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.

[CousinCairngormMcWomble]

On a more serious note, I like the idea of a leaving certificate in basic literacy and numeracy.

I do feel scared about the changes and the effect on the next few years of students. It doesn't seem fair and I don't know what would be better.

I would also say that I got an A in GCSE maths and I'm not fantastic at percentages etc when put on the spot because I just haven't used the skill that much. DH got a B in the same year but is much niftier as he uses it in his day to day life at work. I think it would come back quite quickly and if I need it for a new job I'd learn it up.

[Amaretti]

Cousin- doesn't that scale finish "unacceptable, troll"?

[CousinCairngormMcWomble]

Hmm... Yes I sort of realised that when I started typing and figured I'd better not finish!

[Kez100]

I think that would work and be much, much fairer. Of course, it would take some thought to sort it out practically - something Gove seems inept at doing.

I think the 'secondary school english, maths and science proficiency exams' perhaps ought not have a fail. Just a set number of bandings (say 10) indicating the percentage achieved and child's age when the test was sat. Tests only available in summer for first sitting in year 11. So, if they get a band 8 at age 15.9 compared to someone else who gets a band 8 at 17.1, it's on the certificate and clear to an employer. One not for profit exam board runs this.

Children who are not scientists can then go back to learning some science,yes, but not 5 hours a week when they are rubbish at it.

[Amaretti]

I think it's a great idea! The current system of lollipops for all doesn't seem to be working, let's face it

[coolascucumber]

Oh FFS! Nobody disputes that there should be a credible exam system. What they object to is the speed, manner and change that will be unfairly detrimental to students in the short term. There has been little thought given to these changes. I bet most of the people here who are so willing to sacrifice their children on Gove's altar of "improvement" have their kids privately educated, have no children of near exam age or their kids have already taken their exams.

[LittenTree]

Indeed, cucumber. My thoughts exactly.

How about some sort of incremental change, over a few years that has been properly tested and piloted (and evaluated) rather than potentially throwing our DCs to the dogs? (Mine's Y8). My feeling is that if they go ahead and do this now, there'll be such a huge 'middle-class but not privately educating, yet potentially Tory Voting' backlash once their DCs wear the brunt of what appear to be very mediocre exam results, they'll back pedal (another U turn, anyone?) that there'll end up being this 'lost' year or 2, tops 3 of DC caught out by it who will have to spend the rest of their academic and working lives qualifying why their results look so crap up against those of people who came just before and just after.

[ClothesOfSand]

Cucumber, my child is in a state school and is in year 9. Most of the change being discussed here is actually simply the change from modular to linear. Like half of the children in the country, children in the years above DS at his school have always done linear exams.

What these changes actually mean is that the other half of the children in the country will also have to do linear exams. If modular exams were considerably easier, it is only fair that everyone does exams of the same level of difficulty from now on.

The other change is the small number of marks awarded for spelling, punctuation and grammar in a few subjects. That will only have an impact on children whose English is poor.

[Kez100]

or Dyslexic!

My son will struggle in English due to severe dyslexia. That is accepted. Is it fair he should also be penalised in History, or Geography, because of it?

[ClothesOfSand]

No, it isn't fair. Arrangements should be put in place for dyslexic pupils if they haven't been already. That doesn't mean the changes aren't sensible for other pupils.

[LittenTree]

Ah, but Sand, IF say your school had spent years and many man hours finding ways of getting boys through modular exams so that their GCSE results are practically identical to the girls (there's a good reason why girls grades rose exponentially year on year once modularity was introduced!), in other words, they adopted teaching and learning styles from Y7 that favoured modularity, such as was demanded of them, it is rather unfair to suddenly throw at them the one-exam-at-the-end-no-resits model?

As for 'the DC above Y9 having done linear exams' - My close friend's DD has just finished 3 years at uni. She did modular GCSEs. I recall all the retakes of lower graded modules!

[ClothesOfSand]

LT, only half of current GCSEs exams taken are modular. The fact that some schools have decided to do lots of modular exams for many years doesn't mean that all schools do.

There is clearly a problem that not all GCSE exams for the same subject are as difficult as each other, and not all GCSE subjects are as difficult as each other. This all needs sorting out. Currently the comparisons between pupils within the same year group are not fair, because some are taking easier subjects with easier exam boards. Something has to be done about that. Getting rid of modular courses is a good start.

[LittenTree]

Sand, OOI, which courses aren't modular right now? As in- which GCSEs are 2-3 years study followed by one or 2 exams (like 'O' levels were)?

I think modularity has a place in some subjects, but not in all.

As for difficulty, measuring one GCSE against another- some DCs find maths a stroll in the park (both of my DSs, Y6 and Y8 are in school classes with DCs with A* maths 'A' levels...) others wouldn't pass a GCSE in a thousand years.

I would agree that there needs to be one impartial, not-for-profit examination board, but I also think that in the long run, there needs to be level differentiation denoted by different syllabi and outcomes (CSE and GCE, anyone?!)

Another issue that'll need addressing is girls performance, as I have already touched upon.

[noblegiraffe]

Clothes if only the changes were merely a switch to linear and a few extra marks for spelling and grammar. The 5% pass rate for the science module in the OP was down to none of those changes but the recent changes to the science syllabus. The maths exams which are already harder for this year will be made harder again, as will English lit, geography and history (in addition to the spelling and grammar changes).

Every time Gove opens his mouth it is to announce some new change. The national curriculum review hasn't been completed yet, expect more changes to come out of that too.

[ClothesOfSand]

LT, if you go and look at the exam board websites you will see that in general, most GCSEs currently sat can be sat as either linear or modular. There may be some that can only be sat as modular, but I don't know which ones they are.

NG, I don't believe that we are going to go over to a system where only 5% of students get A*-C in Science. There must have been an issue with that particular module, but I don't see what relationship that has to the rest of the exam changes, and nobody on here seems to know what relationship it has. The impression I get from the linked TES thread is that it is an issue with that particular exam board, not Science in general.

As for Maths, DS is currently doing the government's pilot Maths project. From what I've read online, the government is intending to change all students to a different, more difficult type of Maths qualification in a couple of years in addition to the current papers. This is likely to be based on the pilot, double award Maths. I don't think it does matter if Maths gets harder if it becomes a double award; it should then be allotted more teaching time, which is down to individual schools.

So overall, the idea that the government is rushing in a whole load of untrialled qualification changes isn't really true. Modular is being replaced with linear, which has been taught in half of schools over the past decade anyway so it isn't really new. Now everyone will return to it. Maths will eventually be replaced based on pilot projects that have been carried out in 100 schools.

As for spelling, punctuation and grammar... It is utterly ridiculous that in GCSE Latin, the standard of the candidate's spelling, punctuation and grammar in written English is taken into account when answering about Classical literature, but a candidate answering similar questions about English literature in an English Literature exam does not have spelling, punctuation and grammar taken into account. That has nothing to do with different pupils having different abilities. It simply means that candidates with similar abilities to discuss imagery in prose have to write to a higher standard in English to complete an A* answer in a Latin prose unit than they would have to do in an English literature prose unit. That is simply unfair.

[ClothesOfSand]

Also, from what I've read on the TES forum, the Geography changes are just government hype. They simply mean that Geography teachers will have to teach the whole curriculum, not just bits of it likely to come up in the old exams. Geography teachers are generally say they have always taught the whole curriculum anyway so the changes will make no difference.

[noblegiraffe]

clothes the maths GCSE may well change to double award in a few years but that is not what they are talking about now when they talk about falling results.

[Kez100]

Bog standard comp here and only modular exams are Double award or Triple Science. Although English feels like it with controlled assessments ongoing, the exam side of it is one, at the end.

Dyslexic pupils can be given access arrangements (i.e more time) but there isn't any arrangements available for spelling. Even if you are allowed a laptop, you can't use spell check. Effectively they are being penalised, almost automatically, by 5%. Also, so are others who are somewhere on the dyslexic spectrum but not diagnosed. Now, if it's English papers, fine. Not if it is on other papers though.

[Kez100]

I agree with the teachers teaching the whole curriculum. The Government seem to assume all children's teachers have been on the courses where we all saw advice being given on the subjects which would come up. Now, those teachers, may well have only taught the advised bit of the syllabus, but not the thousands of other teachers who have never had access to such fraudulant courses.

As for Maths, you have to teach the whole curriculum because - pretty much - the whole curriculum comes up in one form or another. Especially those after C in foundation. 30% is not a lot of marks to lose when you build in the silly mistakes we all make with numbers under pressue.

[noblegiraffe]

Also clothes no one knows if the falling science pass rate is just Edexcel because the other exam boards' results haven't come out yet. There are quite a few worried science teachers out there. Including the Edexcel ones as that appalling exam has hit quite a few students. No one thinks that 5% is going to be the overall pass rate but it's a huge leap to assume that it's not going to be significantly lower than currently.