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

[Giles]

One of the other things that has changed is that candidates are no longer marked against each other. I forget when it stopped, but until some point, to get a certain grade, not only did you have to achieve the required mark, but you had to be in the top how-ever-many percent of candidates.

Yes, that is what they called "norm-referencing". Where the top 8% (by the looks of that graph) got grade A, then the next so-many percent a "B" and so on.

I think it was better because it prevented the whole "grade inflation" problem. If one year the exam was easier or harder for a given subject, you would still get the same proportion of As, Bs etc.

A criticism of this method was that "if you were unlucky to be in a year group of above-average ability, you could do very well and still only get a B".

But in a year group of thousands sitting a given A Level, the statistical probability of them suddenly being much "brighter" in one year is very, very small indeed.

Giles..

 

[spanglechick]

I know i've mentioned teaching to the exam before, and of course there's performance related pay now (of a sort) for teachers... but generally, i have to say without equivocation that teachers now work harder and are better at teaching than they were expected to be even fifteen years ago, when I did my training.

we have, in the job, the expression 'chalk and talk'... that is - the teacher stands at the front, goes through stuff on the board, sets some questions or other written task, and the kids do it in silence.

if a teacher did that now they'd be managed out of the job. They would be deemed 'unsatisfactory' by ofsted criteria. The potential for kids to zone out / get the wrong idea / struggle and give up is just huge, quite apart from the fact that most people don't learn terribly well from being told stuff, or even shown it.

Added to that, teachers weren't expected to monitor student progress against targets set from their attainment when they came into the school, which meant underachievers flew under the radar. now we notice much earlier on, and are expected to put interventions in place.

When i started teaching (english) in 1996, my head of department gave me a choice of all the texts in the stock cupboard and left me to it. now teachers work to carefully balanced schemes of work, which slot into a larger curriculum map for the year. ICT has enriched how students learn, too.

teaching as a profession was still so much easier when i left it back in 1999. i came back in 2005 and it was a real shock - horrible! but i have to admit that we, teachers, are being made to work harder because it makes us work better. i am now a better teacher than the teachers i had at my grammar school in the eighties and ninties. better by miles.

 

[gunneradt]

We did 100% coursework for English GCSE 20 years ago and it was harder than doing exams! I think I would have done better in an exam.

It's not the 'doing' of the coursework that makes it easier - though it does in certain circumstances - it's the marking. I've seen standards fall terribly in English in the last 15 years (unless 50% of people couldn't write 15 years ago and I didn't notice as much). I see it at work where kids from university put capital letters in the middle of sentences, mixing up your from you're, there and their, was and were. That kind of 5 year old comprehension was drummed into us at infant and junior school yet I see adults get it wrong all the time.

 

[gunneradt]

I know i've mentioned teaching to the exam before, and of course there's performance related pay now (of a sort) for teachers... but generally, i have to say without equivocation that teachers now work harder and are better at teaching than they were expected to be even fifteen years ago, when I did my training.

we have, in the job, the expression 'chalk and talk'... that is - the teacher stands at the front, goes through stuff on the board, sets some questions or other written task, and the kids do it in silence.

if a teacher did that now they'd be managed out of the job. They would be deemed 'unsatisfactory' by ofsted criteria. The potential for kids to zone out / get the wrong idea / struggle and give up is just huge, quite apart from the fact that most people don't learn terribly well from being told stuff, or even shown it.

Added to that, teachers weren't expected to monitor student progress against targets set from their attainment when they came into the school, which meant underachievers flew under the radar. now we notice much earlier on, and are expected to put interventions in place.

When i started teaching (english) in 1996, my head of department gave me a choice of all the texts in the stock cupboard and left me to it. now teachers work to carefully balanced schemes of work, which slot into a larger curriculum map for the year. ICT has enriched how students learn, too.

teaching as a profession was still so much easier when i left it back in 1999. i came back in 2005 and it was a real shock - horrible! but i have to admit that we, teachers, are being made to work harder because it makes us work better. i am now a better teacher than the teachers i had at my grammar school in the eighties and ninties. better by miles.

I met a junior school teacher recently - nice lady and by all accounts good at her job - who didn't know the difference between 'his' and 'he's' - unless she liked muddling them up in text messages that is which I very much doubt. She wasn't from a very celebrated town in Essex but I would love to know how someone like that keeps a job. Can you imagine what she's passing onto children?

 

[ymu]

It's not the 'doing' of the coursework that makes it easier - though it does in certain circumstances - it's the marking. I've seen standards fall terribly in English in the last 15 years (unless 50% of people couldn't write 15 years ago and I didn't notice as much). I see it at work where kids from university put capital letters in the middle of sentences, mixing up your from you're, there and their, was and were. That kind of 5 year old comprehension was drummed into us at infant and junior school yet I see adults get it wrong all the time.

That's not comprehension, it's spelling and punctuation. Two entirely different things.

 

[gunneradt]

That's not comprehension, it's spelling and punctuation. Two entirely different things.

It's comprehension if you're completely confusing those two up. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the English language. How do people qualify to teach when they can't even construct the verb 'to be'?????

 

[ymu]

It's comprehension if you're completely confusing those two up. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the English language. How do people qualify to teach when they can't even construct the verb 'to be'?????

All the examples you gave were of spelling/punctuation, not comprehension. There is no indication that there is any problem with forming or understanding a grammatical sentence - just a problem sorting out the sounds for the purposes of writing them down accurately.

 

[gunneradt]

All the examples you gave were of spelling/punctuation, not comprehension. There is no indication that there is any problem with forming or understanding a grammatical sentence - just a problem sorting out the sounds for the purposes of writing them down accurately.

How could someone teaching kids to read and write get things like this wrong- it's virtually impossible I would have thought. And don't start me on people who say 'you was'. I'm afraid I subscribe to the adage 'those that can do, those that can't teach' - very harsh but I've seen some pretty poor teachers even at grammar schools.

 

[spanglechick]

I met a junior school teacher recently - nice lady and by all accounts good at her job - who didn't know the difference between 'his' and 'he's' - unless she liked muddling them up in text messages that is which I very much doubt. She wasn't from a very celebrated town in Essex but I would love to know how someone like that keeps a job. Can you imagine what she's passing onto children?

the plural of anecdote is not data.

I was told, in the early eighties at primary school, that there was no such word as 'led' (as in, 'she led the way') - instead i was told it was spelled 'lead'. Individual teachers might well have weaknesses and if you look around you'll a small number of people in any job who shouldn't be doing it. However, teaching is now an exclusively graduate profession, which it never was when i was at primary school.

I would suggest since the qualification level of teachers has risen, it would be foolish to imagine that teachers are getting worse.

AT any rate, your anecdote about primary education is only tangentally relevant to my quoted post, or to the subject of the thread, both of which are about secondary education.

 

[Pickman's model]

I would suggest since the qualification level of teachers has risen, it would be foolish to imagine that teachers are getting worse.

that doesn't follow. the possession of a pgce does not make someone a good teacher.

 

[gunneradt]

I didn't say teachers were getting worse - I just think there are some who don't appear to have the standards you would expect.

 

[spanglechick]

that doesn't follow. the possession of a pgce does not make someone a good teacher.

not on an individual level, but the literacy trend since the compulsory degree level education of teachers is highly unlikely to be downward.

I didn't say teachers were getting worse - I just think there are some who don't appear to have the standards you would expect.

but that's always been true. this thread is about recent trends.

 

[spanglechick]

dubbleposte

 

[Pickman's model]

not on an individual level, but the literacy trend since the compulsory degree level education of teachers is highly unlikely to be downward.

among teachers or among pupils?

 

[spanglechick]

teachers.

 

[_angel_]

It's not the 'doing' of the coursework that makes it easier - though it does in certain circumstances - it's the marking. I've seen standards fall terribly in English in the last 15 years (unless 50% of people couldn't write 15 years ago and I didn't notice as much). I see it at work where kids from university put capital letters in the middle of sentences, mixing up your from you're, there and their, was and were. That kind of 5 year old comprehension was drummed into us at infant and junior school yet I see adults get it wrong all the time.

You just may not have noticed, I helped on our school magazine. A large minority of kids could not even write properly. Never mind just get 'their, there and they're' mixed up. This was late eighties/ early nineties. When people complain about now I think they do forget sometimes how bad things were before.

I understand the marking system has been altered now, though.

 

[gunneradt]

You just may not have noticed, I helped on our school magazine. A large minority of kids could not even write properly. Never mind just get 'their, there and they're' mixed up. This was late eighties/ early nineties. When people complain about now I think they do forget sometimes how bad things were before.

I understand the marking system has been altered now, though.

Maybe you're right. It seems strange though because this was drummed into us from a very early age. What I have noticed is even bright kids making basic grammar mistakes. My point is a worry that those with basic grammar flaws are propagating them in schools as teachers. Failings in English always come back to bite you on the bum - especially at work.

 

[rioted]

the total numers of 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.

from:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4499534.stm

A paper prepared by City of Nottingham education authority 's 14-19 Team contains a series of combinations to meet or exceed the benchmark.
The first is indeed GCSE maths and English, each worth 20% of the total, and three other GCSEs, worth 60%.
Another is "adult online tests in literacy and numeracy", making up 10% each, plus four other GCSEs, worth 80%.
Wider key skills in improving own learning, problem solving and working with others are worth 15% each.
Alternatively the online tests in literacy, numeracy and ICT (information and communication technology) are combined with other qualifications.
These include career planning, community volunteering, vehicle parts operations and food processing and cooking.

 

[spanglechick]

from:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4499534.stm

That's from 2005. It's all much cleaer now. You cannot count Adult Literacy and Numeracy results in the '5 A*-C inc english and maths' stat, and that's the one looked at most closely - both by ofsted and parents.

Oh and congratulations: I'm a teacher and I made a typo. Does that give you a little warm, smug feeling inside? Or do you perhaps worry that I actually believe there's no 'b' in 'numbers'...?

 

[pennimania]

Well I'm a secondary teacher of over 34 years experience


I am doing Scottish Higher English because 2 of my kids are this year.

And I can tell you that I am not finding it that easy even tho I know the play 'Romeo and Juliet' if you must know, like the back of my hand

The textual analysis is cruel

 

[spanglechick]

Well I'm a secondary teacher of over 34 years experience


I am doing Scottish Higher English because 2 of my kids are this year.

And I can tell you that I am not finding it that easy even tho I know the play 'Romeo and Juliet' if you must know, like the back of my hand

The textual analysis is cruel

From what i've seen, and the exam paper cesare posted upthread, English has got much, much more demanding as a subject.

 

[pennimania]

From what i've seen, and the exam paper cesare posted upthread, English has got much, much more demanding as a subject.

Well I'm having to put in the hours, and I think most folks here know that I (have always) read a lot!

 

[Epona]

Well I did science A levels (chemistry, biology, and physics - only passed the biology one) when I was 18, and an A level in Ancient History (evening classes, focusing on Classical Athens and the Roman Repubic) when I was 27 - in some ways the one I did later in life was easier, because by that point I had an interest in doing the subject I'd picked and it was somehow less stressful because I was studying a fascinating subject, rather than just subjects I picked to stay on in education (but that I didn't realise would be so difficult without a better understanding of maths!) I got a far better result in the A level I took as an adult, but that was nothing to do with the relative difficulty of the exam paper, it was because I cared about it so much more than I did about anything when I was 16/18 and actually worked really fucking hard to do it. That A level was far more difficult than my degree, because for my degree I was able to specialise more and hence only concentrated on the stuff that I found most interesting - for example I did my dissertation for my degree on how the development of public space and buildings/architecture in the late-archaic Athenian agora (focusing particularly on public water sources such as fountains) reflected political changes of the time - a very specialised area, A-levels just don't have room for that sort of narrow verging-on-obsessive focus and it's not what they are about.

I have absolutely no desire to sit an A-level exam paper ever again (I'd rather do another degree course), I doubt I could do the exact same ones I did all those years ago and get through. But then I'm also not the target audience because I've never said that exams are easier now.

ETA: although I have a BA in archaeology and history I doubt I could get through a GCSE history exam paper if one was presented to me now, I know SFA about any history later than 100AD, I never took history as an O-level subject and have never studied late-medieval to modern periods. I doubt I'd get a pass mark with any GCSE history paper unless it had a bizarre focus on the late-archaic Athenian agora, although I'd probably get by if there was something about the Roman Republic in there! I would be able to do it if I had time to read and analyse plenty of sources that covered areas of the current history curriculum for a few weeks of intense study beforehand mind you, but I'd rather not.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

just been though a load of tests about this

part of FE education is the minimum core and i have to support students to level 2 in literacy numeracy and ict i was worried about this but it appears not to be as difficult as i remember

still i found gcse and a-level harder than my btec and degree due to my disinterest in many of the subject areas

also i managed to get a D in my IT gcse ... dunno how the fuck that happened

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

- for example I did my dissertation for my degree on how the development of public space and buildings/architecture in the late-archaic Athenian agora (focusing particularly on public water sources such as fountains) reflected political changes of the time

actually i kinda want to read that... it sound fasinating

 

[Epona]

actually i kinda want to read that... it sound fasinating

It's really not that interesting, you haven't missed out on anything spectacular

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

well it's intresting enough for me to already be trying to thing about the subject

i mean it seems obvious enough that the socio political stance would effect public structures but the mechanics of it would be worth thinking about is this wealthy people trying to buy favour / prestige or perhaps comity designated structures paid for by a public purse
i wonder how the strong patronage system effected roman public building....

the questions in my head highlight my lack of knowledge and make me wish i knew more