B & C A level grades were ‘RG’ worthy in 80s? What’s changed

[Peverellshire]

Why are required A level grades so high now? Is it easier to get an A or A star now compared to early to mid 80s? Well A star wasn’t a ‘thing’ back then but…

In past B,C,C and certainly A,B,B enough to get on relatively prestigious courses at top universities, so what’s changed?

I work in education (across age groups and in various settings and over the last 25 years) and I think the change is that teachers are more effectively teaching to the test now. It's not a better education perse but it's more effective at getting students the top grades. Then when they get to uni some really flounder as they're used to getting a lot of scaffolding from their teachers and uni is more about independent study.
I'd agree with that too. What we have to do in teaching now is very different to what my teachers did for me in my exam years.
The endless teaching to the test (sometimes starting in Y7 to get them used to GCSE style questions), the endless interventions and revision sessions, and an unreasonable pressure asking what staff are doing to ensure students get the grades rather that expecting the students to work, makes a big difference.

I also think there was a phase of dumbing down. My parents were surprised at how little content I studied for one of my GCSEs. It was equivalent to their second or third year, and in less detail.

The current GCSE English Literature is more difficult than my GCSE English Literature, but seems comparable to the standard of an O Level English Literature paper that I saw a while ago.

We can see very clearly that it's not grade inflation. Ofqual tracks that.

HOWEVER....teaching has improved enormously. It's much more efficient. Technology means the best resources are shared, and then regularly improved further on a departmental and national level. It is monitored carefully. Standards have improved too (and, if you're interested, this can be tracked through the PISA tests). We look carefully at the curriculum as a whole and consider how students progress through it. I'm pretty sure this wasn't done in the past.*

1. We can track student process and target particular areas of weakness on an individual level.
2. We teach to the exam. I'm not ashamed of this, as I think it's evidence of having a clear focus. When I did my a-levels it was almost seen as cheating to even know what an exam paper looked like.
3. Yes, we offer additional support for students at risk of underachieving. I have had three students out of my Year 11 class today for additional focussed teaching on just one component of the exam.

*pretty sure my own teachers decided randomly on a day by day basis what they fancied teaching, with no coherent long-term plan at all.

@MargaretThursday thank you, that's so interesting. I did O levels and I although I was fairly good at maths I wasn't brilliant, and definitely wouldn't have considered doing A level. But throughout y11 I could do any practice paper and expect to get 95-100%. There was nothing they could ask that I didn't know how to do. I notice that now even our best y11s who are very confidently predicted 9s do not routinely get absolutely everything totally correct. And the papers look pretty hard to me! Also those highest level questions seem more off-piste, albeit in a small way, than anything I had.

I got into a RG Uni to read Law in 1986 with my BBC of which I was very proud. Apart from the straight A's brigade headed to Oxbridge mine were among the highest grades in my year group which had some bright minds but achieved lower grades. I'd almost certainly need straight A's with a couple of stars to get in for Law in that same university today.

In today's context would I have got them? possibly, possibly not. I'll never know but something has changed.

I think there are several reasons

You have to remember that only the most academically inclined took academic O-levels back in the 1980s (most did CSE as the UK had a 2 tier system). Also few did A levels as many did vocational oe apprenticeshipped Qualifications. According to a Parliamentary education report
1985/6 - 26.7% of the cohort achieved 5 passes
1985/6 - 10,5% of the age cohort achieved 3 A-level passes
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04252/SN04252.pdf

Also you have to remember that A-levels were "norm referenced" until the late 1980s (bell curve) - so the first x% of students always got an A, the next y% got a B and so on. I remember a History teacher once telling me that in one year a 60% mark got you a B but a 54/55% got you a D. So this meant that there were also a certain percentage that were required to fail. The switch in the late 1980s to citerion passes saw a rise in the top grades from around 8-10% (early 1980s) to almost 30% today

Grade inflation. Schools inflate the grades to make their students look more able. Competitive entry universities then have to increase requirements to ensure the places go to the most able candidates.

Teaching techniques and progress expectations have also changed over the years.

It is grade inflation brought on by the obsession with reporting exam performance, league tables etc. Lots of political pressure to report improvements in grades as an indicator that schools and the education system is performimg well. Also the proportion given A grades and other grades was strictly controlled in the past so that only about 7 per cent could get A grades in the year I took them back in 1984 (at least that was what I was told).

However, there have also been improvements in the education system. The emphasis on performance makes it harder for teachers and schools to be complacent. There is also more information easily accessible on how to improve performance in the relevant exams. This means that pupils from all backgrounds can have the opportunity (in theory) to do well and get top grades.

Students in the eighties who received B’s and C’s were regarded as top students.
Anyone who achieved A’s was seen as a genius.
The reasons for the changes:

1. Definitely grade inflation
2. Teaching to the test-
3. Movable grade boundaries- so that your grade depends on what others in your cohort received. So for example an A can be 60% if others in your cohort score lower. Previously, an A would be 70% and over.
4. Blair’s education policies which encouraged more people to pursue higher education which means there is more competition for university places.
5. The internet- more information available, including past papers etc. When I was young it was difficult to get hold of past papers. I remember having to traipse down to central London to get papers.
6. More exam boards , therefore more competition. Schools often choose exam boards which will give their students higher grades. Not all GCSE’s are equal. Some boards set more challenging exams ( particularly prevalent in English Language exams)

There was definitely a period when GCSEs were dumbed down.I noticed this when my cousin did her GCSE’s in 2005 I couldn’t believe how easy her higher tier maths paper was. Her English Language paper was also relatively straightforward
Definitely think that the exams have become more rigorous in the last seven years or so

Grade inflation. When I was at Uni 1.6 percent got First Class Honours degrees. Now the same University issues 23 percent First Class Honours. It is depressing. When I did my GCSE English I got 100 percent for English Language and got an A, which was the highest grade awarded at the time. Then they awarded A* for achieving 95 percent or more. Now we are on to the numbered grades.

It's interesting that teachers and parents of teenagers currently studying for GCSE and A levels are saying that the current exams aren't as easy as those who sat A levels years ago and don't have teenagers say they are, and who are rather dismissive of the hard work of today's teenagers

The latter are massively doing our teenagers a disservice, and I don't believe there is as much dumbing down as these people want to believe.

DD sat GCSEs in 2016 and A levels in 2018. I can categorically say that she worked her socks off to achieve the grades she did, but she also had far more resources at her finger tips than I did. Practising exam technique by sitting past papers helped massively - something we didn't have access to in the 1970s.

I also agree with the comment about university students coming a cropper when they are expected to self study without any support. I think schools need to emphasise this to their year 13s. Fortunately this is something that DDs school did do.

Whenever I see comments that by critising today’s results you are being dismissive of the hard work of todays teenagers, I can’t but help feel that they are dismissing the hard work of previous years teenagers. Yes individual input varies (it still does, not all of todays teenagers work so hard) but there simply is no way that teenagers have been working consistently harder every year for the last forty/fifty years.

But it's not a recent thing! Perhaps it's more widespread now? But I remember teachers back in my day at school (late 70s/early 80s) handing out copies of the syllabus, working through past exam papers as revision, and the teachers reading out examiners' comments from their reports. To be honest, I've always thought that was normal, but from hearing comments from other people, it sounds like it wasn't common at all. Makes me wonder why they did it so long ago at my old school.

Yes, I agree. I worked hard to get my A levels, very hard. But I only scraped 3 "D" grades, which back then was enough to get me into chartered accountancy!

I find it quite insulting at the inference that I didn't work hard back then because I only got Ds. I can't actually remember anyone in our year who got a string of all A's - most of my class were getting Bs, Cs and Ds.

I saw how much work my son did for his A levels (3 A*s) and it was nowhere near more than I did, in fact, I'd probably say the amount of time he spent on his revision was a lot less.

I worked hard to get my B and D grades in 1977, but I can't deny that DD is brighter than I am. She thoroughly deserved her hard earned three As at A level, and I can't deny that she had far more help and support from teachers and from other resources to achieve this than I did.

I am not dismissive of those who worked hard back in the dark ages, but some posts are pretty insulting to today's teenagers.

I think it's a mixture of grade inflation and better teaching and resources.

When I was at school (80s) if I submitted a piece of work it would come back with a mark on and crosses where I'd done something wrong. If my DC submits work it comes back with a clear indication of what was markworthy, what she'd done well and what she should improve on to get a higher mark next time. She also has access to model answers and as many resources as she wants at her fingertips. There are interactive apps to help her learn. In the 80s you used a single text book and what ever you could get from the library.

I assume greater competition and more students with these grades to pick from.

It was a bit of a shock to us- we went to Russel group Uni and have teens getting to application ages.

We started looking at non Russel group 60s universities slight lower grades but still good departments - also found with DD1 they seem to have leeway to lower offers post interviews. Dh subject is niche and old polys do better in it and he says they have no discretion it's all grades and until clearing and trying to fill spaces there's no leeway.

DS more like me less confident and less head in sand see what happens than DD1 - so I think higher grades even when possible for him will put him off and two universities I went to have higher entrances than Oxford for his area- though I know Oxford has additional hoops to jump though.

It;s quite depressing reading about all the better teachings as DS is sitting exams in a school that for some subjects had no subject teachers for large parts or even regular supply.

Why did she ‘thoroughly deserve’ her 3 As? You don’t deserve As just because you work hard. Lots of people work incredibly hard and don’t get As. You get an A because you achieve an arbitrary standard, if that same standard led to a grade B then she would thoroughly deserve a grade B.

Sour grapes?

I got straight As. Whether deserved or not, I did work very hard. As did my DS who also got straight As. But not as hard as my nephew who managed to hand over the correct change for a chocolate bar at his college shop last week. He has a 24 hour curriculum seven days a week. He will never get an A level at any grade however hard he works.

I got 5 grade A’s (included FM and General Studies) back in 1989, which was unusual enough to make the local paper so it’s tempting to assume grade inflation but I actually think the main factor is teaching to the syllabus, the detailed knowledge students have of marking criteria, excellent revision resources etc. In my day, we just revised whatever was in our school exercise books and called it a day!

I got 3As and a C at A-level back in 1991. It wasn't quite good enough for Cambridge (I had no interview preparation) but I had my pick of what's now called "Russell Group."

I'm now a teacher (a career changer so there was a long gap between my A-levels and degree, and entering teaching).

As well as the obvious changes - the vastly increased numbers of students doing A-level and the marketisation of the University system - I'd say the main change is access to information.

My students have past papers, markschemes, examiners' reports (those are gold dust!), excellent revision guides, excellent free revision videos and accurate, up to date current affairs information (important in my subject) is available at the touch of a button.

We had Letts Revision guides (which I don't think were even available for A-level) and whatever notes we'd made in class. You were often completely dependent on the teacher being decent. We were never told what was on the syllabuses!

Things are much more democratic now in terms of information. You can get round a poor teacher (I taught myself stats but that was possible because there was a decent textbook - those were really lacking in e.g. History then).

There is a lot of outreach from universities especially to poorer and more diverse students.

Parents are much more involved in education in many cases.

Sadly there are also a lot of students taking A-level who really would be better suited to a vocational course or the workplace.

It's a totally different world.

Are there also less places now due to universities wanting to attract foreign students as they pay more?

Interesting replies, thank you. Lots of food for thought.

I wonder too, if there was a distinction between 70s to early 80s & later 80s onwards? I have some O level papers, French ,& the mark scheme punishing & what you were asked to do objectively far ‘harder’. Yet this is O level V GCSE…Apples & oranges…

It’s interesting that way back in 50s, O’levels were ‘pass’ or ‘fail’, no grades. Did this mean it was ‘easier’ to get them & was same true for A level?

A friend of mine is a science teacher and advises a levels are piece of p!ss now. Introduction of the A* and similar to degree grade inflation. You can Google the percentage getting As etc over time.