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

claig why might Glenys Stacey have changed her mind to agree with Gove?

www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6059577

Given what we've studied and what our lessons consist of, i think that the only way people will find it as hard as you seem to expect the exams to be is to not release past papers or mark schemes as that makes it easy to guess the answer in a way. From what I've read what made the O level harder in many people's opinions was how unprepared the candidates were.

'There are two totally different issues-what should be on the syllabus and should an exam be hard? If you want stretch you set an exam with demanding content which is as easy to access as possible. If you want a hard exam you just make the question harder to understand and less related to what is being tested. Before you do either you decide what it is you are testing for and why.'

I think you want stretch and hard. That's how I remember our exams. You had to work out what was being asked and how you could apply what you knew in order to solve it. The leap between what you knew and what was asked was often wide and sometimes you didn't make it to the other side.

'claig why might Glenys Stacey have changed her mind to agree with Gove?'

Possibly because New Labour was no longer in power and the standards had increased exponentially

Interesting. So if you take out teh coursework, since that is not as objective as it should be. If you take a GCE O level paper which tests 2 years' syllabus in 3 hours, is the range of questions across teh syllabus larger than what pupils are expecting to be tested on in GCSE Higher, particularly when Intermediate existed. Was the higher drawn from a smaller possible question pool (syllabus-wise) than an O level paper?

claig-who cares? You seem unable to get beyond asking 'are exams harder?'. the question here is 'have the changes made better mathematicians, and how?'

A century ago, as I said, Oxbridge graduates needed to answer written papers in Latin. 50 years ago pupils needed to apply Napier's Bones and other mysterious processes to do maths. Neither of these has any relevance to what is beign tested or wanted, so they are no longer on the syllabus. Obviously that has made the exams 'easier' but its also made them better at testing other things.

Start with the syllabus and its justification. If the syllabus is great and everyone gets an A that is brilliant news, not terrible news.

'From what I've read what made the O level harder in many people's opinions was how unprepared the candidates were.'

Exactly. The questions were tough and the range and style of the question could not on the whole be anticipated, which meant that the thinking was tough and you had to match your pool of knowledge and apply it to what you figured out was being asked.

No claig, Stacey started the job in 2011. I suspect that she thought she could voice her actual opinions and then found that that was not what was required. Presumably she wants to keep her job.

"You had to work out what was being asked and how you could apply what you knew in order to solve it. The leap between what you knew and what was asked was often wide and sometimes you didn't make it to the other side."

The point is that isn't stretch, that's exam technique. It could and was taught, and the quality of that teaching (and the background of the learner) influenced results horrendously. Unless the skill in the 'leap' is being tested it's a crap way of assessing, however fondly you remember it.

Some questions obviously demand you make a leap-functional maths questions or word problems are a good example. But you wouldn't set a maths word problem in French just because it is then a greater stretch to work out what is being asked.

A good mathematician can make that leap across the chasm. They can recognise that this questions can be solved with this approach. To test the best mathematicians, those that should get A*, I think you need to make the questions that bit more abstract and not too straightforward and formulaic.

The syllabus is the core, it is the foundation, it is the base, but the jump from the syllabus across the chasm is what makes an outstanding candidate. If the chasm is narrow, it it has been dumbed down, then the level of ability required has been reduced.

Solve this simultaneous equation is part of the syllabus, but it is easy stuff.

claig "range and style of the question could not on the whole be anticipated"

You were obviously very badly taught. O-level history always had a question on whether someone was a bad king or not. You answered 'internal, external policy, conclusion'. The article points out the same for physics, as has someone upthread.

Not knowing what is being asked is not the same as leaping from taking your knowledge and applying it in an unknown situation. Gove, for example, hates History source analysis papers for not being rooted in learned fact. Yet a purer example of unfamiliar material you have to work with, leaping form your skills to new material, is hard to imagine.

'But you wouldn't set a maths word problem in French just because it is then a greater stretch to work out what is being asked.'

They did on some of my papers, it was all Greek to me.

'You were obviously very badly taught'

To be fair, that is what I used to tell my parents on parents' evening.

claig,

Chuckle, but quite. If the exam is a test of historical skill, it isn't a test of translation.

The point of an exam has to be to test the syllabus. What I think you are arguing for is a more demanding syllabus which puts more emphasis on use, application and understanding in maths. You are at odds with Gove there, at least as far as primary is concerned.

Obviously, people always go further than the syllabus. Equally, they fall off the other end to varying degrees. And a C is not the same as another C, it's a grade band. That is why teaching and learning in schools is not the same as teaching to a test, and can move beyond the syllabus when required.

But if the syllabus is not deep or broad enough you change that, you don't just set an exam which bears little relation to it just to make it hard.

Yes, I agree, I think it is about a demanding syllabus, on a par with our international competitors.

But I think you have made a very good point about past papers. Now they are all online, with mark schemes etc., and if the variation in questions is small, then you can prepare far more thoroughly than in O level days, when I don't even remember doing past papers at all. That could explain why the marks are so much better today.

Possibly, the questions are now more predictable. I was at a very good school, but I don't remember being told that there was always a question about a bad king. If I had known that then I wouldn't have said that Vlad the Impaler was a good ruler.

As a teacher I'm much, much more focused on exam technique and past papers then any of my teachers were. I make sure that they've answered pretty much every past paper question and have the mark scheme for it. I also prepare model answers for most questions and do marking exercises with students so they know exactly how the paper is marked and what things they can do to improve.

Exam results are improving for all sorts of reasons - it's not solely because of easier examinations.

Claig the exam boards recycle questions. One of mine does it on a 2 - 2 1/2 year cycle. That's pretty bad on the part of the exam board.

Very good point, MammaBrussels. I think that does explain a lot of it. There is a far more thorough approach to revision and past papers and model answers from both teachers and students nowadays.

Yes, I think there does need to be tightening up at the exam board level, and the one board rule per exam is a good start.

Students also have far more access to revision resources and help via the internet than ever before. You only need to go on the Student Room forums to see students asking for help with topics and discussing questions. I teach students who have said that they have looked at videos on the Khan Academy website or YouTube if they haven't understood something.
Back in my day you were lucky if you had the Letts revision guide at that was it.

Plus the emphasis in schools is now on learning rather than teaching. Some of my teachers just gave us textbooks and expected us to magically understand the content or lectured us or made us copy from the board. There's no learning there, I may have known the causes of WWI by reading the textbook but I didn't necessarily understand how they caused a war. That wouldn't be accepted in a modern school (or a good one at least).

yes, you're right, there is so much more knowledge disseminated nowadays, much of it for free

Yes, MammaBrussels, teaching has improved.

I think it is a shame that we have splits like IGSCE and GCSE. Couldn't everybody adopt the same exam?