New GCSEs: Only two pupils in England will get all top marks
Discussion
Interesting tweet from the chief analyst at the Department for Education, estimating that just two pupils in England are likely to get all top grades in this year's GCSEs, while ofqual predict zero students getting 9s (the top grade) for all three subjects that it is available in (maths, english, english lit). To put that in perspective last year nearly 700,000 pupils sat GCSEs, and about 4000 of the students get at least 10 A*s.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/27/...
To compound the issue of massively increased difficulty the exam boards have not been communicating the grade boundaries or requirements effectively to the schools so they do not know what to aim for. The exam boards have provided one representative mock paper per subject, with one of the maths questions on the higher paper being of A Level standard/curriculum.
I can't help feel that they have turned up the difficulty a little too high this year and will end up lowering the boundaries next year, disadvantaging this year's students.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/27/...
To compound the issue of massively increased difficulty the exam boards have not been communicating the grade boundaries or requirements effectively to the schools so they do not know what to aim for. The exam boards have provided one representative mock paper per subject, with one of the maths questions on the higher paper being of A Level standard/curriculum.
I can't help feel that they have turned up the difficulty a little too high this year and will end up lowering the boundaries next year, disadvantaging this year's students.
tankplanker said:
Interesting tweet from the chief analyst at the Department for Education, estimating that just two pupils in England are likely to get all top grades in this year's GCSEs, while ofqual predict zero students getting 9s (the top grade) for all three subjects that it is available in (maths, english, english lit). To put that in perspective last year nearly 700,000 pupils sat GCSEs, and about 4000 of the students get at least 10 A*s.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/27/...
To compound the issue of massively increased difficulty the exam boards have not been communicating the grade boundaries or requirements effectively to the schools so they do not know what to aim for. The exam boards have provided one representative mock paper per subject, with one of the maths questions on the higher paper being of A Level standard/curriculum.
I can't help feel that they have turned up the difficulty a little too high this year and will end up lowering the boundaries next year, disadvantaging this year's students.
Good. Now they just need to stick to it and move the benchmark only to keep ahead of the international competition.https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/27/...
To compound the issue of massively increased difficulty the exam boards have not been communicating the grade boundaries or requirements effectively to the schools so they do not know what to aim for. The exam boards have provided one representative mock paper per subject, with one of the maths questions on the higher paper being of A Level standard/curriculum.
I can't help feel that they have turned up the difficulty a little too high this year and will end up lowering the boundaries next year, disadvantaging this year's students.
Chances of that happening? Slim I would think. But I can hope.
Murph7355 said:
Good. Now they just need to stick to it and move the benchmark only to keep ahead of the international competition.
Chances of that happening? Slim I would think. But I can hope.
We will only improve if the level being taught improves. At present the schools have been left in the dark with this change so do not know what to teach to meet the new higher standard. In addition this change has come fairly late to the kids sitting this year, so the school wouldn't have had enough time to teach the changes. It is a fundamental rewrite of the whole process with coursework disappearing for most subjects, question style changing, deeper subject knowledge, and a greater reliance on rote memory. Chances of that happening? Slim I would think. But I can hope.
It will be several years before we see any improvement over academic levels if at all. However the gap between the top levels and the middle is going to grow significantly, kids who sat last year's GCSE maths paper as a mock and achieved ~50% (about a B), they sat the official mock paper for this year and achieved less than 10%, only a month apart between both papers.
randlemarcus said:
My 15 year old son thanks you for this ready made excuse.
I think there are going to be a lot of upset parents in August, I remember when they moved the boundaries a couple of years ago and the number of parents who wanted papers re marked was way up on previous years.tankplanker said:
We will only improve if the level being taught improves. At present the schools have been left in the dark with this change so do not know what to teach to meet the new higher standard. In addition this change has come fairly late to the kids sitting this year, so the school wouldn't have had enough time to teach the changes. It is a fundamental rewrite of the whole process with coursework disappearing for most subjects, question style changing, deeper subject knowledge, and a greater reliance on rote memory.
It will be several years before we see any improvement over academic levels if at all. However the gap between the top levels and the middle is going to grow significantly, kids who sat last year's GCSE maths paper as a mock and achieved ~50% (about a B), they sat the official mock paper for this year and achieved less than 10%, only a month apart between both papers.
How do you get around that though? It doesn't matter when you elect to make a change, there will always be people immediately either side of the divide.It will be several years before we see any improvement over academic levels if at all. However the gap between the top levels and the middle is going to grow significantly, kids who sat last year's GCSE maths paper as a mock and achieved ~50% (about a B), they sat the official mock paper for this year and achieved less than 10%, only a month apart between both papers.
I guess I am somewhat biased having been amongst the last couple of years to sit the old O-levels. Why it was ever felt a good idea to have an increasing amount of assessment based on coursework I do not know. Quite possibly old-fartism, but standards seem to have been on the wrong trajectory ever since these approaches were introduced and subsequently fiddled with, somewhat backed up by international placings.
Murph7355 said:
Why it was ever felt a good idea to have an increasing amount of assessment based on coursework I do not know.
It is because people react to pressure in different ways and many people felt that only having one style of testing a pupils knowledge (i.e. an end of course exam) put too many children who couldn't perform under pressure (exam situation) but knew the subject when the pressure was off (during class) at a "disadvantage" compared to those who could handle/cope with the pressure of an exam better. So coursework was brought in to give those kids a better chance at getting a higher grade in a less pressurised situation.As a technical subject instructor for an aerospace company (training customers on new equipment) we have similar issues but in a much more compressed time frame (course maybe 2-6 weeks long) so we have to make a range of training material to cover the different ways people learn, as a customer doesn't want to spend lots of money training their staff only to have a few fail a qualification exam at the end due to nerves, despite knowing the subject.
Murph7355 said:
How do you get around that though? It doesn't matter when you elect to make a change, there will always be people immediately either side of the divide.
I guess I am somewhat biased having been amongst the last couple of years to sit the old O-levels. Why it was ever felt a good idea to have an increasing amount of assessment based on coursework I do not know. Quite possibly old-fartism, but standards seem to have been on the wrong trajectory ever since these approaches were introduced and subsequently fiddled with, somewhat backed up by international placings.
I guess I am somewhat biased having been amongst the last couple of years to sit the old O-levels. Why it was ever felt a good idea to have an increasing amount of assessment based on coursework I do not know. Quite possibly old-fartism, but standards seem to have been on the wrong trajectory ever since these approaches were introduced and subsequently fiddled with, somewhat backed up by international placings.
Murph7355 said:
How do you get around that though? It doesn't matter when you elect to make a change, there will always be people immediately either side of the divide.
I guess I am somewhat biased having been amongst the last couple of years to sit the old O-levels. Why it was ever felt a good idea to have an increasing amount of assessment based on coursework I do not know. Quite possibly old-fartism, but standards seem to have been on the wrong trajectory ever since these approaches were introduced and subsequently fiddled with, somewhat backed up by international placings.
I'd have introduced the changes for the GCSEs for the students just about to enter secondary school (current year 6s) so they get five full years to work to the new standard and format. From last year they made the GCSEs more difficult and increased the grade boundaries, I would rather they carried on that trend till the current year 6s sat the new style GCSEs.I guess I am somewhat biased having been amongst the last couple of years to sit the old O-levels. Why it was ever felt a good idea to have an increasing amount of assessment based on coursework I do not know. Quite possibly old-fartism, but standards seem to have been on the wrong trajectory ever since these approaches were introduced and subsequently fiddled with, somewhat backed up by international placings.
The big problem with coursework is that too many schools game the system with endless retries and detailed advice on what to write based on direct feedback on already completed coursework. Replacing coursework with controlled assessments with independent moderators would stop that overnight. GCSEs are usually made up of 2 * 2 hour exams, you can't cover enough subjects in enough depth for that.
I am not a fan of closed book exams, very few jobs prevent you from being able to look stuff up on the job, it is your ability to interpret facts on a solid foundation that should be rewarded. The new English lit exam the pupils have to learn 9 poems by heart, and a huge list of quotes/character profiles/plot from 3 books. Only a tiny minority of jobs are going to need that level of rote learning in modern life. However if it was an open book then the exam could have more focus on marks that are available on the quality of writing and interpretation, which is a real test of ability not rote memory?
I thought the main point of assigning GCSE grades was to allow further education to compare candidates to each other when allocating places on courses. If everyone in the same year is graded on the same basis is the system still going to work OK? Might make it easier to differentiate than previously where a significant number got all A?
Probably makes comparing different years to each other more complex, but not sure how common that is?
Do employers use GCSE grades and could they allow for the relative difficulty of the exam year?
Probably makes comparing different years to each other more complex, but not sure how common that is?
Do employers use GCSE grades and could they allow for the relative difficulty of the exam year?
grantone said:
I thought the main point of assigning GCSE grades was to allow further education to compare candidates to each other when allocating places on courses. If everyone in the same year is graded on the same basis is the system still going to work OK? Might make it easier to differentiate than previously where a significant number got all A?
Probably makes comparing different years to each other more complex, but not sure how common that is?
Do employers use GCSE grades and could they allow for the relative difficulty of the exam year?
If you apply to a university then the majority of courses will expect at least a C in English and Maths GCSEs, something like medicine normally require As in GCSE separate sciences. If more people as a percentage are awarded As and above in a particular year then more people have a chance to qualify for the course. A small percentage change only affects a small number of people, but this seems to be a massive percentage change. This will mean somebody from this year competing against somebody from last year is at a big disadvantage and for the top courses highly likely as people apply and re apply over multiple years (taking gap years if needed, etc.) due to how difficult it is to get on the top courses.Probably makes comparing different years to each other more complex, but not sure how common that is?
Do employers use GCSE grades and could they allow for the relative difficulty of the exam year?
From last year anybody who fails to get a C (now a 5 on the new system) in English and Maths has to resit the GCSE(s), for this year only they have lowered that to a 4, which I think highlights the shortfall in expected attainment for this year.
tankplanker said:
If you apply to a university then the majority of courses will expect at least a C in English and Maths GCSEs, something like medicine normally require As in GCSE separate sciences. If more people as a percentage are awarded As and above in a particular year then more people have a chance to qualify for the course. A small percentage change only affects a small number of people, but this seems to be a massive percentage change. This will mean somebody from this year competing against somebody from last year is at a big disadvantage and for the top courses highly likely as people apply and re apply over multiple years (taking gap years if needed, etc.) due to how difficult it is to get on the top courses.
From last year anybody who fails to get a C (now a 5 on the new system) in English and Maths has to resit the GCSE(s), for this year only they have lowered that to a 4, which I think highlights the shortfall in expected attainment for this year.
I'm not sure what your point is. Assuming the number of places on any given degree course remains roughly the same harder exams/worse results in any given year will simply make it easier for admissions tutors to pick the smartest kids from a sea of 'good grades'. It's not like they are going to run out of C grade applicants and places go unfilled.From last year anybody who fails to get a C (now a 5 on the new system) in English and Maths has to resit the GCSE(s), for this year only they have lowered that to a 4, which I think highlights the shortfall in expected attainment for this year.
fblm said:
I'm not sure what your point is. Assuming the number of places on any given degree course remains roughly the same harder exams/worse results in any given year will simply make it easier for admissions tutors to pick the smartest kids from a sea of 'good grades'. It's not like they are going to run out of C grade applicants and places go unfilled.
Grades for the top courses act as a filter, and as the top courses always have kids from previous years applying, if they have higher grades (as their exams were easier) then they have a greater chance of getting through the filter, despite being potentially worse students.tankplanker said:
rades for the top courses act as a filter, and as the top courses always have kids from previous years applying, if they have higher grades (as their exams were easier) then they have a greater chance of getting through the filter, despite being potentially worse students.
And the opposite happened previously when exams were getting easier and easier and you just had to turn up to get an A!sidicks said:
And the opposite happened previously when exams were getting easier and easier and you just had to turn up to get an A!
Agreed, but that was a more gradual change, the below is the percentage of pupils who got an A* or A for Maths:2016 15.9
2015 16.5
2014 15.2
2013 14.3
2012 15.4
2011 16.5
2010 16.2
2009 15.4
2008 14.5
2007 13.7
2006 13.2
2005 13
2004 11.8
2003 11.7
2002 11.9
2001 11.1
2000 10.7
1999 10.5
1998 9.9
1997 9.6
1996 9
1995 8.4
1994 8.5
The change for this year appears to be a massive swing, not the gradual increase we had previously. Last year around 4000 got 10 A* or more, this year 2 at best will repeat that according to the guy from the DfE.
tankplanker said:
'd have introduced the changes for the GCSEs for the students just about to enter secondary school (current year 6s) so they get five full years to work to the new standard and format. From last year they made the GCSEs more difficult and increased the grade boundaries, I would rather they carried on that trend till the current year 6s sat the new style GCSEs.
The big problem with coursework is that too many schools game the system with endless retries and detailed advice on what to write based on direct feedback on already completed coursework. Replacing coursework with controlled assessments with independent moderators would stop that overnight. GCSEs are usually made up of 2 * 2 hour exams, you can't cover enough subjects in enough depth for that.
I am not a fan of closed book exams, very few jobs prevent you from being able to look stuff up on the job, it is your ability to interpret facts on a solid foundation that should be rewarded. The new English lit exam the pupils have to learn 9 poems by heart, and a huge list of quotes/character profiles/plot from 3 books. Only a tiny minority of jobs are going to need that level of rote learning in modern life. However if it was an open book then the exam could have more focus on marks that are available on the quality of writing and interpretation, which is a real test of ability not rote memory?
Appreciate the sensible discussion (and as my eldest is just starting his school journey, have much admiration for teachers).The big problem with coursework is that too many schools game the system with endless retries and detailed advice on what to write based on direct feedback on already completed coursework. Replacing coursework with controlled assessments with independent moderators would stop that overnight. GCSEs are usually made up of 2 * 2 hour exams, you can't cover enough subjects in enough depth for that.
I am not a fan of closed book exams, very few jobs prevent you from being able to look stuff up on the job, it is your ability to interpret facts on a solid foundation that should be rewarded. The new English lit exam the pupils have to learn 9 poems by heart, and a huge list of quotes/character profiles/plot from 3 books. Only a tiny minority of jobs are going to need that level of rote learning in modern life. However if it was an open book then the exam could have more focus on marks that are available on the quality of writing and interpretation, which is a real test of ability not rote memory?
Ref closed book exams, they were (are) testing different things. Anything where a "system" can be gamed for younger age kids isn't ideal IMO.
To me uni was the place where more "real world" implementation of basic knowledge happened (drinking. Women. Music. Etc). A levels were the biggest jump where the technicalities of the subject were a step change. O levels were general tests of ability in a given subject, but also of being able to absorb and replay in context.
The increasing grade creep you posted on for maths just speaks of the "everybody must get a prize" angle (which I'm seeing with my eldest at the moment and hoping this only happens this year!). Relative to international performance our kids are not getting smarter...so how can grade inflation of that nature happen? (Political meddling I guess).
I agree that bursting the bubble overnight may not be wise. But I do worry about how our young people will cope in an increasingly international workplace unless something material is done quickly.
Murph7355 said:
Appreciate the sensible discussion (and as my eldest is just starting his school journey, have much admiration for teachers).
Ref closed book exams, they were (are) testing different things. Anything where a "system" can be gamed for younger age kids isn't ideal IMO.
To me uni was the place where more "real world" implementation of basic knowledge happened (drinking. Women. Music. Etc). A levels were the biggest jump where the technicalities of the subject were a step change. O levels were general tests of ability in a given subject, but also of being able to absorb and replay in context.
The increasing grade creep you posted on for maths just speaks of the "everybody must get a prize" angle (which I'm seeing with my eldest at the moment and hoping this only happens this year!). Relative to international performance our kids are not getting smarter...so how can grade inflation of that nature happen? (Political meddling I guess).
I agree that bursting the bubble overnight may not be wise. But I do worry about how our young people will cope in an increasingly international workplace unless something material is done quickly.
Grade inflation happened due to political meddling, the exam boards compete against each other for business from schools (so school pick the current easiest exam board for that subject) and because the system is full of holes, the schools became better and better at teaching for the exam not teaching the subject.Ref closed book exams, they were (are) testing different things. Anything where a "system" can be gamed for younger age kids isn't ideal IMO.
To me uni was the place where more "real world" implementation of basic knowledge happened (drinking. Women. Music. Etc). A levels were the biggest jump where the technicalities of the subject were a step change. O levels were general tests of ability in a given subject, but also of being able to absorb and replay in context.
The increasing grade creep you posted on for maths just speaks of the "everybody must get a prize" angle (which I'm seeing with my eldest at the moment and hoping this only happens this year!). Relative to international performance our kids are not getting smarter...so how can grade inflation of that nature happen? (Political meddling I guess).
I agree that bursting the bubble overnight may not be wise. But I do worry about how our young people will cope in an increasingly international workplace unless something material is done quickly.
The exams have become considerably more difficult overnight, with little information passed to schools, who have had their budgets cut, so they are being asked to do more, on less money, with hardly any information. Not a recipe for success.
If UK Gov was serious about improving education outcomes for GCSEs then we'd see a holistic plan that started earlier, had way more information sharing, and was properly funded.
The current changes will benefit a handful of very bright children who will end up with clear daylight between them and the students below them. The rest are going to end up further behind as they haven't been given the skills needed to deal with the increased difficulty early enough.
I accept that the changes had to happen, there was far too big a gap between GCSE and A Level, and A Level and under grad, but this is symptomatic of the entire education system not teaching at the right level.
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
sidicks said:
And the opposite happened previously when exams were getting easier and easier and you just had to turn up to get an A!
You read the Daily Mail AICM£5Did you not see the post immediately above yours?
Are you seriously trying to claim that the exams were not getting easier?
Murph7355 said:
I agree that bursting the bubble overnight may not be wise. But I do worry about how our young people will cope in an increasingly international workplace unless something material is done quickly.
Don't think GCSE's really matter in that case, they're either an entrance to the next stage or an enabler for domestic employment. Most "internationalism" will be polarised around degree level folks and the unskilled / trade skilled migrants rather than the middle ground requiring a GCSE level only. I agree there is a fixed capacity in further education and they'll just lower the barrier to entry otherwise they'll be losing critical revenue. In absolute terms it doesn't really matter where the median is, although the reversion to non-coursework does hit those that suffer with pressure. I did OK in the original system as I was a lazy sod when it came to coursework but always had good exam technique; I would have been screwed being in higher education in the last 15 years.
The whole transition has been handled badly though which is tough on those guinea pigs taking exams this year. My eldest is in Year 8 and she's had to decide her GCSE options now to give them 3 years to study the new course. That means she's missed out on a year of subjects she's now dropping and has been under pressure to decide what path she want to take at the age of 13.
tankplanker said:
rades for the top courses act as a filter, and as the top courses always have kids from previous years applying, if they have higher grades (as their exams were easier) then they have a greater chance of getting through the filter, despite being potentially worse students.
Ok so the concern is not so much the change itself but that grades should not be compared between years. That's sensible but IME admissions tutors take account of which exam boards people do so factoring in a step change in GCSE difficulty by year should be even easier,no?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff