The return of the O Level.

[hermionestranger]

Leaked reports suggest that the government is to scrap the GCSE from 2015, 2013 option takers will be the last year to take them.

I'm sorry it's the mail bug they were first on my twitter feed. I 'm on my phone so can't link properly.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162369/Return-O-Level-Gove-shake-biggest-revolution-education-30-years.html

This is a crazy way of designing an assessment, mixing up being 'hard' with being 'rigorous' and using pass marks and grade attainment crassly.

All kinds of things can make a test harder and produce fewer high marks. We could wander round exam rooms sticking pins in pupils. This would make exams harder, but it wouldn't make them very rigorous, because the difficulties aren't coming from what is being assessed. The test has to be not whether it is hard, but whether it measures what is being assessed. An improved pass rate says ziltch about whether a test had become less rigorous-whether it accurately assesses what is being assessed. We don't argue driving tests should be made harder because most people eventually pass, we just want them to rigorously assess ability to drive.

Most people want exams that measure how quickly and effectively people can take in knowledge, and how skilled they are at applying it, because most people use their exam results not to follow up on the subject but as a general sign of aptitude in areas in which they get further training.

O-levels simply weren't that. They didn't reward bright pupils who were quick on the uptake because they tested at the end of a whole period of teaching when the slower kids who were bright-ish had caught up. They didn't reward application of knowledge because high marks could be obtained by regurgitating identikit answers. They didn't mirror how bright people work because nobody at the top of any profession is assessed on two-years work in two weeks. They were totally unfit for purpose as a sign of anything other than an ability to be schooled.

You can argue GCSEs need reform, but you have to do so in terms of what it is they are supposedly failing to test for, not simply 'to get fewer people to do well'. A return to O-levels is not that reform.

i wanted to look at original reserach etc about this as i have found that it can be reported with a degree of bias, depending on the agenda of the news organ

ofqual does not give those figures, claig, and i don't have them. my teaching experience in this country occurs within this time frame - there was a major change in a level organisation in my subject during this time.

i can't speak to earlier stuff, as i wasn't here then! however i am confident in saying that what i have taught/what i teach has not gotten significantly easier in demand over this time frame, and does not differ much in terms of difficulty from the subject as i studied it back home, under a system characterised by the OECD as being substantially better than that of the UK

i expect we agree to disagreei

'His findings follow the admission last week by Professor Alan Wilson, a former senior civil servant at the then Department for Education and Skills, that he was ?astonished? to learn that at least one major exam board no longer required calculus for A-level physics.
Writing in the Times Higher Education supplement, Professor Wilson, now based at University College London, said there had been a ?dumbing down?, even from the 17th century.'

How on earth was this allowed to continue for so long?

adelaofblois, as a slight hijack, it is nice to see you around and posting

But 'dumbing down' is a hugely insulting red herring.

In 1904 Oxbridge students had to be classically literate (they could translate to and from Greek and Latin). Now they can do classical history papers using translated texts.

Is that 'dumbing down' (it's undoubtedly easier) or just smartening assessment so it tests something sensible (history is not about translating, maths certainly isn't).

What do all those in favour of this actually think exams should test? I'm really curious.

Having read some posts, it's made me think - does it actually matter if there has been grade inflation. People have said that in the days of the O level, you only needed an E to do medicine. Obviously that can't be the case now, but universities know that and apply their offers accordingly. Equally other higher education providers such as HE colleges set their entry requirements in line with what pupils are currently achieving.

I can see an issue with grade inflation employers/admissions tutors hadn't cottoned onto it, but given that they have where is the issue?

It does matter, because 'dumbing down' means that what is expected of pupils is too easy, which means that as noblegiraffe said, that some boards no longer require calculus for 'A' level physics.

'Dumbing down' is not insulting except to the exam chiefs who have allowed this to happen.

Telling the truth is not insulting, it is absolutely necessary

'He said a study this year had highlighted examples of GCSE science questions requiring neither scientific knowledge nor a grasp of maths.

Dr Pike insisted such a 'blatant' breach of regulations deserved severe penalties, adding: 'Break the rules in Formula 1 and you get banned. Contravene competition law and you get fined.

'A £1million surcharge would focus the mind of any examining board chief executive and overnight would do more than years of "discussion between stakeholders".'

chibi-thanks
Pretty-indeed.

'Dumbing down' is used to combine three different criticisms: more people are getting good results, content is not as heavy and exam results are misleading.

You could introduce calculus at GCSE if you wanted to, and test for it through assessed coursework (bug bear of many); you could keep the content the same and just make the test conditions harder (in which case you have to say why this makes the test a better judge of something); you can have grade inflation but everyone knowing what a certain grade means in terms of knowledge and so no problems (and it is worth noting that grade inflation at O-level was one reason a change was introduced).

'Bring back O-levels' is a great rallying cry for anyone concerned about any of those criticisms, but doesn't actually answer any of them. Reform is needed, discussion about what is wrong is needed, cheap politics is not.

So, for instance, what claig is moaning about is a lack of breadth in content. But you can reform content and still have GCSEs and modular assessment.

It's about content that is age-specific and suitable for pupils at that age, and it should compare with what pupils do internationally as well. Obviously, coursework is not good because you cannot be sure that someone didn't hire a tutor who did it.

At first, I thought there was no need for O levels and CSEs, but thinking about it, we already have Foundation and Higher GCSEs. How different is it to have O levels and foundation GCSEs?

It's already been established that there is no longer coursework, claig!

It's the modular aspect of GCSEs and A Levels that I dislike. What is wrong with a stretching exam after 2 years. Also, get real Old O and A levels were harder. We have a KS structure in place; more robust qualifications would complement this.

Also, my children study in Primary some topics I studied in the old first and second year senior. My question if such topics are studied early then what happens in Secondary; why do standards, there, slip?

'It's already been established that there is no longer coursework, claig!'

Good.

Call them 'O' levels or higher GCSEs, it doesn't much matter, provided tje content is equivalent. We have lots of posters and teachers saying that teh content is equivalent, and we hear Professors, exam board chief examiners and the Royal Society of Chemistrty saying that there has been dumbing down.

Get rid of the dumbing down and call them higher GCSEs. It doesn't matter what you call them as long as they can't be called "dumbed down".

Modular GCSEs have already been scrapped so no need to use that as an argument in favour of O-levels.

Scrapping modular A-levels and getting rid of AS level is a different kettle of fish. I will be furious if they get rid of AS levels as it is a useful qualification in its own right. Some chief bod from Cambridge Uni is also against scrapping AS levels because he said that some students get their AS level results and realise that Cambridge is actually a possibility for them, then go into apply where they might not have without that information, thus widening participation.

How different is it to have O levels and foundation GCSEs?

And if the answer is 'not a lot' then what would be the point of a huge and expensive change to the system?

Maths for example is now one exam at the end of two years. It doesn't have any coursework or controlled assessments. It has been changed recently to include more functional and unstructured questions. Quality of written communication is now assessed. What benefits would a name-change to O-level bring apart from possibly the addition of calculus which in my opinion at that level could be rote-taught with little understanding required?

The thing about O levels is that only about 25% took them. How many take higher GCSE?

No point changing it if they are similar. But if they aren't similar and if they can only be tackled by the top 25%, then there may be a need to do some more thinking.

So you want an exam that only the top 25% take, claig? Then you are in good company as maths teachers have been calling for the reintroduction of intermediate and higher tier maths since it was scrapped!

I am not sure I do want that. I want to know what percentage takes GCSE higher now?

Ideally I want one difficult exam for everybody. I want everybody to be able to do simultaneous equations at the bare minimum. Just as there is one driving test for everybody or one IQ test for everybody.

claig. It does matter what you call them because what you call them brings huge baggage.

If you want a system with more advanced content taught earlier and final examinations (not a very good way of stretching bright students, actually, a poor test of what they do non-academically, and a system in which the pressure is always to get everyone somewhere after 2 years, not everyone where they can be as quickly as possible) then this can be achieved with GCSEs. You don't even need higher GCSEs, just add the content.

Returning to O-levels carries with it an entirely different educational philosophy in terms of who is bright and when they get pulled apart from the others. It's a classic example of what I mean-you like some aspects of old O-levels and get caught up in a lot of other garbage.

What do they do in America? Is it one high school diploma for everyone, no lower, intermediate and higher?

Yes, I just want one exam which has teh content. I want it difficult but not so difficult that it would stretch Einstein. If Einstein is that far ahead, he can read A level books for fun, he doesn't have to pass an exam in that at age 16.

Call it GCSE but make it harder, no dumbing down.