Are you prepared for exam results to fall?

[noblegiraffe]

Apologies as I could only find this story on the DM, but Gove was quoted yesterday as saying 'There are going to be some uncomfortable moments in education reform in the years ahead. There will be years, because we are going to make exams tougher, when the number of people passing will fall.'

This reminded me of a thread on the TES forum about the latest EDEXCEL modular science results from November, where heads of science were discussing an alarming dip in results with students sitting the higher tier who got a U as they fell off the bottom and generally poor pass rates. There is a comment on the thread from someone who said they had a meeting with the EDEXCEL chief examiner who said that the A*-C rate for the biology module was 5%. While I can't find another source for that, it would seem crazy if true.

These students sitting the new science syllabus would be presumably one of the first groups of students Gove has in mind when he talks about falling exam results.

So, as parents, are you aware of this? What do you think? About time that higher standards were brought in or unfair on students who will miss out on a Cs that they would have achieved if they were a year older?

If you saw a fall in exam results on the league tables, or if your child came home with a poor result would you blame the exams or the school?

As a teacher I'm quite worried, as we seem to get the blame for everything.

"To me a C grade indicates you can do the entire syllabus but not as brilliantly as the B and A grade students (eg most of your working out and approach may be fine but you make more mistakes or miss a step but basically you know it). "

That's not how maths GCSE works at all. Each topic in maths is assigned a grade according to its difficulty. So solving a quadratic using the quadratic formula is grade A, reading a pictogram is grade G and using Pythagoras in 2D is grade C. The foundation paper covers grades G to C, with a certain percentage of the paper allocated to each grade. The higher tier covers grades D to A, again with a certain percentage of the paper for each grade.

"How can you get a C grade when you can't even attempt some of the fundamentals?"

You would have to argue your case as to why simultaneous equations and trig are fundamentals! People use 'C at maths and English' as a shorthand for 'numerate and literate'. Employers complain that kids with Cs at GCSE can't do percentages (which is something that they should with a C), but I've not heard them complaining about lack of trig knowledge.

The foundation paper at Grade C is a good level of real life Maths. I've just been through it helping my daughter revise and to get a C at the 70% she needed it was necessary to have a really good understanding across the syllabus. I suspect children always make some silly errors on a Maths paper and there will be a couple of questions they don't understand, so apart from that you really need to be nailing the rest and they do test a broad range of the syllabus.

The reason children with Cs can't do percentages when employed is either 1. It was the bit of Maths which eluded them or 2. They've forgotten! Quite likely the latter. It's important whatever grade you get you use Maths in real life or that will happen.

Something has to change as we can't go on getting higher and higher grades every year but I do feel sorry for the children involved. The educational establishment have a lot to answer for in having allowed this grade inflation to occur for their own political reasons.

When I went to uni my offer was BCC, the same course is now needing AAA, I don't believe students today are that much cleverer than we were so things have to stop somewhere.

Clothes That the changes are not all happening at the same time just seeks to make things more confusing for colleges, universities and employers. How will they be able to judge? "You got your geography GCSE in 2013 which was after the spelling and grammar changes but before the linear course and before the harder geography GCSE which means you need a B, but you did yours in 2014 so need a C, and you sat yours in 2015 so we'll give you an interview with a D"? And then apply that to the different changes which are being made to the different subjects at different times. Nightmare. They won't be compared fairly and people will lose out through no fault of their own.

Custard, current pass rate for GCSE maths is under 60%. It is unfair to say that they are handing out C grades when it is out of reach for so many students.

The top group and top half of the middle group would be about right for what it is at the moment. Some of the bottom half of the middle group get there with a lot of intervention and resits.

By the way, Gove thinks that everybody should be getting a C at GCSE maths (I think he blames the teachers). I'm not sure how he's reconciling this aim with the aim to fail more students.

Custard, no employer is going to go to that much bother to compare individual results for individual subjects for individual year groups.

The exam boards are already indicating that shift for this year. The exam board's own exemplar material don't meet their revised grade/band criteria and we can see in examiner's feedback and meetings that they are moving the goalposts. Level descriptors used to describe A* is now a necessary requirement for B/A.

English Literature's % of A/A grades nosedived nationally last year but went under the radar as it's English Language that counts as the 5A-C in the league tables. That, and the unwieldy controlled assessment open to so much abuse, means more schools are swapping to iGCSE.

Will be an interesting time as a decrease in exam results can trigger an Ofsted, and a school deemed once successful is suddenly not.

Grade inflation helps no-one. It doesn't help the children, some of whom will be affronted that their talent isn't being recognised, and others who then have unrealistic expectations. It doesn't help universities, some of whom are now having to do entrance exams to sort out the sheep from the goats. Most of all it doesn't help employers, who have to go through numerous hoops just to work out who actually has any brains amongst the graduates all of whom now come equipped with a 2:i, AAB or better at A level and the obligatory 10 GCSEs grades A*-B.

Employers d

Employers don't have the time to rank applicants on school year! Half the CVs don't advise when an exam was sat anyway (at the filtering of CV stage). Many employers won't even really know - they are busy getting on with whatever they do to make the business work.

More movement is the last thing I need! A new name or stability or our current students are going to be in a much more difficult position for employment (Unis will have a lot more ability to get around it with mainly ranking peers and UCAS forms and exam information which can probably take account electronically of the differences in year group expectations).

The same here tranquil I kept my old prospectus. The grade inflation between 1990 and today is appalling.

It's not all grade inflation.

Modules, controlled assessments, children more aware of their need to get good qualifications for life and better teaching all add to the ability of students to do better. Apart from 'well, I had to do 'orrible linear exams and, therefore, so should you', I haven't seen any good arguments against these. We had to wash clothes in twin-tubs but don't expect our children to do the same.

Obviously, exam training exposes, league table internal pressures, coursework problems and some other things are inflationary causes which should be stopped.

I also disagree with 'constant resits' - but, although it seems to be an argument of Gove's, it seems a myth to me. My daughter has already sat 7 Science modules so far and will resit 1, in June and with no time for further classroom study of it. Even if she resat all 7, I can't see where the time is supposed to come from for 'constant' resits. All I see, in reality, is the chance for one re-sit and that's without teacher guidance - so, it covers them for a bad day on the first sitting but requires a lot of personal input to put right - surely this is a good skill?

I'm not against adjustment but going back to the dark ages and learning absolutely nothing from what we have been through - that is purely ignorant.

Hi I live in Wales and following a parents evening we were told by the Geog teacher that the course would still be modular. So I did a little investigating on the WJEC exam site and discovered that schools in Wales have the choice to carry on with modular courses or use the linear course- which they are developing for English schools who use their exams. So our school is staying with the modular course.
Just how is that going to pan out with England and Wales having different systems, surely it's going to a nightmare!

Someone who got a C on the foundation paper would not be considered a suitable A-level candidate.

I'm not sure why you think forcing a lower ability student to attempt work beyond them is a good thing.

But presumably someone who got a C grade on the lower paper could become a teacher

Not a maths teacher...for that you would need at least a B grade, to do A level maths and then a degree.

Not sure how it would matter if you were an Art, English or Geography teacher...for instance.

Custard, you have said that you were happy with a maths grade C being something that (as currently) only 60% of students achieve. But you don't think it represents a proficient grasp of maths because you can achieve it without having been exposed to solving quadratic equations? So is a C grade in maths reasonable or not?

I think there are many issues in maths education and I am really concerned with the approach that is being taken here because it doesn't seem to solve a lot of the concerns.
a) Gove has stated that the number of children leaving school lacking proficiency in maths (and English, but let's stick with maths as it's what I know) is unacceptable. He has stated a desire to see the percentage of C grades rise. He has said that he wants everyone who fails to achieve a C in maths to continue taking it until they're 18 until they do.
b) There is a crisis in maths whereby it is seen as too hard because so many people fail and people are turned off further study. Courses at university such as sociology are having to tone down their maths content and courses which require the study of maths to AS or A-level can't set it as a requirement because there aren't enough students studying maths post-GCSE to fill their places
c) Teachers and schools are judged on how many students pass maths (and English) GCSE, there has been a floor target set and schools which fail to meet this will be closed down and reopened as academies.
d) Gove has said that maths GCSE will be made harder because it is too easy and results will probably fall because of this

There just doesn't seem to be any joined up thinking here. Added to that, the latest report into maths education headed by Carol Vorderman (commissioned by the Tories and welcomed by Gove) says that to solve the maths problem what is actually needed is two maths GCSEs. One for applied maths, the numeracy stuff and one for pure maths, to facilitate further study. This would seem reasonable - so why on earth is it not being implemented and all this tinkering going on instead?

Although something like this was already tried in 2009ish when they piloted a functional maths exam which was to be taken alongside GCSE maths and you weren't supposed to be able to get awarded your C in GCSE maths if you failed the functional maths. My Y9s even took part in a pilot, the summer before it was supposed to become compulsory. Then without warning it was scrapped - I suspect because the weaker students find the functional maths harder than the actual maths and indications were that pass rates would plummet. I wonder if this is why it is being avoided, as at least when the functional maths is incorporated into the maths GCSE the lack of functional maths skills can be masked.

I really really don't know what will be happening with maths GCSE in the future. I do know that maths teachers come under a lot of flack for our results and I don't suppose that will change when they drop. And I don't think that this announcement about 'improving maths papers' from November 2013 is anywhere near the end of it.

I agree the problem is the conflation of a C grade being the minimum acceptable standard (which means more people need to achieve it) and a C grade actually being the bottom end of the top tier which only able students should be achieving.

I have said before that I would welcome a school leaving certificate which tests basic numeracy, literacy, core subjects etc setting out what us important for every school leaver to know and we should be aiming for a 100% pass rate. Then GCSEs are harder academic exams among a suite of level 2 courses which allows for more detailed study, specialisation or vocational training.

I take the point about employers having to compare across many different year groups and how changing the meaning of A or C is problematic.

I therefore propose a move to a new grading system.

I have two suggestions.

1. Numbers as in Scottish Standard Grade. Having a 2 rather than a B or C makes it really obvious the exams are under the new system.

1. Use Harry Potter grades.

O - outstanding
E - exceeds expectations
A - acceptable
P - poor

Etc.