A challenge to those who think GCSEs and A levels get easier every year

[littlebabyjesus]

Explain improvement in standardised tests such as IQ tests, then, rioted.

Intelligence isn't something you are born with. It is something that develops within an environment that stimulates it. TBH I'd be disappointed if kids weren't getting cleverer over time given that. As a general rule, all other things being equal, you should be able to teach someone else to perform a task more quickly than it was taught to you, because your student can benefit from one further generation of experience.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

2. You'd need to get a current student to sit an old paper too, for balance.

A newspaper reporter did that years ago. Sat a current exam and got a kid to sit the exam he would have sat 20/30 years ago. Both found the exams difficult

 

[bhamgeezer]

Of course exams have got easier! Why not apply critical thinking to the question? More kids are passing more exams at higher grades. Either kids are getting cleverer, and by extrapolation will all be geniuses in a few years time or the exams are getting easier/teaching is getting better (it's called teaching to the test). The idea that evolution would facilitate the kind of improvements to intellect in such a short time is patently absurd. You fail your science test, Mrs M.

If the kids have more skills and knowledge than before how exactly are the tests getting "easier". What has actually increased is the standard of education, if you're making a case for being more discriminating that fine. But then you're basically saying is school level exams should be a process to seperating the best kids from the rest as opposed to bringing everyone up to a basic objective standard of knowledge and capabilty. If thats what school exams are for then it makes sense, but its seems like exams then are nothing more than a process to discern who gets into the best universities/competitive courses rather than getting everyone in society to a certain level by a certain age.

 

[ymu]

I've just had a proper look at that exam, and I could answer almost all of it correctly. But, it does get trickier as you go through it. I think it is a very fair test of a particular level of maths – ie a person who could pass that exam would be ready to go on to tackle calculus, mechanics, more advanced statistics etc, which are the next step as you move into A-levels.

We did calculus at O level.

 

[Jackobi]

I was reading up about this recently and came across an interesting study on the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy site entitled;

The levels of attainment in literacy and numeracy of 13- to 19-year-olds in England, 1948-2009

It is available as a PDF download and is an interesting collation of data.

One of the conclusions is as follows;

I admit it is fairly selective quoting on my behalf to try and prove a point, but is still a legitimate conclusion.

It is a very interesting read if the subject is of any interest to you.

 

[rioted]

If the kids have more skills and knowledge than before how exactly are the tests getting "easier". What has actually increased is the standard of education, if you're making a case for being more discriminating that fine. But then you're basically saying is school level exams should be a process to seperating the best kids from the rest as opposed to bringing everyone up to a basic objective standard of knowledge and capabilty. If thats what school exams are for then it makes sense, but its seems like exams then are nothing more than a process to discern who gets into the best universities/competitive courses rather than getting everyone in society to a certain level by a certain age.

I would dispute that kids have any more skills and knowledge to any significant extent. Sure, modern kids know how to use computers now, but many of them don't know chips come from under the ground. They can get A grades in Food Technology and eat crap. What kids have got better at, is passing exams - they get far more practise nowadays. If that is what you mean by "education" ...

 

[rioted]

Intelligence isn't something you are born with. It is something that develops within an environment that stimulates it.

How can you stimulate what isn't there?

IQ tests are crap. And they're still tests. Kids nowadays get lots and lots of practice at those pattern recognition things, of course they're better at it. But those months of training them for SATS and the like just deprives them of a real education.

 

[Hollis]

imo exams have got easier. certainly the 1988 gcses were considerably easier than what went before, and i have no reason to suppose that they are more difficult nowadays. we'll settle this over a fine nut roast

I've a mate who's head of maths at a FE College who'd agree with you.

 

[ymu]

How can you stimulate what isn't there?

IQ tests are crap. And they're still tests. Kids nowadays get lots and lots of practice at those pattern recognition things, of course they're better at it. But those months of training them for SATS and the like just deprives them of a real education.

How do you know it isn't there? IQ test scores have been shown to improve within individuals after their access to education improves, not just across different generations of kids. There's no reason at all to think it is an innate characteristic, beyond some defined disabilities which affect mental function. In general, brains work better if they get used, and especially if they have been practising a particular task/for the test, and IQ testing seems to confirm this.

 

[rioted]

How do you know it isn't there? IQ test scores have been shown to improve within individuals after their access to education improves, not just across different generations of kids. There's no reason at all to think it is an innate characteristic, beyond some defined disabilities which affect mental function. In general, brains work better if they get used, and especially if they have been practising a particular task/for the test, and IQ testing seems to confirm this.

I think it is there. I think training the brain to succeed at certain things - passing these tests - works. I question that the fact that, after practice, increased test scores equates to increases in intelligence. I question whether teaching kids to pass tests is education at all. Loads more kids might be meeting the standards/targets set for them, but universities increasingly have to work with undergraduates who are not literate or numerate. The concentration on passing tests (and training for that) DEPRIVES kids of education.

 

[ymu]

Ah, sorry. Misunderstood you.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

: universities increasingly have to work with undergraduates who are not literate or numerate.

Can that perception not be completely explained by the fact that far more people go to university now?

 

[ymu]

Can that fact not be completely explained by the fact that far more people go to university now?

It explains some of it. It's not clear if it explains all of it, as some of the universities complaining are still taking the top x% of the intake, as they always did.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd wager that there's a measure of 'twas ever thus' in the complaints, though – things aren't what they used to be, and they never were.

 

[spanglechick]

I don't know whether or not GCSEs and A levels have become easier because I don't have a 'nowadays' to compare with; and even if I did I doubt my comparison would mean very much after all these years. I found doing a GCSE back in the 90s was easier than my Os in the 70s but the circumstances of my studying etc were entirely different - for one thing I was just doing one exam rather than several!

I've kept (i.e. hoarded ) many of my old school books and a couple of years ago I found this old 1978 O level paper amongst them. I've attached it for interest though I'm not sure that any meaningful comparison can be made?View attachment 11735

View attachment 11736View attachment 11737

I used to teach english gcse until about four years ago, and it's much harder than that. some questions are similar, but there's no way you could pass a GCSE even at a grade D by simply saying what you admire in characters and why, or which parts of a story you found most interesting. or even why you think a certain charcetr behaves in a certain way. English is all about 'why did the authour write it that way?' and 'what effect does that writer's choice have on the audience'.

 

[rioted]

I'd wager that there's a measure of 'twas ever thus' in the complaints, though – things aren't what they used to be, and they never were.

Of course there's a measure of that, but a very small measure. The target culture in schools HAS resulted in dumbing down, and even more ingenious ways of meeting targets. Take the number of kids with 5 A-Cs for instance. Schools quickley cottoned on to the fact that if they taught BTecs and GNVQs which were "worth" (sic) 4 GCSEs and could be done all on coursework and a bit of teacher assessment, they could easily make their targets. The number achieving their 5s shot up. In an attempt to counter this, the powers-that-be decided that the 5 had to include Maths & English to count. Enter the online testing -" worth" (sic) 1/2 a GCSE with as many goes as it takes and often with Teaching Assistant help examining only a small part of the curriculum. Kids could now do an IT GNVQ (microsoft office training) marked on coursework and the online Maths and English and hey presto, targets met.

 

[rioted]

English is all about 'why did the authour write it that way?' and 'what effect does that writer's choice have on the audience'.

Yeah, and fuck all to do with the story. English Literature - a course to put you off reading.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, and fuck all to do with the story. English Literature - a course to put you off reading.

I hate to say it, but that was my experience too.

Some authors specifically prohibit their books from being course texts for that very reason.

 

[ShiftyBagLady]

I;d love to sit a science or english exam and see how I get on, there must be a website you can do this on...

edit: i hope they wouldn't deduct marks for typos

 

[ernestolynch]

The above post about 'online English and Maths' is nonsense from the Express or Mail or Guardian.

 

[rioted]

The above post about 'online English and Maths' is nonsense from the Express or Mail or Guardian.

No Ern, it's true. They used them for the last two years I was teaching. We weren't the only school.

EtA: From AQA:

Free-Standing Mathematics Qualification

- Weaker or unmotivated students who are unable to achieve a
grade in GCSE Mathematics but who need real-life
mathematical skills. (You may also like to consider Entry
Level Certificates for students struggling with GCSE; AQA
offers two of these.)

All units contribute points to institution performance tables from 2007 examination.

 

[ernestolynch]

They don't count towards the 5A*-CincEM score, sorry.

 

[N_igma]

History.

 

[girasol]

Now, I detest IQ tests. They are so crude as to be virtually worthless – you can't reduce something as complex as intelligence to one number – but that said, they do measure something: someone scoring 150 will have a certain ability that someone scoring 90 will not have. IQ tests score people by giving a mark according to your position relative to others – with 100 in the middle – and they have to be periodically recalibrated upwards to allow for the fact that children are getting better at them.

Kids are, in general, getting smarter.

When I was teaching logical and abstract reasoning to my son (he needed to do those tests for secondary schools, as do all kids to get in any school in wandsworth) he was getting higher scores than I was by the end of the two month period we spent on them...

That is not to say that schools do not fail a lot of children, and a lot of them come out not having learned the most basic skills. But that doesn't mean kids are 'stupider' or 'lazier' - it just means that some of them are not getting enough support.

However, there's too much focus on tests, I agree with that, but when I was in school we also had a lot of pressure and endless testing, so has that really changed?

 

[scifisam]

Draw a triangle? Draw a square? Fill in your times table?

These were things I did a junior school not at O' level

And people claim exams aren't getting easier

Those are weird questions, especially when they're right next to questions like 'Solve the inequality 5x + 3 £ 3x - 6.' Most of the questions are of that level, then they throw in a couple of bizarrely easy ones and give them more marks (per question) than the hard ones.

Obviously most people wouldn't be able to pass a GCSE without studying, but some people claim that GCSEs are so easy that they could do that.

 

[rioted]

They don't count towards the 5A*-CincEM score, sorry.

What do they count for?

 

[spanglechick]

What do they count for?

the total numers of A*-C

so, schools will publish 4 statistics:

the highest will be number of students getting one GCSE A*-G typically this will be 99-100%
then it will be students getting 5 A*-G, typically in the high ninties, not remarkable to be 100%
then the two that people actually pay attention to.

students getting 5 or more A*-C grade GCSEs in any subject. This will count 'equivalent' courses - so ALAN tests (adult literacy and numeracy); BTECs (typically have a value of 2 or 4 GCSEs due to (in theory) longer programmes of study; and, in my opinion, indefensibly 'mickey mouse' courses such as wider key skills and COPE.

But... it's possible for not very academic kids to get 5 or more Cs and above if you put them into the right vocational courses - my school, which statistically has a very hign number of lower ability students (by intake data at year 7), managed 90% of their students getting 5 or more A*-C...

so the other important figure is how many students got five or more A*-C grades including English (language) and Maths. so if you don't get a C in one or other of those subjects (or both) you don't contribute to the statistic. I believe nationally on average that figure is around 58-65% for a school.

 

[tar1984]

I'l do A-level Psychology. That's the same as a Scottish Higher, right? Anyway I'll do it.

 

[Quartz]

There's an example here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/maths/mocks/mathsmockh1_nocalc.pdf - I'm presuming this is pretty much what you'd get in a current exam.

I'll bite.

I had a quick gander. I reckon I'd probably scrape an A. If I were to brush up on my terminology and formulae, I'd walk an A*. But then, I did look into retraining as an actuary, so you'd expect nothing less. I expect Kabbes would score 100% upside down and blindfolded, though.

I have an acquaintance who is a science teacher. He tells me that exams in his area are definitely getting easier as the questions lead from one to the other.

 

[Ms T]

I don't think education standards have slipped though. Just from my own experience I think schools are much better. I can only compare my grammar school with the comprehensives I've worked in.

I think that teaching is much better these days. However, I also think that because results are seen as key to a school's success there is a lot of coaching to get through the exams, which is not necessarily the same as proper learning. A friend who is a lecturer at a top university says that pupils today are not used to independent thinking and the first year of university involves getting them to do things that the best students already knew how to do twenty or even ten years ago. And we are talking about young people who've got 5 As and the like here.