teach English? I'm sorry but to prevent a student from following a vocation which he would clearly excel at when he has 4 As in science subjects is absurd. Of course doctors should be good communicators (if only they were and if only having a B or A in English at GCSE made a doctor a good communicator!) but this can and is now taught as part of a medical degree and potential for good communication can be assessed at interview as some of you righyl point out.

Newsflash - polytechnics don't exist any more thankfully. 2 tier systems where one is considered 2nd best and receives less funding can never be a good thing. So if you're saying that those with mediocre grades shouldn't go to university you're probably saying that they shouldn't be allowed to go to HE at all.

'No one here has suggested that education shouldn't be available to all'

Erm, yes they are. Remember this post 'What's wrong with just a few going to University. It was supposed to be for the top 5% of students. Why should it have to be changed.' and when people say that only those with top grades (in every subject which is what some of you seem to be saying and not just the subject you want to study at uni and make your career) should be able to go to uni that's exactly what's being said.

I must say I do find it odd and depressing that some people don't want a significant minority (nearly a 3rd of the population as it is now) or 50% as is the case in most European countries and AMerica to go to uni (and experience the education tehy presumably had). If you're serious that only a tiny minority of A and B grade students should be allowed this privilege (and yes if you check the statistics the majority of students who go to university and those who do best at A Level are middle-class with supportive parents who are often fairly well educated themselves yes I know there are exceptions before you start) then that means most of us wouldn't have been allowed to go and most of our kids wouldn't either.

I think some of you are expecting rather a lot from 16-19 year olds. Can you remember what it's like to be this age? I teach many students who have troubled family backgrounds, lack maturity or organisation skills but are very bright. A significant number of the students at my college (of 2000) do not get the results they are capable of because they panic in their exams (one of my would be A grade students goes into complete paralysis and has to sit her exams on her own), they have paid jobs which tehy need to support their families in some cases and their social life in otehrs etc etc. Now, you may be right that some of those students may also struggle to meet the demands of a university course but they also come into their own there - as I say A Level results are statistically no way of predicting the class of degree you will get - but shouldn't they be allowed the CHANCE to prove themselves?

What about my friend who got Es at A Level and went on to become an incredibly gifted teacher. And I got A, B, B, E in my A Levels. I did well in the subjects I was good at anyway and got an E in History because I didn't like the subject or my teachers and did no work in it. Does that mean I shouldn't have been allowed to go to Uni? Are you serious about consigning a bunch of 18 year olds to lesser career prospects, earning potential etc etc because they messed up their A Levels for whatever reason? Words fail me. That's just mean.

'just that you should get graded on your abilities, and judged against your peers, rather than by some arbitrary standard that is set by an exam board.'

Erm, Newsflash - this is what happens. There is no 'arbitrary standard' there are very strict criteria and examiners have to use relevant assessment objectives when they mark. This has not always been the case and marking and grading at university is actually much less rigorous and more arbitrary. Did you miss my earlier posts? Yes, the pass rate may be 97% for A Levels but you can pass with a grade E. One reason for the increase in pass rates and higher grades is that many students drop a subject or give up their course when they have done their AS LEvels and not done well so there is a filter. Also it is still only a minority who gets A grades at A Level. I have never taught a student who got an A where I thought 'You aren't bright enough to get an A. That's a fluke'. It IS perfectly possible to work out the students who are really bright - they've got As at A Level rather than Cs or Es and if you need more evidence look at their references and interview them. Newsflash - this is what happens.

Finally, where is your evidence for standards lowering etc etc? Or is this just somethign you've picked up from the usual annual media furore. I have been teaching the old A Level and teh new AS levels for the last 10 years and have seen no evidence for this. I've also been an examiner. I've seen 100s of students through the A Level and UCAS system.

Have any of you actually seen this years A Level and AS papers? Would you fancy writing about how Chaucer satirises the conventions of courtly love in the Miller's Tale or how Carter uses references to Shakespeare in Wise Children or syntax and the presentation of a character's consciousness in McEwan's Child in Time? Easy isn't it?
'

Personally I'd have much less of a problem with English being taught by people without a certain level of maths than I would with some scientific jobs being carried out by people without a certain level of English (written English, in particular). I don't see that this has to be something measured necessarily by a GCSE though - as I said, general summer top-up courses etc. make sense - though I'm not sure it should be the job of e.g. medical schools or biology departments to sort out people's English (except the aspects of the language that are special to those subjects - how to write appropriate English for a scientific paper, for instance). I'm not just talking about people with English as a second language getting up to the average standard of people who have it as a first language though, more about everyone having a reasonable level of written English, grammar etc. I know an English GCSE requirement can seem arbitrary and irrelevant to some people for science courses, but I think it really matters.

b&wcat

I haven't time to answer all the points in your last post, but I do want to say this.

Your being able to succeed in Maths or History is not important to enable you to teach English.
However, a very high level of proficiency in english is ESSENTIAL (imo) in order to practice medicine in an English speaking country.
Otherwise, how do you communicate with patients (some of whom need matters explaining in different ways, some of whom have difficulty in expressing themselves, so need a doctor who can understand colloquial as well as standard English). How can you be sure that you have correctly understand administration of drugs (remember the newly qualified doctor who gave a drug intravenously when it should have been administered into the spine? The patient DIED). How do you fully understand technical scientific papers, some of which are written in very formal English?

As a patient who has spent a great deal of time in hospital, my heart sinks when I realise that I have a doctor or nurse whose English is not up to the mark.

I agree fireflightly but my point is that I know students who HAVE GOT C grades in English at GCSE and in some cases even at AS Level and As in science subjects and want to pursue a science-related subject but can't because they're expected to get A grades in every subject. One of my students has re-taken his English GCSE 3 times to try to get it up to a B at the same time as his A Levels. This is madness. As you point out a C grade in Maths and English at GCSE is considered a minimum requirement for pretty much any FE and HE course and most employment and that's fair enough. But I think a C grade at A Level in the subject you wish to pursue at HE should be enough to get you into uni.

Let's be honest the only Unis that are going on about distinguishing between students who have just scraped an A and those who are geniuses and surpassed the boundaries of their A Levels are Oxford, Cambridge etc which are elite establishments anyway. There are many Unis (esp former polys) which would be delighted to accept students with any A Level passes and esp grade C and above and many students who get into these do extremely well at degree level. There are students who get 9 As at GCSE, 5 As at A Level and a 3rd class degree (this is actually more common than you would think) and students who get mainly Cs and Ds at GCSE and A Level and go on to get 1st class degrees. As I keep saying there is no clear link between grades at A Level and class of degree.

Clumsy, I do agree that doctors need to be good communicators as I've said but isn't a grade C in GCSE English and getting through science A Levels (which do require a fairly good level of English reading and writing) and a science degree (which certainly means you have to be able to communicate well) enough evidence of this? Also what makes a doctor a good communicator? Yes, I take your points about being able to understand and give instructions, prescriptions etc etc but I'm sure there are doctors who have got good grades in English at GCSE (As and Bs) who are hopeless at telling a patient s/he is dying for example (I think I've met some of them) or who are unable to listen (millions of examples of this on other threads).

'Your being able to succeed in Maths or History is not important to enable you to teach English.' There are those who would argue with this. In fact, now teachers (of all subjects) are required to pass tests in maths, English and ICT as part of their PGCE. Perhaps I wouldn't be able to teach English if they'd had this requirement when I did mine. I don't know how hard this test is and it's true that it is quite useful to be able to add up, do percentages, analyse pass rates etc as any sort of teacher.

A teacher from our school qualified in South Africa and she's been told that her Maths qualification is not acceptable and she's got to do an exam, which she's been told is "around GCSE level". She's really worried about it, if she doesn't get it, she won't be able to go on teaching here - she teaches year 3 and her Maths lessons are fine - it's just a rule.

Actually I find it really depressing that on a parenting forum the only reference to A levels is yet another 'standards are slipping' moan. Aren't there any other proud parents out there? My DS got AAB and is going to Warwick University, but I'm starting to feel as if I should be apologising that he got into a really good university when he didn't get 3 A's.

Totally agree Rusty. It's a peculiarly British quality that when our youth are being successful we see this as a failing somewhere (the exams system, teachers, themselves ...). A better pass rate with more A grades couldn't possibly be evidence that - - students and teachers are getting better at dealing with exams (which admittedly isn't necessarily the same as getting better at the subject)! Congratulations to your DS. I, for one, won't be knocking his achievement and you and he know that he has been properly rewarded for his hard work and ability.

Thanks blackandwhitecat - and congratulations to all the other A level students who have worked hard over the last two years.

Blackandwhitecat. the tests are very basic. I can't spell for toffee, and still count on my fingers when under stress and I managed to pass them all first time round.

and amusing medical misunderstanding story.

My mum has a very broad welsh accent. He doctor has a vert broad Indian accent. She went in and asked for a referal to get her feet seen by a chiropodist. He wrote her a letter to get her sheltered housing

I like that one Martian . So would you say the literacy and numeracy tests for teachers are easier than getting a grade C at GCSE in maths and English? If so, what's the point?

I think that, particularly with regards to Medicine, higher grades than are necessary are asked for, simply due to the enormous numbers of students to places. My DS1 is about to go into his second year studying Med and says that the work (so far) is not hard but there is a lot of it. The Uni he is at had 16 applicants per place (all predicted A grades) and so the schools have to keep raising the requirements. Obviously it has a lot more to do with it than simply exam results, but as someone said earlier, they are trained in Communication skills (1/2 day per week + placements) when at Uni. I agree with you blackandwhitecat and rusty that the students should be congratulated on their fine achievements. It is very easy for the papers to make it seem as though everbody gets top grades, when the reality last year on results day was that many of my DS colleagues hadn't got what they needed and were desperately upset - made worse by the reporting.

sorry - rustybear!

b&Wcat

They are different is all I can say. They want to make sure that you can write a grammaticaly correct sentence, punctuate and spell (god knows how I passed)

They also want you to be able to work out fractions, percentages, do simple mantal maths.

I would say that anyone who gets a C grade in Englis or maths should pass with no problems. The stupidity is that people who have a degree in the subjects still have to pass the test. What utter arse. If they are so poor at English, why on earth let them teach it.?

Not particularly intelligent people have always gone to crammers to bump their grades up. I went to a school where As and Bs were expected and anything below a C was definitely considered a fail (back in 1989). Although none of us were stupid (we were selected by entrance exam), I wouldn't say that we were all vastly more intelligent than everybody else either - perhaps the big difference is that now all teachers make it their business to be clued up in how to get their students through the grades factory.

I hate the way teachers are in a no-win situation. Either our students do badly in exams and we plummet down the league tables and don't get our threshold pay or we get accused of teaching to the tests (which the govt introduced in spite of our advice and wishes). Under the new A Level system we lose about 4 weeks of teaching time at the end of the AS year to exams and when students return to A2 in July they're less motivated and less inclined to begin new topics when they're about to start a 6 wk holiday. I can't see how that can be a good thing.

I do think we've got better and better at getting our kids through exams and sometimes I think that parodoxically the better we are at teaching, the worse students are at learning. For example, 20 years ago there were no Interactive Whiteboards, no widespread Internet access, no writing frames, scaffolding, whizzy interactive resources, very limited revision packs etc etc so in some ways students have to do less independent work than they used to. On the other hand because of photocopying etc students don't have to waste time copying stuff out and most of what we do in class is about them practicing their skills and actively taking part in learning rather than passively listening or writing. And it's right that students should be supported, engaged and interested. I don't know ...

I so wanted to but a 'but' on your penultimate sentence.

Yes, I think it is good that they should be engaged, but sometimes you just have to sit down and bloody work at something, without being entertained. Sometimes the 'fun' in a lesson should be the satisfaction of having worked at something. Life skill stuff!

I can just imagine the headlines if literacy rates go up - "reading becomes easier - is reading becoming dumbed down?"

as an aside, the reading ages required for GCSE science are now lower than they were in my day. The text book we used at age 15-16 has a required reading age of 17-18.

Yes, quite MadamPlaty. I do agree Martian and certainly feel your frustration with students in the classroom but times have changed and young people do live in an age of much more instant gratification and constantly advancing technology etc etc. I genuinely believe that to get a grade C and above at A Level you have to be fairly intelligent and must have put in quite a lot of work and you can't get a grade A unless you are very intelligent and reasonably hard working or the other way around.

Very few of my students get the hard work for sake of enjoying hard work and learning for its own sake stuff. In fact, many of my most able and most hard-working students are incredibly goal oriented - they need to do well to get the As to get into medical school etc. They calculate how many marks they need to get X grade and resit X module with that in mind. The student I mentioned earlier with As in science and C in English GCSE who also took on English at AS Level (and has just got a C to his horror) is one of the most frustrating I've ever taught because he was always waiting at the end of every lesson to ask what he needed to do to get an A and wanted to re-draft his coursework for ever etc etc. English, especially original writing, is impossible to teach and learn the way some other subjects might be and if students have English as a second language they may never be able to get the grammatical structures, vocabulary and style they need to get an A or B grade.

Interesting thread.
I can well believe that the claims about dumbing down apply more to some subjects than to others (eg not so much to English), and I also get the impression that teenagers these days work as hard as, or harder than, they ever did (and there's no doubt about teachers working hard, obviously) but I also believe that there are some big problems with what A levels are teaching these days. My dh and I are at the sharp end of this as academics - he teaches maths and I teach a vocational MA course (won't say what in case any of my students are MNers), both at top 20 universities.
DH's experience is that students are increasingly struggling with what used to be first year material and they are having to teach more and more of the A level material again to students who are supposed to have already covered it. It's not that they haven't covered the material, it's that they don't have the fluency that used to be expected, and (echoing blackandwhitecat's comments) they are increasingly poor at independent learning and at tackling difficult questions without hand-holding, because increasingly they are used to having questions broken down for them in a series of easy stages. I am insulated from the worst of this as I mostly teach students who have already completed one degree, and more than half of mine are overseas, but I do get home students with extraordinarily poor English (I and other colleagues have embarrassed ourselves several times by assuming that they were overseas students and recommending they go to the university's remedial EFL classes ). When we get German or Austrian students they generally write better English than the UK students, even if they're around the same level ability-wise. There has also been a shift towards younger UK students complaining more that they haven't been given enough help with, eg, which books to read or how to tackle questions, which never used to happen, so it does seem they have different expectations regarding how independently they are able to learn, even at Masters level.
My belief is that too much attention is paid in A levels to following strictly laid-out criteria and there is too little opportunity for them to really use their brains. Marking schemes in some subjects also promote an attitude that correct spelling, syntax etc don't matter, which leaves many home students with a massive attitude problem when it comes to having their grammar corrected. (I and dh have both had students object that we were being pedantic when we've corrected or queried grammar, even when what we're trying to do is to get at the meaning!)

I can quite understand why the CBI etc are openly critical of the system but equally I feel so sorry for the students being assessed to death. I get the impression that you can get further on determination and hard work than you used to be able to (as long as you have nice co-operative teachers who don't mind you resubmitting coursework again and again!) but equally it must be boring as hell for the brighter ones, as well as setting up this problem for universities who then can't distinguish than those who did fabulous coursework straight off with little guidance and those who only did it with a lot of help from their dedicated teachers.
rant rant. Sorry, must parp myself as I could go on for hours.

One of my biology students (a level) couldn't tell the difference between there and their. What worried me is that she was also doing A level english! My best friend is an English teacher and tell me that she has students doing AS who can't tell a verb from a noun.

What worries me most is that students taking a subject at A level should at least be expected to enjoy the subject and find it intereting of itself, without needing all whistles and bells. After all, they choose to do the subject. I find the lack of interest and work ethic hardest to take in the sixthform. I have been known to tell kids to just leave the lesson and the subject if they can't be bothered to work.

" DH's experience is that students are increasingly struggling with what used to be first year material and they are having to teach more and more of the A level material again to students who are supposed to have already covered it "

Kathy, I have heard that soooo many times in the last 3 or 4 years, particularly in the sciences (counting maths as a science here). I spend quite a bit of my time working with university staff, and it is a recurring theme. That must indicate that A level courses are either not teaching, or at least not testing, students that material.

MB, I wouldn't mind them getting 'their' and 'there' wrong initially as long as they cared enough to take notice when it was pointed out to them! I have post-it notes by my desk at work for a few apostrophe issues I have still have trouble with, and I certainly don't take it as any reflection on their intelligence when they get this kind of thing wrong, but what depresses me is that when you point it out it so often goes in one ear and out the other.
Blackandwhitecat, I would be interested to know how much (if at all) they are penalised in English (lang & lit GCSE, lit A level) for this kind of mistake?