Will new GCSE's bring a halt to Social Mobility?

[BlueBelle123]

This is something that I have been pondering - if the new grade 9 becomes the entry requirement for the top universities and competitive courses and if the vast majority are awarded to private school pupils then pupils at the local comp. are going to find it almost impossible to access these places. A lot of Ifs I know but it does make you think - or am I talking complete rubbish, love to hear what you think?

I know in the OP I have talked about GCSE's but surely grades 1-9 will be extended to A Levels in time.

Perhaps, but since the current A Level reforms don't do this and aren't set to be complete (ie, all subjects under the new regime) for a couple of years, it's unlikely that any such scheme is going to happen until the next cycle of change.

There's also not much reason to believe there needs to be finer distinctions at the top end of A Level. The only substantial subject complaining they can't get the distinctions are maths departments asking for STEP, and even they are in a tiny minority. There are departments asking for pre offer aptitude testing, but that's not going to be helped by messing about with A Level: places that want to ask for UMS scores in AS can, and the changes to the AS system - which strike me as incomprehensible - are the problem, but the hypothetic lack of an A** at A2.

(In passing, one of the obvious problems with the current AS/A2 thing, which I confess I didn't realise until I had children doing A Levels, is that the AS is in a sense "easy marks". Strong candidates do AS-standard work, which is not as advanced as A2 work, but get marks of the same weight as A2. So candidates who got 90%+ UMS at AS,have an easy ride to AAA because they only need to achieve high Cs in the A2 exams. The Astar fixes this at the top end because of the requirement to get 90%+ in the terminal exams - ie, a candidate who gets 100% UMS at As and 80% UMS at A2 gets an A, not an Astar - but a candidate who gets 92% at AS and 68% at A2 gets an A, which could be argued to be wrong. But that could be trivially fixed by re-weighting the years (ie 40:60 rather than 50:50), and abolishing the current AS pathway seems a kneejerk reaction. After all, it's now routine for 2nd year courses to count towards degree classifications.)

ricardian I don't think expecting an 8/9 is unreasonable.

However, I'm concerned that applicants from the state sector are going to be able to achieve those scores in the sorts of numbers we'd like to see in order to continue widening access.

We've already seen a drop in A*s in the current system in English Language (for two years running IIRC). I can't see why those fortunes would change under the new system.

To achieve those grades students don't just need to have the ability. The resources and teaching has to be there alongside. I just can't see where that's going to come from.

Perhaps maths will fare better? State schools currently produce A students in higher quantities than they do for English. Perhaps those A students will translate into 8/9s?

"Marks for humanity subjects are not infrequently unexpected with regards the track record and ability of a candidate."

This is true for French and for Philosophy but not for MFL or for History-Geography, where marking is sufficiently reliable.

Marking for e.g. Mathematics is highly reliable and a mark of 18/20 in the French bac for Mathematics is far more highly indicative of exceptional talent and achievement than A-level A*.

We've already seen a drop in As in the current system in English Language (for two years running IIRC)*

2013: 3.3%
2014: 3.6%
2014: 3.1%

(cf. 1994 1.8%, 1999 2.5%: it was below 3% from 1994 to 2000).

It did peak at 4.7% in 2011, but I think the reasons behind that have been pretty well explored.

I'm in two minds about this (and my hands are dirty, because both my children got twelve Astar, the younger under the newer all-terminal system, and with 90%+ UMS in many of them would would imply they would have got a substantial number of 9s under the new system). On the one hand, I can just about see that there is some argument for extending and delineating the very able. On the other hand, GCSE work is usually of a pretty basic standard so I'm not certain that being able to get 99% rather than 95% on a GCSE exam proves a huge amount other than diligence, and I don't see that the GCSE system exists for, or should even pay any attention to, the admission requirements of a tiny minority of courses at a tiny minority of universities.

Until we decide what GCSEs are for we're all potentially arguing at cross-purposes.

If, for example, they're purely about university admission, then we should go back to A Level circa 1980 and norm-reference, solving the "fine distinctions at the top" by just publishing centiles. Anyone numerate would realise it has error bars a mile wide and the distinction between 97th centile and 99th centile would be meaningless, but university admission is done by smart people who can deal with that.

If they're criteria referenced then at GCSE the argument that the distinctions at the top are meaningless are even stronger (it would be like trying to tell Lewis Hamilton from a journeyman DTM driver by getting them to take a UK driving test and seeing how differently they did) but criteria referencing is what we need for "can you do an A Level in this?" or "are you literate enough to work in my company?", for which norm-referencing is hopeless.

As no-one will answer the question of the purpose for which GCSE is most intended (they appear to be the spiritual inheritors of school certificate, but in a world where study is largely expected to continue to 18) debates about its marking and grading are a bit pointless.

Bobo although I would agree that Philosophy and French are the most unreliable marking wise I know a student who had a below 10 for geo despite being a well prepared student and achieving 19,5 overall in the BacS. In the end it did n't matter obviously but errors even for tick box type answers in more standardised subjects still occur and the French system despite all the standardisation still has problems with marking.

2013: 3.3%
2014: 3.6%
2015: 3.1%

Sometimes even very good students slip up in exams, though.

If you talk to lycées who track these things, the only subjects that they have consistent issues with are French and Philosophy. There is no will at all to reform...

An exam which is quite interesting is IELTS. It is highly standardised and designed to be very reliable and yet even very good students sometimes get an unexpected mark (confirmed after a remark).

Sometimes even very good students slip up in exams, though.
Absolutely but the problem is that when marking cannot be checked there remains uncertainty. Very good students blame themselves and therefore are less likely to question aberrancies.

As a senior academic I mark medical student exam papers. This is a very standardised process. However differentiating between a student who regurgitates information and one that is clearly better at complex problem solving and has read at a deeper level will depend on the type of question and the expertise of the examiner in recognising that an answer without some of the key words shoukd not necessarily lose marks.
I think that it must be so much harder in subjects with subjectivity in assessing style of writing as well as content. I therefore take with a pinch of salt that A or 9 at GCSE or A level English Lit = all best candidates as Ricardian* seems to think, especially with variable expertise of markers.

I'm not defending the French and Philosophy situation (which is absurd). I haven't made up my mind about the no remarking situation, however. It doesn't actually matter in France, where HE offers are not contingent on individual bac marks.

As Ricardian points out, the question never asked is, if it is more or less compulsory to remain in full-time education or training until the age of 18, why does the system persist in examining students at GCSE in subjects they will drop and which are not of further relevance? Clearly, there's an argument for attesting to a wider base of achievement in literacy and numeracy and especially MFL, but wouldn't an age-normed paper at the end of studying that subject record it sufficiently, or am I being dense?

cressetmama - I agree - I'm not sure why DC need to take exams in so many subjects at the age of 16. Other countries/systems manage without such extensive testing at the end of middle school (which is, effectively, what English 11-16 education is).

The only point of GCSEs in so many subjects and results seems to be like SATs, assessing the schools for their capacity to deliver syllabus based teaching. Is it worth the stress to candidates, the cost of administration or the problems with categorising DCs academic abilities so early for subjects like medicine? I don't think so.

I therefore take with a pinch of salt that A or 9 at GCSE or A level English Lit = all best candidates as Ricardian seems to think*

Sorry, I didn't intend to say that at all. But university applications are necessarily not 100% accurate, because it involves foretelling the future, which is "how well will this 18 year old do with three years of teaching?" That has error bars a mile wide, too. The current system assumes that doing reasonably well at exams at stage n is a good sign for doing well at stage n+1. Is there any reason to believe the new system will be worse at that than the current one? If you're currently using A* at GCSE as a threshold, will using 8 in the new GCSE be any different? I can't see why it would be.

I am begging the question (and it's lovely to be able to use the phrase correctly) of whether using A* currently is any better than disembowelling chickens and looking at their entrails, of course.

A five subject standardised exam (a sort of EBacc) would be plenty at 16 from a pupil's perspective. The stakes attached to GCSEs have become ludicrous.

I'm not sure why DC need to take exams in so many subjects at the age of 16.

"5 A*-C" is school certificate, last seen in the wild in about 1952 before it was replaced by O Level. The original O Level "pass" standard was school certificate, and five subjects (which isn't a new thing: you needed 5 O Levels to "matriculate" to get "Form R" in order to get your grant in the 1980s) is school certificate as well.

For whatever reason, we're still using a 1919 qualification as the reference point for school testing.

The other problem with removing GCSEs is that 11-16 schools then have no strong accountability measure, and 17-19 colleges don't have anything to do admissions on. I think I'm right in saying that all French secondaries go through to Bac, while we have the problem of there being a lot of 11-16 schools as a legacy of secondary moderns.

A five subject standardised exam (a sort of EBacc) would be plenty at 16 from a pupil's perspective.

How would sixth form colleges do admission?

Just as you don't need an A Level in Engineering to study engineering. It is assumed that if you show a great deal of talent for maths and physics at A Level standard, you will do just fine at engineering.

That's somewhat disingenuous, because degrees in engineering need maths and physics, whereas A Level Engineering is usually regarded as not a good preparation for an engineering degree. Ditto Law: the rows about A Level Law are well-rehearsed and we don't need to redo them.

But at the moment, doing A Level maths without GCSE maths is hard, ditto physics, ditto chemistry, ditto biology, ditto French, ditto German, ditto music, ditto. Yes, very strong candidates can catch up, but the courses in each of those subjects are assumed not to start ab initio. That's not about talent and application, that's about subject knowledge.

I think the new grades will actually challenge the private schools as they can hyper coach some kids to just squeak A and A* whereas my understanding now is that grade 9 will be reserved for the really really bright who would often end up bored at school (State or private).

I don't know anything about sixth form colleges' entry requirements and hadn't given it much thought . I take the point about accountability.

It is my understanding that Ricardian is correct that all French secondaries go to the Bac, but that not all students take it. I vaguely remember that US high schools offer a High School Equivalency certificate for those that go on to community colleges rather than universities, but what is tested and how it's reported, I don't know.

A five subject standard EBacc sounds fine, but what about an alternative for those studying more (erm) vocational subjects? A school leavers' certificate demonstrating minimum proficiencies in literacy and numeracy (and pitched at a fairly basic level), perhaps?

It's in getting the last few marks on a paper where coaching is most useful, MyLife.

Cross-post, but I don't think anyone is suggesting students should do any A level without the coursework leading up to it, whatever the subject. It does happen, if rarely. Someone at my school did A level Greek in two years ab initio with the intention of reading Classics at Oxbridge. She studied one-on-one with a very supportive teacher, who was also a classicist, but it wasn't on the curriculum, and many schools would not have a teacher able and willing to do it.

"I think I'm right in saying that all French secondaries go through to Bac"

Absolutely not: most French secondary education is separated into collège (middle school or junior high), which runs from 11-15, and lycée, from 15-18. State collège is not selective (private collège selects, but not necessarily on academic criteria). All lycées are selective but they are not allowed to select on the basis of the brevet des collèges.

I didn't know that, bobo. How do lycées select? That seems very pertinent to this discussion.