GCSE standards

[Kez100]

Following on from another thread which went off-topic a bit between me and Geopuzzles, I've started this one.

I'll start with my thoughts on GCSE grades - only thoughts and I'm happy to be batted into a corner to change my view.

Firstly standards:

I think current GCSE standards are different and so shouldn't be compared to old O Level grades, or even early GCSE grades. I think this is why it's difficult for employers (many of whom will be O level or early GCSE era).

Seems to me, A and A* students are the old O level A-C students. So, they are now squeezed into two grades, whereas we had 3 passing grades (A,B,C).

CSE students are A grade GCSE if they were grade 1 CSE and GCSE B-G (Grade 2 and lower).

Secondly the exam system:

The system of modules and controlled assessment (not the old coursework) is a good one because it allows children more time in which to demonstrate their ability. I appreciate the difficulty for teachers in the lost teaching time and adminstrating them around illness of students etc, but overall I can see the fairness in this. Exam costs must be much higher.

Some children - like myself - suffered terribly from hayfever and it ruined our exam season (we will never know if it actually affected our grades, of course). Now, with less % being sat in the summer, everyone gets a more equal chance. Also life is more like controlled assessment. You get told the question, you plan the work and then get on with it. You also need to work over a period of time rather than cram in a few months. All good training for life.

I can see the internal disadvantages for the school but I think the current system is fairer generally and probably does give children greater chance at a better grade but only because it's a fairer system and many were disadvantaged by the old way: 3 hours of exams, all on one/two days.

Discuss!

GCEs and CSEs were graded according to the normal distribution of results
A Levels were the same until the introduction of GCSEs

The top 10% of students got an A (or 1) in any subject
The actual mark for that varied depending on the paper and the cohort
but if you got an A, you knew you were in the top 10% nationally.

Last year in Chemistry, 48.9% of students got either an A or A*
spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AgdO92JOXxAOdHM4WDNTeFJScUdzVkJ0emdPaDR6Vmc&hl=en#gid=0

If that does not mean that an A grade has become devalued, please tell me what would ?

But Chemistry is a bad example - to do that you have to do triple science which in most schools means you have to be in a top set (ie they think the pupils are going to get B minimum)

The figures for Maths and English - which all pupils take and probably give a better indication - are very different indeed

Grunge
but the point is that half of the students got an A
so the standard for Chemistry should bet set higher so that an A grade actually MEANS something.

I did maths and Statistics A level. It was perceived as a "hard one" - they still only gave 10% of the candidates an A grade. I got a B.

An "A Grade" student becomes meaningless when it actually just means "above average of those who sat the exam"

I agree teaching has improved and, part of that too, is thanks to league tables. I remember once my exams came along the teachers just let you go. My daughter now has been given a revision pack for Maths in year 11 to work on over the summer because her year 10 test was not at her target grade from November sitting. The pack is virtually personally created picking on the areas she has trouble with and only including a little of general revison. The school wouldnt do that if they weren't being assessed on EM statistics.

I think it is right that half of Chemistry students are getting an A. Only the very brightest students take Chemistry. It would be outrageous if thy were graded across a normal distribution and the same proportion were getting an A in Chemistry as were getting As in dual award Science. You can't grade an exam against a normal distribution if a normal distribution of students are not sitting the exam.

I think teaching to the exam has improved. If you count that as an improvement.

I think the thing that was noticable for me was I did Additional maths GCSE, which was meant to be the same as an old O-level. It was considerably harder both in depth and amount covered, and fewer percentage got an A (no A* back then). I moved to a sixth form where the set I was put in for A-level had all done A/S maths and got an A. I was far better prepared for A-level, and had done considerably more of the syllabus.

If you look at the A-level exams they suddenly get a lot easier after GCSEs come in (I think it's the 1988 papers). My brother did A-level 4 years after me when it had gone modular and admitted that he couldn't do the papers from my year. (he hates saying he couldn't do things)

From what I've seen the A-level maths spoonfeeds now. Whereas in my day you'd get a question eg Intigrate the equation f(x) with say 8 marks, they now split it up into 4 steps leading them through it. Some of the mathematics is actually deciding which method is the correct way to use.

I can't speak for other subjects.

For german o'level we were allowed no preparation. For the oral we were sent into the room with two strangers and expected to answer questions in german.
My DS has just done a german oral where he was given the questions in advance and it is a little more than a memory test. it is the same with the written exam.

This is a good article on why it's so difficult to say for sure if standards have slipped. It's not always easy to tell, but my gut feeling is that modern exams are both different and a bit easier.

Agree with that bruffin. My DS is getting A* in his French controlled assessments simply because he has a photographic memory. Throw in something unexpected and he wouldn't stand a chance. It sounds mean of me to say so because he works very hard on the preparation for the test but his teacher tells me he is a natural linguist which frankly is not true.

He did the same for his English, they are given the title a few days before hand to do some thinking and planning. DS1 wrote his whole 800 words out at home and reproduced it from memory in the test .

My other issue with the structure of GCSEs is that the tests are so relentless. Within 4 weeks of stating Year 10 they were doing controlled assessments. Apart from the flaws mentioned above they are just like very long exams. There hasn't been any time in the whole year when there wasn't a CA looming. DS is one of those who actually enjoys sitting exams but I was surprised at how stressed he has been over these CAs.

I agree with MillyR if the population isnt normally distributed then a normal distribution of grades cannot be applied. For my DD's language GCSE there are only 60 participants in any given year. How can a normal grade distribution be applied then?

Teaching is a lot better now than I endured enjoyed 30 years ago. I understand that there is a frustration in 'teaching to the test' but that is what students want. For many, GCSEs are a stepping stone on the way to something else. Enthusiasm for a subject often starts with some foundation exam success 'hey! I'm actually good at this!'.

I too dont understand the enthusiasm for saying that the kids of today have it easy. I really dont think that they do.

I agree with Gnome and MillyR. I think using a normal distribution curve for exam grades would be highly inappropriate. For a start, how would you explain to sibling 2 that he got a B for, say, GCSE Maths, when his older sibling got an A the previous year with a lower overall mark - that may well happen if a normal distribution was used, as exam grades would only be as good as the cohort sitting them.

Other posters have mentioned "equivalent" qualifications, such as BTECs and OCR Nationals. As a teacher of Performing Arts, with KS4 and KS5 students taking BTECs rather than GCSEs or A Levels, I wish we could get rid of the whole "equivalent" thing. BTECs are qualifications in their own right, and refering to them as "GCSE Equivalents" is, IMO, unhelpful. After all, very few of us would refer to, say an LLM as "equivalent to a PGCE". Both are post-grad qualifications, valid in their own ways, but not necessarily "equivalent" to each other. The head of the Vocational Faculty at the school I teach in has been pretty successful in getting rid of the "BTEC Diploma - that's the equivalent of 4 GCSEs" thing, and our students refer to their courses as "GCSE French", "BTEC Performing Arts" and so on. BTECs are perfectly valid qualifications, and are sometimes more appropriate than GCSEs in certain subjects. They need to be recognised as such. Perhaps a KS5 approach would benefit KS4 - at A/AS Level, and for BTEC Level 3 courses, UCAS points are awarded for each - so a student gaining Distinction at Level 3 BTEC gets the same number of points as an A2 A grade, whilst a student gaining a Pass at Level 3 BTEC gets the same number of UCAS points as an A2 E grade. This is far more helpful than having to refer to things as "A Level equivalents"

I think this 'equivalency' issue stems from a desire from the top for a kind of one size fits all. Everyone has to study to the same level so creating these equivalencies. This of course goes right on to degree level. The HND has now seemingly disappeared to be replaced by foundation degrees. My DH did an HND 25 years ago or so. It was very different from the degree courses. It was vocational and it was clear from the course that the next place the students would be going was out to work. I dont think that the foundation degrees have the same clear objective.

So EvilTwins I agree with you (in return). This desire for equivalency is imposing a structure on courses which is inappropriate to the course or the students. As a result a grade structure is imposed which is trying to cover all levels. Ultimately at the extremes of the top and the bottom it is meaningless.

Teaching to the exam has definitely improved since my day (O' and A' levels late 1970's). We did 8 or 9 subjects max.

It is questionable how they kids are managing up to 15 nowadays. I understand some of these may be the equivalents.
DD is taking 9 or 10 'proper GCSEs'. But in addtiion to that there is an OCR ICT '1 GCSE equivalent 'and a BTEC sport '1 to 4 GCSE equivalent' both compulsory for all students.

It seems that is something is compulsory on the curriculum, many schools fell they may as well go for a 'qualification' in it. Thankfully her school are not (yet) doing the same with PSEC and RS.

As for individual subjects being easier.
Maths - most definitely.
French - almost certainly
English is looking more difficult these days with the controlled assessments, andthe literature appears to require more books to be studied, althoufh maybe not to the depth we went to in our one each of novel, shakespeare and poetry collection.

I agree that language exams must be easier now. Ds's French is so much worse than mine was when I was taking O Levels in the early 80s.

Like Bruffin, I remember the German exam clearly: ushered into a room to be faced with complete stranger; had to turn over one of two pictures. To my absolute horror the picture was of two blokes driving a sports car past a gas main, throwing a cigarette out of car and causing explosion. One was supposed to talk through these pictures. I think the extent of my relevant vocabulary was "auto" ! But even more traumatised were the unfortunate people who turned over the other picture to find someone mowing a lawn and breaking the lawnmower on a large stone. You can see from my crystal-cleaer memory of this event that it was not an enjoyable experience!

Also agree with poster whose dh had to do the difficult maths O Level. My school was always banging on that we did the Oxford Board O Levels. I don't think anyone gave a flying whatsit which board's exams we'd done. The maths O Level was notoriously hard and quite a few people (and this was a very selective girls' grammar school) used to fail.

It seems obvious that the numbers of pupils gaining higher grades would rise over time.
We have changed from 'norm referenced' awarding of grades (a certain, preordained percentage of pupils getting each grade no matter how good or bad their work was). We now use criterion referencing - there is a set standard to be achieved for each grade. If 99% of pupils achieve the standard required for an A*, then that's what they'll be awarded.
Teaching to the exam has improved enormously over time, so grades have improved. Whether that means that our children are 'better-educated' or can think for themselves is a different matter.
I sat O levels, taught at O Level for a year when I qualified to teach and subsequently taught G.C.S.E. I can safely say that I would not have done as well sitting G.C.S.E. as I did sitting O levels for many reasons.
I am very irritated when it is implied that A or A* in English/Literature are less difficult than an A at O level. Just because more pupils achieve them, it does not mean that they are 'dumbed' down, merely that more pupils are now allowed to be awarded the grade if they reach the required standard, which they do.

Children in the UK are (on average) better off nutritionally, have more robust genetics due to reduced inbreeding, have medical care that keeps them healthier and have access to a range of types of learning from better educated parents and research based schooling yet people seem astonished that grades are going up.

Have you seen and compared to O level grade A B C the requirements for French writing and speaking? That's 60 percent of the grade.

Yeah, exams haven't got easier (and I think it's really insulting to today's kids to suggest that they have). And, as one poster said, they are criterion referenced rather than norm referenced which is definitely the fairest system. How unfair it would be to let only 10% get the top grades. What would happen if one year group was brighter/ harder working than another? This does happen!

Reasons students are getting higher grades:

• teaching has improved radically. I was shocked at the changes that occured in the time between my leaving of school and then starting to teach. Lesson are way more interactive and it is now a requirement to break lessons up, which prevents hour-long daydreaming
• better technology. Every room in my school has an interactive whiteboard, which means (just as a little example) that I can pre-prepare any notes and writing on the board: students now get powerpoints, rather than dictation/copying from the board.
• teachers teach to the exam. I do this unashamedly and it has fully paid off. My students walk into their exams knowing their assessment criteria and knowing exactly what they have to do in order to attain their target grade. Anecdotally, the only time I saw past exam papers was in my mock. My students now see them weekly in the lead up to the exam and thus are completely familiar with the structure
• students are working harder. Yeah, I really reckon they are. I think there is more pressure on them than there was in the 60s/ 70s. This is personal opinion however.
• the exception is in Maths, which arguably has got easier. Ok, it hasn't, but half of the syllabus has been cut since the 80s which means that there is less material students are required to cover hence it kindof is easier

Other issues:

• 'mickey mouse' subjects such as Media and ICT. Hmmm, hard to know what to do with these as the syllabi currently assume no knowledge at all. If you walk into an ICT class with no computer knowledge at all, then it is as hard as History. Similarly with Media, which I maintain is one of the most valuable subjects a child can study (in your face, Michael Gove). If you have a middle class child, just because of their environment, they will find this subject incredibly easy and obvious. But I teach in a very poor area where the kids have no cultural awareness at all. In that context, it is difficult and as important as Maths
• grades are going to drop next summer. There have been major changes to the syllabi, in particular with the controlled assessments. The lack of teacher familiarity with the new system means that we don't know the shortcuts and will find it more difficult to teach to the exam. Students' grades are going to be lower as a result.

Tortu Maths is most definitely much much easier. The topics that have been moved to the A level syllabus are the more 'difficult' 'sheep from goats' topics such as Calculus. The A level syllabus has consequently become easier also, with the result that universities running well regarded maths degrees now have ton provide remedial maths classes for their maths students (and also for their engineers).

On the other hand, Music and History, the other two subjects I know about in depth, are definitely much 'harder' than in the 80s. so, swings, roundabouts.....

thetasigmamum - I did O'level maths in 1977 and (although more difficult than curent GCSE) there was no calculus. 'Modern' as opposed to 'Traditional' maths syllabus.

circular I did O level maths in 1983 and there was lots of Calculus. No integration though. But lots of differentiation. One 'big' question on each long paper w guaranteed to involve differentiation. Sometimes 2. You had to choose 4 out of 6 so in theory you could not learn it and still pass but there was also a multiple choice paper and a short form question paper. This was London Board. Which wasn't even the most 'difficult' (that was JMB).

Ours was London also - but was modern.
On top of the normal algebra, trig, geometry, stats, lots of set operations and matrices and solving simultaneous equations by matrices.

Definitely never touched calculus until A'level. Quite a big jump, but the real shock to the system was the 2nd year of A'level being all Applied mechanics.

Interestingly, never saw a matrix again until the OU Maths foundation in 1994. Found that easier than the A'level.

There wasn't a choice between modern and traditional AFAIA when I did it. It was just 'Maths'. Obviously some years later than you so they had probably got rid of the distinction by then. We did all the stuff you did at O level (from the looks of things) but no stats. We did Probability though. Also loads of matrices and sets. The O level was designed to lead nicely into the A level (and also further maths). Since I did both A levels I'm a bit hazy as to what bits were in what syllabus at A levels - I know integration was in Maths as well as Further Maths, I know we did some complex numbers in Maths as well as F maths. I know that the applied paper in the Further maths course was a hideous step up to begin with but by the end of the two years it was easier than the pure, I think. We didn't do any stats at a level but again we did do Prob. We kept all the stuff bubbling for the whole time (although we covered both syllabi in one year and had the second year purely for revision. I don't think the other group - the ones who weren't doing further mats - did that, though, I think they moved at a steadier pace).

There were lots of matrices in my maths degree course. :(

Never did further maths A'level but covered all the topcs you mention. Suspect further was going deeper into them.

Just looked at the EDEXCEL A (linear) syllabus, which is what DD1 will be taking. Hardly seems to touch on trig. Seems to imply that only A grade students will be expected to use it.