GCSE, A-level science exams ARE dumbed down - watchdog
Questions expecting short answers and the use of multiple choice have made biology and chemistry exams easier in the UK, according to assessment assessor Ofqual. The examinations watchdog analysed GCSE and A-level exams for the two science subjects - comparing papers taken by thousands of youngsters between 2003 and 2008 - and …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Not shocked, to be honest.
When I was in school and university (I finished uni in 2000), the physics papers were actually quite easy compared to even the past papers of ten years previous. I'm not saying I did well on everything (especially not physics, actually), but it certainly wasn't because the papers were too hard when I did them. I'd have been embarrassed to suggest that the paper was "too hard" in general, I just struggled with the topic.
And since I took my own exams, I've worked in lots of schools - state and independent. You honestly do not know the sort of tripe that makes it into an exam paper, and the marking schemes are a joke.
It reminds me of a cartoon that is in the staffroom of one of the schools I've worked in: Two cartoons, 1990 and 2010. On the 1990 one the parents are shouting at the child in front of the teacher "Explain these poor marks!". On the 2010 one, they are shouting the same thing at the TEACHER while the kid smirks at them. Just about sums things up nowadays.
My Italian girlfriend (a PhD) laughed at the grading levels for our exams. 50% can get you a B. A's could be had for as little as 60% at some points. That wouldn't wash in a lot of countries. And then we have the cheek to pretend that a UK education is something special when that person then goes to a foreign country. Students actually flocked to us for decades in order to get a degree from the UK. It still goes on but those students are finding out exactly how much that's worth worldwide only when they've wasted years chasing it.
In one student session she had with biology students in a research lab, she was asked what a neck was. It *wasn't* a miscommunication from poor English. She also despairs over PhD students who can't work out how much to dilute a sample by to get a certain ratio of the active ingredient (a simple cross-multiplication).
In one school I worked in, *I* took the lunchtime maths courses to bump students up to the next level. I'm an IT Manager. They *all* went up a level after starting the course. It makes you wonder what the teachers were doing with them.
UK examinations are shot. Unfortunately, going back to what you'd find in even a 1980's paper (let alone the 1960's - which were much harder - but have imperial units in them) would be such a culture shock that NONE of the current students would actually pass with decent grades and half the teachers would quit with the stress of trying to understand that material themselves.
There's a reason that the independent schools typically have students 3-4 years ahead on achievement over state schools. It has everything to do with proper teaching and qualifications and teaching the things they were teaching in the 70's and 80's and not the watered-down tripe they have now. Hell, most independent schools have already come out against GCSE's etc years ago and wanted to adopt other standards (e.g. International GCSE's etc.).
Go ask any student who studied somewhere other than the UK (and the US is going the same way but isn't quite as bad). Chances are you needed 90% to get A's, and the material was way above anything we teach here. I can relay stories of friends from Australia, Singapore, Italy, etc. that all experience the same hilarity when they see our actual exam papers and their grading.
Timescale
When did they abolish proportional grading?
I remember back when I did my A levels - 1988, if you wondered - you needed to be in the top 5% to get an "A". An "A*" did not exist for this reason - if you got an "A" you were really fucking good.
When did that go away?
I seem to recall being told that even to score an "E", I'd need a minimum of 55%. What happened to the world?
Re: Timescale
I vaguely remember (A levels in 89 so well on the way to Alzheimers...) being told that for Maths A level, due to the marks spread, the gap between B and D was only 4% so if you can grab a few extra marks just by RTFQ you migh be able to bump 2 grades easily.
Still ended up with a D (though did somewhat better in Phys/Chem BB)
So definite proportional grading.
Re: Timescale
They call it normalised grading. It was removed when a Tory politiician worked out that by removing it, more kids could get A's and they'd look really good as a government.
The Labour Party thought it was so good they kept it.
I've written to the department of education, my MP, Gove, etc. and they all basically respond with "We are not going to restore normalised grading because MPs like it because it gets them re-elected, and we like it because we're all marxists."
(Ok. They don't say that, but that's how I see it.)
It would instantly restore standards, as the feedback loop necessary to keep the grades normalised from year to year, would mean kids were competing with other kids to get good grades, instead of boards competing in the dumbing down race to get more good grades.
You see what people are up against, in trying to keep a country strong, when the politicos are like this?
Re: Timescale
When I was a school governor I asked something like: how can 80% of our pupils get an A? Surely 15% will get an A, 15% a B, 15% a C, etc. Oh no, as many as possible all have to be in the top 15%.
GCSEs no longer fulfil their purpose
The exams where originally designed to give a measure of a pupils ability in particular subjects. This would help prospective employers/further education institutions determine who was suitable for the post.
They are now intended solely to give the pupil a sense of achievement and are useless as any form of measure of a persons ability.
Re: GCSEs no longer fulfil their purpose
Unfortunately it's bugger all to do with the pupils. It's down to the school getting the correct number of grades and the Education Department proving* that education is working.
* Proof in this case is massaging whatever numbers you're saddled with to produce the results that you need.
Re: GCSEs no longer fulfil their purpose
Every child gets a prize!
Exams are seen as a meal ticket by ambitious parents. Teachers are obliged to teach for the exam.
It is the same with degrees, there has been a great deal of grade inflation. Lots more firsts.
This has little to do with education or understanding a subject.
It is about social advancement and getting a good job. Educational institutions are now in a competitive market and this has compromised the value of the education they impart.
Learning, should be life-long and people should be encouraged to teach and improve themselves.
Instead we cram everything in at the beginning for an educational horserace and career scramble in order to land a cushy job. Then you can put your feet up and let your mind rot.
It has all gone very wrong.
Re: GCSEs no longer fulfil their purpose
Nick you are correct.
A friend (who is a head teacher) explained the problem to me, and it's so obvious.
1. Schools are judged by league tables and get punished for being low.
2. There are about 7 different exam boards in the UK, and all only get paid if they sell their exam papers.
3. To get the best grades, a school can it will always choose the easiest exams available.
4. To get the most money for thier papers the exam boards must produce popular papers, and the most popular are the easy ones.
The simple and cheapest way to stop standards dropping every year would be to have one examination board per subject (producing 2-3 papers a year just in case errors are found and to stop/limit cheating).
Then all students sit the same exam on the same day at the same time (the paper chosen that morning). Then use a proper distribution (Bell) curve to award the grades so if a paper is easier one year the grades are proportional.
Re: GCSEs no longer fulfil their purpose
You're wasting your breath. Yvette Cooper will immediately say "Look at all these kids, and look and all the grade D's. Look what Michael Gove has done to the country."
I'm thinking of forming a political party whose motto is, "We're going to pass laws to exterminate all the useless people."
Re: GCSEs no longer fulfil their purpose
Why use a Bell curve on just a years results? The class of '91 might be average, the class of '92 might all be geniuses. With a bell curve distribution wouldn't both crops of students appear to be the same?
Re: why use a Bell curve on just a year's results
Because you change the paper each year and you want to compare like with like.
Yes, both crops end up looking the same, but actually if you're talking about several hundred thousand children you'd need a *lot* of evidence to persuade me that both crops *aren't* the same.
Multi-guess
My eldest is taking triple science i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Biology as seperate GCSE's and is finishing these in the next few weeks. I never took 'O' level Biology , but did pass 'O' level Chemistry and Physics.
Anyway as she had full marks (40/40) on every paper so far, and although we praise her generously, I remained curious regarding the difficulty of the exams. So, I took one of her multi-choice GCSE Biology past papers as a test. Now, I will freely admit that I didn't know what half the technical names referred to, but from carefully reading the (leading) questions there was nearly always an obvious answer and I completed it in about 1/3 of the alotted time. And my score - 40/40 obviously! All I needed was a good grasp of English.
The Bell Curve
It's quite simple. Introduce statistical scaling.
It means that the difficulty of the exam can vary a little each year, but you'll still get the same level of students getting the same grades. Grade inflation wouldn't be a problem.
It would be especially useful for university placements as they could more easily pick out the exceptional students.
I did highschool under this system and it works fine for written exams. It's not as good for practical assessments.
Re: The Bell Curve
I agree, to a point.
The problem is that this doesn't lead to equivalency in grading. If, over the course of 10 years, the ability of the students increases, it means an A grade is worth more. Similarly if the abilty goes down it is worth less.
Re: The Bell Curve
Yes but whats actually likely to be the biggest variable Ability or the Content of the course/paper.
I would assume the latter by a significant amount.
I've also seen the bell curve model work well at Uni. We had a radically different, harder course to the previous years Quantum Mechanics course and to cut a long story short the pass mark dropped to around 35% and a first could be had for about 55% if memory serves, yet the number in each of the grades were roughly the same as compared to the previous year.
Re: The Bell Curve
@DR Mouse - That is exactly why statistical distribution of grades was abandoned - a good year penalised students and a bad year rewards them. Put those two years together and you end up with people from one year not able to get into uni the next, because they were skipped over for places in favour of less able but better graded students from the next year.
Re: The Bell Curve
So obvious it isn't true. Been saying it for years.
Try approaching Ofqual and see where it gets you. You will get an answer along the lines of "I'm sorry, we have staff here who did Media Studies as a degree. What future would our children have if we didn't disguise the fact that they've inherited out useless gene?"
Let's see
1) Tie the (monetary) success of schools to their grades using league tables etc.
2) Allow the exam boards to compete with each other so that schools can choose exam boards
3) Act all surprised at the consequences
Can't resist linking the following.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10794867
Never mind about the bbc story, check out the graph they include showing proportion of A grades awarded at A-level each year, from the mid 60's to now. It says a lot.
That graph is absolutely *shocking*! How can 25+% of people attain the best grade?
The caption to one of the pictures:
"17.5% of students in 2009 got three As at A-level"
What's the flipping point of that? Whoever's in power will tinker & tinker (and generally get it wrong or not leave it long enough to take effect), but right now Gove is proposing to overhaul the exam boards. The proposal sounds good, but we'll have to see about the execution & implementation. Have a search for "gove exam board" and you'll see a link to a Telegraph article (Dec 2011) where he states that universities are starting to cherry-pick students based on the boards they did. This was inevitable.
I'm gobsmacked! Over 25% get an A at A-level?!
Of course that only represents half the story. If the proportion of kid taking A-levels had reduced, so only the top 40% of those who used to were taking them, then this picture would add up to similar standards. However, I would suspect it has gone the other way, which is even more telling.
telling ?
It's not that telling really, in the 60's and 70's only the top n% could get and 'A' next n% a 'B' and so on, ok for sorting within a single year, but with a challenged year someone a bit thick coul get an A in a clever year, the most hardworking/intelligent candidate may miss out on an 'A'.
Though it has to be said, some of the papers I've seen recently at GCSE have been missing only one thing, The Disney logo on them.
Re: telling ?
What it could also be showing is that students are better chosen for the courses that they will excel at or that students are just better in general.
Re: telling ?
Optimism is a fine thing but having seen an A level maths paper last week, I'm going with "piss-easy questions".
Re: telling ?
...and they can take a sheet of all the formula in as well.
Next they'll be allowed calculators.
Re: telling ?
This bull**** about challenged years really gets my goat.
There are about 1.8 million students entering higher education per year.
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2355&Itemid=161
Lets pretend they all did A levels that year. Some didnt, some got in through other routes, but then equally some a level students didnt go to university at all. So lets just approximate that 1.8 millions A level students per year.
Let me say that again, there are 1.8 million A level students each year!
What is the statistical chance that from one year to the next enough of those 1.8 million are that much smarter than the year before. Statistically extremely unlikely. I realise that stats is one of those 'hard' subjects that most people dont read, but still picking 100 random strangers may result in one group being significantly smarter than another, but not when you are selecting 1.8 million.
If anyone knows stats well enough to work out the chances please do comment. But with a sample that large its just rubbish. Its the kind of fallacious argument that was used to remove a perfectly good marking system and replace it with one that allowed schools and governments to make it look like they were improving when in reality they took the easy way out.
Why would anyone deliberately go to Newnham College.?
Presumably to learn how to chant "To succeed, a woman has to show she's much cleverer, much harder working, and much more productive than men. Fortunately that's not hard."
Onward Sisters!
Re: telling ?
"What is the statistical chance that from one year to the next enough of those 1.8 million are that much smarter than the year before."
Lots of things affect the population at the national level. Environmental pollutants, nutritional fads, overall affluence of society, new teaching and parenting fashions... X-factor?
In general, you're probably right. But the assumption that ability levels don't change from year to year is flawed. Maybe something of a hybrid system is what is needed. Base it on where you fall in your year, but modify the dividers slightly based on overall results. The longer you ran such a system, the more accurate it would become.
Re: telling ?
"lets just approximate that 1.8 millions A level students per year... What is the statistical chance that from one year to the next enough of those 1.8 million are that much smarter than the year before. Statistically extremely unlikely."
That is why I said over 10 years. Maybe longer would be more accurate, but I was taking about a long enough timeframe that it would be possible for a significant shift in "ability".
When I were a lad .....
When I studied biology and chemistry, we had to dissect a frog then put it back together and reanimate it, using adrenaline and peptides that we'd synthesised the previous day.
Students nowadays have no idea how lucky they are.
Re: When I were a lad .....
Any simpleton can take stuff apart and put it all back together again! When I were a lad, I had to dig all the parts out of the ground (geology) from the cemetery (with my bare hands!) and then work out how to stick 'em all together (anatomy) timing it with the local weather system (meterology) to get a good lightening storm at just the right point. There were extra marks available for the quality of the gothic architecture (art) in the lab and for the artistic merit of the maniacal laughter (drama).
Re: When I were a lad .....
Twelve of us, there were, all living in a shoebox in the middle of the street....
Re: When I were a lad .....
And here we are again. There seem to be Yorkshiremen in every other thread at the moment.
Obligatory anecdote
Shortly after I had finished doing my A-Levels back in the mid '90s, I happened to chance across an old A-level chemistry paper that my mother had pinched from the exam room at the time, I think from some time in the '70s. I had no clue about half of what was on it, despite the fact that I ahd just managed to acheive an 'A' grade and distinction in the special paper in the same subject. Science teaching had been dumbed down then. Despite not having touched any chemistry for over a decade*, I'm pretty sure I could sit the exams as they are now and ace them. It's common knowledge that examination standards in this country have been progressing downhill for years, just as it is common knowledge that those in charge of said standards will continue to deny it ever more forcefully, despite the growing weight of evidence.
*Okay, I did study it at university for five years, so may have a slight advantage.
Re: Obligatory anecdote
There has been a marked change in the focus of courses from the 60s to now. I spoke to my Mum about her Chemistry A level, it had four questions, answer three. Each question was in great detail, but if you didn't revise that subject you were screwed. Cut to now, you get a very large amount of questions over a much broader range of the course. I would argue that the current system is fairer and better at testing overall knowledge of a subject, which is the point of an exam.
(NB: Both parents were teachers, one of them worked for an exam board in the 80s)
Re: Obligatory anecdote
You could argue it, but that still doesn't excuse > 25% getting an A.
What they do to measure is irrelevant, it's how they grade which caused the problems. Exam boards compete with exam boards to make it easier.
Returning to normalised grading, (percentile in my language,) means boards compete with boards to be tougher, because an Oxbridge board's A, requires more knowledge than a JMB board's A etc.
Regards
Class of 81.
Exams getting easier
I remember sitting my A-levels in 91. Whenever we were doing questions from past papers in the Maths classes the teacher would write up the question numbers to attempt on the board. They would always be in reverse age order (with a few changes to put harder boards like O&C or JMB behind easier ones like AEB). Also, he would have another line of problems to attempt if you had completed all the others. This was reserved for problems from the 70s. He considered them too hard for his A-level class.
An example I remember clearly was that a standard problem in mechanics concerned computing various things about a ladder against a wall with friction between the base and the floor. You would need to compute the angle you could place it at without it slipping or something like that. In the same topic area, a question from the 70s asked for the angle at equilibrium of a rod placed at an angle in a hemispherical bowl. It was the same basic maths, but way more complex. As well as the friction equilibrium equation, you had a harder time constructing the problem, and had to do more complex trig to get you there.
A friend of mine now tutors maths and a few other subjects. I've seen modern papers and compared to the papers I sat there has been definite degradation. My papers in the 90s compared to those in the 70s also showed definite degradation. When I started my degree, the university complained about the standard of maths in its first year undergraduates being lower than before - despite virtually everyone have 2 grade A A-levels in Maths.
Re: Exams getting easier
My university maths courses started with "Baby Maths". The lecturer would hand out papers at the end of each lecture and say that you should be able to do ALL the things on it before you'd even applied to university. He quite clearly stated that if you didn't know it now, you'd need to know it before you went any further.
The first question on the first paper he gave was literally 2+2 and the last on the first paper was something like "a + 5 = 10. What is a?". I kid you not. By the end of the ten weeks where he'd been handing these out, they had covered things like simultaneous equations, simple calculus and things like cross-multiplication. And by then, half the students had left the course (or even the uni). Most people were too embarrassed to hand them in for marking (they were optional), or to discuss them with other students.
A lot of people got a shock in that first month, I can tell you.
In my day...
If it made a bad smell or a loud noise, it was chemistry.
If it was green or it wriggled, it was biology.
It it didn't work, it was physics.
It it involved letters from the alphabet instead of numbers, it was pure maths.
The reality is that over the last ?? number of years, the various politicos have all wanted to have a hand in education, to prove that "they are doing something". So the culture within education has shifted; and it is all about meeting targets, and "improving" over previous targets, and people get rewarded by these "improvements".
And under that culture, it is inevitable that things will then focus on making sure that each year's crop of newly qualified students are doing better than their predecessors.
/cynicism
RIP Phil Phillips - a teacher of science and maths, a lover of G + S operas, a genius and a complete fruitbat that set himself alight in class at least twice a term. A wonderful teacher; if only more could be like him.
Why do we have a set pass mark for grades?
Instead, why not have say the top 5% of students awarded an A, the next 10% B, the next 20% C and so on. Or even like that then down to say 50% mark for a D no matter how many there are.
That would still give a definite mark to aim for to avoid failure but avoids the success-rate creep problem that we have.
Re: Why do we have a set pass mark for grades?
Then we would be testing the group each year and each year wouldn't be comparable with other years. Also, if the general standard of education goes up, what's wrong with this being reflected in better results?
Re: Why do we have a set pass mark for grades?
Well it's fine if all you want to do is find the top number of bright students, but that supposes that all years are the same input. Great now we have a 2013 'A' , hang on lets compare that to a 2014 'A' oh no it's only worth a 2012 'B'.
The only reason that exams have got easier is it benifits too many people, The schools, so they go up in the league tables, the government, look how well our policies are working, the exam boards, look how much money we are making from our better course.
Please tell me why there is more than one maths GCSE paper for the state sector schools, it would be so much cheaper, a single exam with a single text book, so much easier, go on pretend I'm an RE teacher, so make it simple.
Re: Why do we have a set pass mark for grades?
It would also mean its impossible to properly compare students from different years.
Candidate A graduating in 2013 might get an A grade with 60% because his year group were on average dumber.
Candidate B graduating in 2014 might then get a B grade with 65% because his year group were on average smarter.
You see the problem? Simply saying "The top X% get an A grade no matter their actual exam performance" makes it even harder to spot out the high achievers.
Re: Why do we have a set pass mark for grades?
And your point is? What a ludicrous argument.
I tell you what. Let's compare runners from the 1900s.
Sir Roger Bannister ** must've been utterly shit then, because Usain Bolt! Let's wipe him from the history books.
Holy shit. I've just discovered I'm a complete genius, because I can crack the Chiffre that only Babbage could a hundred and 50 years ago. This means I'm in the top 0.0000001% of brains of 1860. I should put it on my CV.
** Footnote for grade A* history students, Sir Roger Bannister ran the first four minute mile. (It doesn't matter that you don't know that though, so long as you got an A.)
oh. And Charles Babbage was famous for shagging Lord Byron's daughter!!
oh! Lord Byron was a poet.
Re: Why do we have a set pass mark for grades?
"Candidate B graduating in 2014 might then get a B grade with 65% because his year group were on average smarter.
You see the problem? Simply saying "The top X% get an A grade no matter their actual exam performance" makes it even harder to spot out the high achievers."
There is no problem. Are you seriously suggesting that employers would want people from 2014 if they were better than those from previous years, if 2014 had much more talented people?
Re: Why do we have a set pass mark for grades?
Whats wrong is blindingly obvious. One day, as humanity gets smarter (if it does), everyone will get 100% and an A. What use is that grade to anyone?
Reductio ad absurdum? Well we have already reached 25% and its already becoming a useless measure.
As for reality, everyone isnt getting smarter. Its arguable if they are being taught better. What is more likely is that that possibility is being taken advantage of to make exams easier to pass.
And for those of you who are clearly in need of dumbing down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Re: Why do we have a set pass mark for grades?
Marking to the curve is a double edged sword, and I accept that it makes comparing marks year-on-year more difficult, but you have to ask what the point of the exams actually are?
When I was doing my 'A' levels in the late '70s, the primary reason was so that you could be selected for further education. As there were many fewer university places available, the marking was set so that you could tell who was 'the best' from that year's student population. If less that 10% of the students got an A, these people, who would be the most likely to excel in that subject, got streamed to the best Universities. The next tier down could select from the remainder, and on downward through the Polytechnic system, aiming at people who would excel at HND qualifications, but may not be up to a full degree.
It did not matter whether there was grade comparison between years, it would be accepted that the best people would always get better marks than the weaker candidates, so the streaming would still work, and the 'right' people would always get to the establishment that best suited them.
Quite often, it was not the grades that determined what type of work someone ended up in, it was how far they went in the education system. Students who had got to University and completed a degree course had demonstrated by that fact that they were worth employing.
It is only now that the 'A' levels that are intended to give an absolute measure of how someone's worth that this problem occurs. Since schools have been measured by result, and the curve has been discarded, it has completely devalued them as a mechanism for selecting the best students. Governments and schools each have an interest in 'improving' the results.
Part of the problem is also political. Educationalists in the '70s and '80s became convinced that non-competitive grading was the only way to avoid stigmatization of kids (abolition of the 11+ and Grammar schools is an example). Schools were not allowed to say to kids "look, you are never going to succeed in becoming a theoretical Physicist, best do some vocational training". All children are given unrealistic expectations by being told that they can achieve anything, and in order to persist this myth, the exams are set so that they think they are good at a subject, when in fact they could be only mediocre.
This is just dumb. Life is competitive, and that is never going to change. When you go for a job, the best candidate wins (unless the recruitment process is also dumbed down, but that is another rant!) And people not suited or without an aptitude for a particular job will never get it, regardless of how much they want it.
Setting kids up with realistic expectations, and giving them some taste of reaching their ceiling by allowing some of them to experience disappointment is a required life skill that they have to learn at some point, and my view is that it should be part of the school experience, instead of a post University kick in the teeth.
This topic is closed for new posts.
