Are exams getting easier?

[branflake81]

We've just had a mini debate in the office about whether GCSE's and A Levels have become/are becoming easier and I thought I'd ask all you teachers out there what your opinions are.

My own opinion is that yes they are: when I did my exams (97 and 99) we did lots of past papers and they were significantly harder than what was expected of us.

I recently did a Spanish GCSE and was shocked at how easy it was. "In my day" you had to learn all your vocab etc, for this exam I was allowed a dictionary (!), could prepare a talk in advance for my oral and the standard of grammar needed for an A* was ridiculously low.

I can't speak for all subjects obviously, as I specialised in languages from 16 onwards but I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions.

Presumably you weren't 16 when you did your Spanish GCSE and I don't know why they allowed a dictionary, because I wasn't when I did my German GCSE 2 years ago.

When I did O Levels I found them easy - I know that because I passed them all without doing any revision. I didn't know what revision was until I did my A levels and I certainly didn't put the work in then that my dd is putting in for her GCSEs.

I am sorry, but I am totally fed up with people saying that GCSEs are easy and back in my day we had to work down't pit for a crust of bread each day, etc.

What is the point in setting exams that children are going to fail? I don't believe that I am cleverer than my children because I did O Levels. I got the grades I deserved - Cs and Bs - my dd should get the grades that she has worked exceptionally hard for - As and A*s. I was a lazy toerag and I didn't deserve any more than I got.

I agree with you figroll. DD3 has dyspraxia and is taking 8 GCSE#s this summer/ she will have to work hard to even get a D in most subjects although she wil probably get a C in Maths and Drama. So she certainly does not find them easy. DD2 18 also had to work hard to get above a C in her GCSEs and DD1 20 got 6 A'a and 4 B's when she did her GCSE's. She was in the top set for everything but that did not mean she found the GCS's easy.
Sorry about the rant but I thuink it depends on the child not how easy the GCSE's are.

It depends what you mean by easier. There are different ways of looking at this - does it mean huge range of facts, complex problems etc.?

I think they are probably more accessible to more children, and they probably test a broader range of knowledge/understanding/attitude.

There are some aspect that are easier and some that are harder.

when I did A levels in 1983, two people in my sixth form (around 150 students, pretty good comprehensive) got 3 As. Look at how many in each year get four or five As at A Level.

Are they REALLY all getting so much cleverer?

Certainly in Maths the A levels no longer come anywhere near the depth that they used to. This had had a corresponding effect on degrees too. The BA(Hons) in Maths course at Oxford is now a 3 year course which covers the same syllabus that I did in the first 2 years of my degree. They have introduced a 4 year M(Maths) course which is the equivalent of the BA coure that I did with a couple of extra topics int he final year.

However there have been a lot of changes to the primary maths curriculum, and I know there was hope that this trend might reverse over the next 10 years in maths at any rate.

The proportion of As, Bs and Cs, is a question of grade boundaries, not the difficulty of the exam.

A lot of schools have given up on GCSE maths and are now doing the iGCSE

I seem to be teaching an awful lot of basic algebra in my physics a-level classes. . I think maths needs to go back to the days when we did 50 questions in class and another 50 at home.

Can't speak for other subjects, except to say that the way the exams are taken has a breaing (e.g. modular science which seems to have exams spread out through the 2 years so pupils can be tested on what they have recently learned rather than be tested at the end of the 2 years - but you'd need to speak to an expert on that subject). As far as my subject, English goes, then it's true you don't need to know as much rote-learned grammar as you might have done when I took O levels. The exam was also based on straightforward comprehension of an unseen piece and then a writing composition, and if you were good at story-telling and had a good basic knowledge of grammar you'd be ok really.

These days the GCSEs are more about the application of skills - the reading paper will focus on basic comprehension, but also knowledge of how an author creates certain effects for the audience. The writing paper focuses on writing in a certain way (writing to argue, persuade, etc) and whether the writing is appropriate for that purpose and audience. And then spelling, punctuation and sentence structure is considered as well. Pupils also have to know a fair bit of poetry and be able to write about several poems and how they are written using techincal terms.

For English (for the board I teach), 60% is exam, 20% is coursework (5% for each piece) and 20% is speaking and listening (which many pupils actually find very challenging).

I would argue that GCSEs are 'easier'. They are certainly different to the O levels. Maybe you can actually gain a pass at GCSE more easily, but getting a 'good' pass (A-C) is still quite challenging I think.

In maths, yes, absolutely no doubt. "Further Maths" nowadays is more-or-less the equivalent of "Maths" fifteen years ago. The Oxford engineering degree - the one I know most about - now teaches in the second year what it used to teach in the first term of first year, and much of the first year is taken up with teaching maths which was previously assumed knowledge on arrival.

Part of the problem is certainly that syllabuses have diverged a lot more, so there is less common ground, but that is just one contributing factor. Modular A-levels have been a disaster, allowing children to get by with short-term rote learning and much less deep understanding.

Please note this doesn't mean children are getting stupider, or that they find maths more straightforward. Another important issue is the quality of maths teaching in schools, which is unfortunately very low in some places as non-mathematicians try to teach it.

Not only short term role leraning, but also a lack of integration within what is taught. Kids tend to think, 'I've done' Foundation, got my grade in it, now I can forget it. So their understanding of how things fit together is almost totally lacking.

There is a nod in the direction of this in the synoptica papers, but by them, for many kids, it is too late.

The new GCSEs in science are, IMHO., very poor. With far to much ethical discussion of issues that the children don't fully understand, because we are not given the time to teach the scinece underpinning the topic.

There is research to suggest that the general intelligence and aptitude of a population is pretty much constant. But, more students pass their 'terminal' school exams today than ever before. The exams now fail to differentiate between students. When I was at school (GCSEs in 96 A-levels 98) there were students who were good at science and maths and others who were good at history and english. Those students no longer seem to exist, the best students are good at everything, strings of A*s and lazy, weak students are getting Cs with v.little work or aptitude. I don't think this helps the kids to be honest. They can only pass the exam paper they have put in front of them but I know some of my best students get pretty despondant when they see other students getting Cs and Bs for very little. I teach A-level chemistry along with 21stC science GCSEs which are awful. I can't help thinking that the 2 tier CSE/O-level system was probably better. Setting kids up to fail is bad but there needs to be some way of differentiating the gifted from the mediocre but skilled at passing exams.

There was a couple of years ago an article in the Telegraph about this. It showed an A2 Maths question. DH looked at this, raised an eyebrow and disappeared upstairs. He came back with his 'O' level maths paper from 1976 (he did his a year early at 15), and lo and behold it was exactly the same question. QED ladies?

I think it is hard still to achieve the top grades, but I think there is an issue in the lower grades. I mark GCSEs for a well known exam board, and some years it only takes 6-9 marks to achieve a G grade, which counts as a GCSE. At least with the 'O'level/CSE split, employers knew where they were with the results. It seems to me that you have the same thing in effect with GCSE, A*-C being the old 'O' level equivalent, and D-G being the old CSE 3and below grades.

Can I also add that I loathe coursework as I think exams are a fairer test of ability.

I did my o'levels in 1979. In those days only 15% of the population were expected to get 5 passes, nowdays 50% are expected to go to university
For English literature were not allowed the books in the exam so had to know To Kill a Mockingbird, Romeo and Juliet and several sonnets thoroughly to quote them.

In German no dictionary and we were allowed no preparation at all for the Oral at all, we had no idea what we were expected to talk about until we met the examiners.

"I did my o'levels in 1979. In those days only 15% of the population were expected to get 5 passes,"

Well - I think that says it all really. So 15% were expected to get some decent exam results and 85% were sent down't pit.

Actually, I don't think we have any figures for exam success in 1979 because they didn't collect the statistics (unless anyone can prove me wrong - I would truly love to see the statistics).

The proof is in the pudding. I ask some of our degree qualified B.Sc(hons) healthcare colleagues some really basic scientific stuff and they just don't know it- the pure and simple reason is the modular nature of so much academic achievement. They crammed what they needed to know into the term in which they were to be 'examined'/'course work assessed' on that topic then immediately, with a sigh of relief, forgot it (or immediately redid the necessary essay to 'up' their grade). Whilst it might be fair to say "what's now being measured is DIFFERENT to what used to be measured ie now, the ability to USE information rather than the old-style to KNOW information", the reality is they appear to come out having retained precious little. The knowledge of 'how to learn' is an empty vessel. It's what you fill it with that counts, surely. Like knowing how to teach someone how to drive a car but then having them leave you- unable to actually drive the car!

I think we're seriously short changing our DCs. Those who get the 12 A*s at GCSE know, deep in their souls, that it doesn't necessarily mean they're the best of the best. A friend's child is predicted to get 10 GCSEs, A-Cs. My friend is relieved that this means her DD will get into hairdressing.... I needed 6 passes at 'O' levels to go into my grammar school's 6th form 25 years ago.

I'm not sure that learning passages of poetry or plays off by heart is a sign of a good education.

I think it still takes some brain power and application to get an A at GCSE.

And figroll, back in the days when an O level signalled a good, academic grasp of a subject, the other 85% didn't necessarily go down't pit. They did CSEs, City and Guilds apprenticeships, Foundation courses, diplomas. ie a wide variety of different types of qualifications designed to meet the needs of individuals.

Now we're trying to pretend a GCSE in cake decorating is as demanding as one in Physics. It makes a mockery of both. The DC with the gift for cake decorating should be at a Technical college (remember those?!) doing a C & G in Patisserie Cheffing (is that a word?) and the DC with the bent for physics should be in the higher academic set heading perhaps for an A level and then possibly an Engineering degree. We need both. They signify different things. In dumbing down this catch-all GCSE where none shall fail, we do ALL our DCs a disservice.

I learned more practical laboratory skills and good practice from two lab technicians. Both of them had City and Guilds qualifications and were exceptional scientists.

We have forgotten the real value of real practical skills.

Pretending that one type of exam will cover everything is asinine

IME the MFL exams are definitely easier now, and so are Maths.

Foundation level exams are generally quite easy - but then I never saw CSE papers to compare them with.

I recently supervised a group of students doing a practice (Higher Level) Chemistry paper. In some ways it was easier than my O level 20 yrs ago - for instance they get a copy of the Periodic Table in the exam, we had to know all the Chemical symbols and atomic numbers and so on. There was quite a bit in the paper that I couldn't answer. Having said that I think Chemistry (specially at the atomic and sub-atomic level) has moved on a lot in the last 20 yrs, so that may explain why I couldn't answer it all

The 15% I quoted was what our teachers told us at the time and as Miljee says,those who didn't do O'levels did CSE. A grade 1 CSE was equilvelent to an O'level C pass. A D and E were fails at O'level.
Another difference is that only the top say 5% (I don't know the figure) would be given an A, this would take into account of maybe a paper being a bit harder or easier. Non of this more children than ever getting A*.
Not everyone is academic and expecting everybody to do the same exams is ridiculous. There are many people who should be out in the workplace at 16 learning on the job in apprenticeships as my DH did.
My children are now expected to start doing some of their GCSE's early. DS is being fast tracked in German and IT . He is good at IT and should have no problems, but he hasn't even been given the choice over german and he really doesn't enjoy languages.

if GCSE's aren't easier than Gce O Level, why are so many top independent schools looking to stretch able pupils and give them a better preparation for A Level, by introducing the iGSCE for many subjects ? The iGCSE is recognised as being more academically rigorous by many educationalists, university staff etc.