FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

GCSE's easier than 20 years ago?

Jump to newest
 

By *UNCHBOX OP   Man
over a year ago

folkestone

With so many student's getting more and more A and A* grades, does anyone think that the exams have got easier?.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No just education has become more important i think shcools and parents want them to do better....if anything ive seen some of the work n it baffled me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The exams now are much easier, the whole education system is dumbed down. As I said before I read my brothers papers from when he was at his grammar school back in the 90's and his papers were drastically harder than ours.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Didn't grades just go down for the second year running?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just lie on your CV ....... no one's ever checked mine .... An "A" in maths?.. i cant even count to A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My brother works in a school and he said several years ago that the 'A' levels now are more like the 'O' level standard from our era! Not putting down those who have sat the exams though (my best mate's daughter got 7 A* and 2 As!!) but I do think they are easier than they were.

x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I remember listening to a radio 4 programme about University Challenge and the maker said that they have had to make the questions increasingly difficult over the years.

Seems a reasonable measurement that kids are getting cleverer and better educated.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I did gcse when they were only in their second year and they were hard. I'm sure I remember at the time there was talk of making them easier as not enough students were gaining the grades to enter uni. However they have said that the marking has got stricter in the last couple years hence why marks have dropped a little.

I find the whole education system weird. The profession I'm in you did either 2 or 4 years training in day release so you knew all the practical stuff at the same time. Now its a full time degree and after a year in situ you are qualified and they really aren't ready. Also our higher quali you did 2 years study again on day release had to do dissertation and progect and then at the end of the year you did 3 exams covering everything you learned and had to get over 75% in all to pass. Now its an mcs done as.modules no exam and as long as yoi get 50 right you pass. I'm sorry buy surely being wrong 50% of the time where peoples lives and health are the issue is bloody stupid would you want that person looking after you. Sorry went off at a tangent .Rant over x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I did GCSE in the early days too but found them very easy. My ten year old covers things in school that I didn't until half way through secondary.

I agree the system is weird though - not least the assessment of kids based on what they have done rather than what they have the potential to do. And I agree to a point about how quickly people become 'expert' - including teachers that can qualify having never stepped out of the education system in their lives.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *UNCHBOX OP   Man
over a year ago

folkestone

If i had a pound for every time i had an email from a graduate who cannot tell the difference when to use their and there, id be a rich man.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he devil wears pradaWoman
over a year ago

gosport ish


"I did GCSE in the early days too but found them very easy. My ten year old covers things in school that I didn't until half way through secondary.

I agree the system is weird though - not least the assessment of kids based on what they have done rather than what they have the potential to do. And I agree to a point about how quickly people become 'expert' - including teachers that can qualify having never stepped out of the education system in their lives."
Try teaching the curriculum, with an ever moving goal post

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If i had a pound for every time i had an email from a graduate who cannot tell the difference when to use their and there, id be a rich man. "

Surely you mean: If, I and I'd

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I did GCSE in the early days too but found them very easy. My ten year old covers things in school that I didn't until half way through secondary.

I agree the system is weird though - not least the assessment of kids based on what they have done rather than what they have the potential to do. And I agree to a point about how quickly people become 'expert' - including teachers that can qualify having never stepped out of the education system in their lives. Try teaching the curriculum, with an ever moving goal post "

Let's just say I'm very familiar with those.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ess sexyWoman
over a year ago

Manchester

I took a GCSE in psychology a few years ago, needed to restart my brain after being stuck at home with the kids. Having takenn the old O Levels originally, I can honestly say I was stunned by how easy the actual exam ( one 2 hour paper) was. Single sentence answers required, WTF? To be fair though, the course work element was pretty demanding

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You'd kind of hope to find the assessment level for a 16 year old reasonably easy when you're older though wouldn't you?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atasha_DavidCouple
over a year ago

Slough

No, they are harder. And kids do more of them. The quality of education of the average A level student today is significantly higher than 30 years ago.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *UNCHBOX OP   Man
over a year ago

folkestone


"If i had a pound for every time i had an email from a graduate who cannot tell the difference when to use their and there, id be a rich man.

Surely you mean: If, I and I'd "

The difference is im a non graduate. I would expect a graduate to know the difference between their and there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd expect an 8 year old to - and to capitalise their sentences. But I'm being facetious.

In fairness I agree that the standard of writing by many graduates is shocking.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

I passed 6 "O levels" & 2 "AO levels" in 1978, using a slide rule instead of a computer So how the fook would I know

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I do not think they are easier, however i do feel that students are taighh (in most cases) to pass exams and remember answers rather than to think and understand the subject they are being examined on. I have heard examples of students having papers where there are two questions on the paper but you only answer one due to what you have studied. For example an english paper with two questions on different books and you answer the Q on the one you have studies, now some students (in one example a so called straight A student) has answered on the wrong book. No in my honest opinion whoever can do that is a complete and utter moron and shows students are not prompted to engage their brAin and think for themselves. Sadly our education system fails those truly bright children and pushes the lower end to get good exam results to then disappear into mediocrity. Pmease excuse any typos am on my phone and have fat fingers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Unfortunately education was dumbed down by New Labour every year to make it look as though they were doing a great job. They weren't, it was just smoke & mirrors. It tells you all you need to know when employers & Universities up & down the country complain about standards & having to do their own tests because of such deep distrust of today's formal qualifications. The coalition has made it harder so that's better, but Educational standards are far from perfect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

Surely you could have hit the space bar at least once

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Unfortunately education was dumbed down by New Labour every year to make it look as though they were doing a great job. They weren't, it was just smoke & mirrors. It tells you all you need to know when employers & Universities up & down the country complain about standards & having to do their own tests because of such deep distrust of today's formal qualifications. The coalition has made it harder so that's better, but Educational standards are far from perfect."

haha - that's the funniest thing I've read in about a month

Actually that's very depressing, people really believe that!?

The system did need a kick up the backside - but Gove's back of a fag packet curriculum based on his own privileged schooling and the Victorian porn he jerks off to isn't an advancement. Far from it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *taffsfella1Man
over a year ago

Newcastle-under-Lyme

Eye got loads of dem twenty odd yers ago so dey av always bean easy peesy innit

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *livia_KWoman
over a year ago

South London

I dunno. All I know is that I failed the BBC GCSE science quiz yesterday (failed it miserably too), but today's maths one I got all the questions right. A* maths nerd I was at school. Mind you the BBC maths questions were far easier than the science ones....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Unfortunately education was dumbed down by New Labour every year to make it look as though they were doing a great job. They weren't, it was just smoke & mirrors. It tells you all you need to know when employers & Universities up & down the country complain about standards & having to do their own tests because of such deep distrust of today's formal qualifications. The coalition has made it harder so that's better, but Educational standards are far from perfect.

haha - that's the funniest thing I've read in about a month

Actually that's very depressing, people really believe that!?

The system did need a kick up the backside - but Gove's back of a fag packet curriculum based on his own privileged schooling and the Victorian porn he jerks off to isn't an advancement. Far from it."

I see, so you obviously believed everything that the B.Liar & New Labour propaganda machine told you. Why don't you go to the carribean & become a limbo dancer as everything seems to go over your head!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Unfortunately education was dumbed down by New Labour every year to make it look as though they were doing a great job. They weren't, it was just smoke & mirrors. It tells you all you need to know when employers & Universities up & down the country complain about standards & having to do their own tests because of such deep distrust of today's formal qualifications. The coalition has made it harder so that's better, but Educational standards are far from perfect.

haha - that's the funniest thing I've read in about a month

Actually that's very depressing, people really believe that!?

The system did need a kick up the backside - but Gove's back of a fag packet curriculum based on his own privileged schooling and the Victorian porn he jerks off to isn't an advancement. Far from it.

I see, so you obviously believed everything that the B.Liar & New Labour propaganda machine told you. Why don't you go to the carribean & become a limbo dancer as everything seems to go over your head! "

No I read the curriculums - did you?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The system did need a kick up the backside - but Gove's back of a fag packet curriculum based on his own privileged schooling and the Victorian porn he jerks off to isn't an advancement. Far from it."

I'm intrigued - could you qualify that statement? I often read about Gove's Fifties's curriculum etc. Alas I wasn't around at the time to know what was so wrong with it. Nonetheless, I'm around now, and I'm not entirely sure about what's wrong with the proposals in terms of content, delivery and the suggestion of increased rigour.

I have close friends who are teachers who say it isn't even a matter of the tests becoming easier - though this can certainly be argued. It's that the exams fail to teach critical thinking and problem solving skills that are necessary for when students enter the workplace. In fact, as a result, some universities place a significantly high emphasis on students that do well in the UK Maths Challenge even if their A-level or GCSE maths scores are less than exceptional.

In defence of Gove, He did introduce Computer Science, which is mostly computational thinking and problem solving. He also virtually made the study of Languages compulsory.

I do agree that the arts COULD suffer. During my school, such lessons were given the least amount of time anyway (normally 1 or 2 lessons per week), and I can't imagine schools music, drama and art lessons decreasing the time even more, or abandoning them altogether. Time will tell, however.

Another problem with the education system less about content and more about teaching - particularly the training of teachers who are encouraged to use strategies that appear in scholarly educationalist journals and are sold as magic bullets to the profession, but upon closer scrutiny, have virtually no scientific credibility. See "Bad Education" and "Why Don't Students Like School?"

DISCLAIMER: I've not yet formulated an opinion on Gove's changes at all and remain skeptical...but I'm yet to be convinced by the 'there's no creativity anymore', 'it's all learning stuff by rote' and 'the arts have been shafted' type arguments that are thrown about.

It is claimed that the DoE is using folks like Daniel T. Willingham, E.D Hirsch and encouraging the study of researchers such as Petty and Hattie. If this is true, and the ideas are effectively adapted for our children and our schools - then it's a step in the right direction. If not, roll on the next Minister for Education.

BTW, does anyone know much about Montessori Schools?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andACouple
over a year ago

glasgow

Don't know about GCSE's as the system is a bit different in Scotland but when I was at school they were just introducing Standard Grades (which I think is the Scottish equivalent). I think the different exams must've run together for a couple of years but basically if you weren't considered good enough at a subject to go for an O'Grade then you done the Standard Grades instead.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I can qualify it going back for nearly 20 years.

Teaching isn't a science - it's an art.

Yes I know a fair bit of Montessori and the IBS and a few others. Hoping my opinion is valid now

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Absolutely they are easier, many who work in the education system say the new A levels are equivalent of O levels from 20 years ago.

The BBC news site has a regular quick quiz, the questions today are on "GCSE standard maths." OK not quite an exam, but quite frankly, the questions are an insult.

The BBC also supply a pdf of a teachers workings , all i can say is my god, if that's how it's taught, i'm surprised anyone passes.

Absolutely much easier.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I can qualify it going back for nearly 20 years.

Teaching isn't a science - it's an art.

Yes I know a fair bit of Montessori and the IBS and a few others. Hoping my opinion is valid now "

I agree it's more of a social science like psychology or economics. However, if you look into the work of Willingham, Hattie (in particular) and Pettie, you'll discover that there are some universal truths, and also some universal falsehoods e.g. Learning Styles Theory, Multiple Intelligences Theory, Brain Gym etc.

In the end, Gove's curriculum will be seeing the light of day. I very much hope he has used the educationalist heavy-weights he is trying to associate himself with, effectively, so the next generation of children, including my own, get the best start to their lives possible.

With regards to Montessori - I'm looking into childcare for my littl'un and came across them - though I'm not sure what exactly to make of them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

lol IBS - that's the second time today autocorrect has shafted me - although IBS might be relevant for some of the comments

If you want to pay for a branded nursery - well that's mostly what you'll be doing. You can bandy about as many theories as you like but ultimately it's down to the skill of the teacher delivering and implementing and then the constraints of the ethos of the school and the curriculum they must deliver.

Some of the new curriculum is good. But most of it is prescriptive dribble that in no way will reflect the skills young people will most need when they leave school. Ironic given the earlier defence to the changes. How many employers ask if interviewees can quote Shakespeare or reel off significant dates of British History? Or do they instead ask if you can turn up on time, use your initiative, take a lead in a crisis?

My hope is that Gove will be given the boot one way or another before he has the chance to ruin the education of a generation of children.

re. Nursery - just visit them and choose based on how happy your child will be. When they get into school the EYFS is the shining light in the current curriculum.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I love it got easier errr the answer is simple and its no. Why well examination boards maintain a standard often questions are recycled from 5 10 or 15 years ago, the syllabus is in the main consistent along with the degree of difficulty. What has changed though is the teaching methods, the revision methods, the attitude of students and the need to achieve.

Next we will get someone saying the 100m sprint has got easier because so many do it far quicker than 20 years ago where as in reality a it takes the same effort, to propel a human down a 100m track.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Next we will get someone saying the 100m sprint has got easier because so many do it far quicker than 20 years ago where as in reality a it takes the same effort, to propel a human down a 100m track. "

I like that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The skill of the teacher is dependent on the quality of the training they received as well as the abilities they've developed themselves over the course of their lives.

Theories are bandied about plenty in teaching colleges, on training days and in educationalist journals. As I mentioned before, many of them have no scientific basis, in fact, those that I mentioned have been dis-proven.

I'm not sure it's easy to dismiss the notion of evidence-based teaching - especially when some of the research involves literally millions of students over a 15 year time span. At the very least the researches were bloody dedicated.

I'm not sure learning facts and (isn't that pretty much all the Edexcel science GCSE is anyway?) expressing literature and working in groups, developing ideas, solving problems, being punctual and working under pressure are completely and utterly mutually exclusive.

I quote:

Data from the last thirty years lead to a conclusion that is not scientifically challengeable: thinking well requires knowing facts and that’s true not just because you need something to think about. The very processes that teachers care about most – critical thinking processes such as reasoning and problem solving – are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is stored in long-term memory (not just found in the environment).

(Daniel T. Willingham Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia), Why Don’t Our Students Like School?

I believe the new curriculum is upon us already....

Pretty much all the childcare places where I live cost around £35+, whether they are Montessori advocates or conventional pre-school nurseries. I plan on making a few visits and do as you say - find one that 'fits'.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 22/08/13 23:41:58]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If teaching were a science there would be no need for political change - we'd have the answers by now.

The knowledge vs skills debate is nonsense and never gets anywhere. The two are interrelated but the balance is shifting in relation to the society young people will need to be prepared to thrive in. 

Personally I think the curriculum should be far less prescriptive but with considerably more emphasis on the recruitment and training of teachers and a huge investment in changing how children are assessed towards a greater emphasis on assessing their potential. Teaching children towards demonstrating their future potential rather than proving what they recall would be more challenging but also more rewarding.

It won't happen though as it's not easily measurable or comparable and therefore doesn't play well with comparing dick sizes in the international league tables.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

"I love it got easier errr the answer is simple and its no. Why well examination boards maintain a standard often questions are recycled from 5 10 or 15 years ago, the syllabus is in the main consistent along with the degree of difficulty. What has changed though is the teaching methods, the revision methods, the attitude of students and the need to achieve.

Next we will get someone saying the 100m sprint has got easier because so many do it far quicker than 20 years ago where as in reality a it takes the same effort, to propel a human down a 100m track. ""

I studied a particular A-level at college, and we used past papers, but were warned not to go too far back as some of the stuff was no longer on the syllabus. When we attempted past papers in class that were more than a few years old, there were questions crossed off, that were no longer on the syllabus. Having seen them, I'm quite grateful!

Regarding challenge: The speaking element of a French GCSE exam requires a student to answer some questions independently. The students are given the questions, write their answers in class and try to memorise them. When it comes to sitting the exam, they are allowed to bring in a crib sheet of a certain number of words to help them. On the continent, when students learn English, they are shown a newspaper article that they've never seen before...asked to read it and then asked questions about it.

We could talk about controlled assessments, coursework, how open ended questions covering a particular topic 10 years ago are multiple choice questions years later - and not the difficult sort of multiple choice questions in Math Challenge exams - more the sort you'll find in the majority of a Driving Theory Test..

Anyway, the main point is...those people who feel exams are getting easier can't possibly use your analogy, as the challenge of running a 100m as fast you can is the same as it was 20 years ago. It's still a 100m track, whereas the exams appear not only different, but less challenging....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

TES had an article comparing past exams etc.

"Detailed, subject-by-subject research by the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority and its successor, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), has not shown evidence of the wholesale slippage in standards assumed so readily by critics. Cambridge Assessment has looked at standards over time in both key stage 2 and key stage 4 English. It found that “the experimental evidence from all subjects and key stages indicated that there has been a substantial real improvement in children’s achievement”. Although they thought national tests had exaggerated the extent of the improvement (due to teaching to the test), there had still been “significant gains in achievement”.

Another comparison by Cambridge Assessment of GCSE English scripts of 2004 with those of 1993 and 1994, and with O-level scripts in 1980, indicated an overall improvement in standards. Spelling was better in 1980 than in either the 1990s or in 2004, but in all other respects - content, writing, vocabulary and punctuation - the scripts of 2004 were better than those of 1993 and 1994, and as good (if not better) than those of 1980, when far fewer pupils took the examination. Significantly, the improvements had taken place at all levels, not just among the brightest pupils."

It also makes the point of the impact of the increased attainment by girls on the overall level of grades.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

"I love it got easier errr the answer is simple and its no. Why well examination boards maintain a standard often questions are recycled from 5 10 or 15 years ago, the syllabus is in the main consistent along with the degree of difficulty. What has changed though is the teaching methods, the revision methods, the attitude of students and the need to achieve.

Next we will get someone saying the 100m sprint has got easier because so many do it far quicker than 20 years ago where as in reality a it takes the same effort, to propel a human down a 100m track. "

I studied a particular A-level at college, and we used past papers, but were warned not to go too far back as some of the stuff was no longer on the syllabus. When we attempted past papers in class that were more than a few years old, there were questions crossed off, that were no longer on the syllabus. Having seen them, I'm quite grateful!

Regarding challenge: The speaking element of a French GCSE exam requires a student to answer some questions independently. The students are given the questions, write their answers in class and try to memorise them. When it comes to sitting the exam, they are allowed to bring in a crib sheet of a certain number of words to help them. On the continent, when students learn English, they are shown a newspaper article that they've never seen before...asked to read it and then asked questions about it.

We could talk about controlled assessments, coursework, how open ended questions covering a particular topic 10 years ago are multiple choice questions years later - and not the difficult sort of multiple choice questions in Math Challenge exams - more the sort you'll find in the majority of a Driving Theory Test..

Anyway, the main point is...those people who feel exams are getting easier can't possibly use your analogy, as the challenge of running a 100m as fast you can is the same as it was 20 years ago. It's still a 100m track, whereas the exams appear not only different, but less challenging...."

There you see you are thinking like many inly in one dimension my analogy is appropriate the track may still be 100meters the shoes are different as are some surfaces although the effort expelled and the distance is the same.

Looking at the exams these days they are different but no less challenging as the examination boards have proved on multiple occasions in the last 10 years or so. The examination boards aim to maintain standards and integrity it would suit no purpose for them to make them easier. However revision methods have changed hugely, on-line tests are available research on-line and region methods have improved as have sprinters footwear.

The fact is people like to reminisce and claim everything was better harder more of a task back in the day but in reality its often hazy memories rather than facts and reality.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If teaching were a science there would be no need for political change - we'd have the answers by now.

The knowledge vs skills debate is nonsense and never gets anywhere. The two are interrelated but the balance is shifting in relation to the society young people will need to be prepared to thrive in. 

Personally I think the curriculum should be far less prescriptive but with considerably more emphasis on the recruitment and training of teachers and a huge investment in changing how children are assessed towards a greater emphasis on assessing their potential. Teaching children towards demonstrating their future potential rather than proving what they recall would be more challenging but also more rewarding.

It won't happen though as it's not easily measurable or comparable and therefore doesn't play well with comparing dick sizes in the international league tables."

I didn't say teaching was a science - it's a science insomuch as economics, psychology and sociology are sciences. Nonetheless, educationalist theory is an academic discipline which involves the use of the scientific method when investigating theories of learning and teaching. Often, the research behind many theories that have made it to the chalk-face have been poorly conceived or they've been dis-proven conclusively. Teachers themselves are not to blame, the problems most likely lie with social scientists pushing certain ideas and perhaps some of the organisations who commission some of the studies into ideas - especially those who stand to gain financially.

The rest of your post re: "teaching children to demonstrate their potential" sounds a little vague. It seems as though what you mean is you want to stop measuring how well students have learnt a concept i.e. what they've been taught, but instead measure how far away they are from knowing what they're ultimately capable of knowing or being?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When you employ somebody experienced you look to their past achievements. When you employ somebody young you try to anticipate what they may achieve in their post. To me school should reflect this insofar as enabling both young people and colleges/employers to recognise what they may go on to achieve - in mind that children don't really leave school at 16 and go to work anymore.

Currently the system can label young people as failures regardless of what their teachers may recognise they have the potential to achieve. But such a system would place a very high value on the judgement of the teacher. The EYFS is already some way towards this though.

I don't think the problem lies with any form of educationalists. It's the whim of politicians - currently somebody that has never taught in his life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"With so many student's getting more and more A and A* grades, does anyone think that the exams have got easier?. "

I think so. I have 11 O and A levels, all B passes. All exam papers, not a portfolio of coursework in sight. We covered the subjects fully and homework covered the bits not done in class.

Nowadays you have coursework to go towards final grades, less debt of knowledge. My daughters friend was going to read English Literature at uni. I made a reference to Emily Bronte, to which he replied "who?"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

There you see you are thinking like many inly in one dimension my analogy is appropriate the track may still be 100meters the shoes are different as are some surfaces although the effort expelled and the distance is the same.

Looking at the exams these days they are different but no less challenging as the examination boards have proved on multiple occasions in the last 10 years or so. The examination boards aim to maintain standards and integrity it would suit no purpose for them to make them easier. However revision methods have changed hugely, on-line tests are available research on-line and region methods have improved as have sprinters footwear.

The fact is people like to reminisce and claim everything was better harder more of a task back in the day but in reality its often hazy memories rather than facts and reality. "

Let me break it down for you.

The exam is the challenge.

The 100m track is the challenge.

The trainers, supplementation (whether legal or illegal), and training methods are preparation for running a 100m challenge.

The revision guides, extra tutoring, teaching methods and perception of the importance of education is the preparation for the exam passing challenge.

The assertion is that some elements of exams are less challenging and less rigorous, compared to 20 years ago notwithstanding the improved preparation methods, whereas the running the 100m is as challenging as it was 20 years ago as it is the distance or challenge hasn't changed.

Re the TES research...it could be true. I don't know what exactly they looked for and how they made their comparisons...but it could be true.

However other research indicates it may not be - and that more work is required for a definitive answer to question being discussed.

The article below may be of interest to you.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/21/ben-goldacre-bad-science-exams

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I tutored in Physics and Chemistry in 2012 and 2013, my students got A*100%. How, by teaching above the exam spec and ensuring understanding and not recall.

I did start a PGCE teacher training in 2009, dropped it when I realised NQT get £23k/yr. That is GCSEs, A levels, relevant degree and 2 yes teacher training to get to £23k ... With some £35k-£40k debt. Dynorod van drivers get £30k+ and have a real sh*t job.

The exams are just as tough but the teaching methods and the ability of the children make the difference.

I would jump into teaching in an instant, but the pay is untenable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

There you see you are thinking like many inly in one dimension my analogy is appropriate the track may still be 100meters the shoes are different as are some surfaces although the effort expelled and the distance is the same.

Looking at the exams these days they are different but no less challenging as the examination boards have proved on multiple occasions in the last 10 years or so. The examination boards aim to maintain standards and integrity it would suit no purpose for them to make them easier. However revision methods have changed hugely, on-line tests are available research on-line and region methods have improved as have sprinters footwear.

The fact is people like to reminisce and claim everything was better harder more of a task back in the day but in reality its often hazy memories rather than facts and reality.

Let me break it down for you.

The exam is the challenge.

The 100m track is the challenge.

The trainers, supplementation (whether legal or illegal), and training methods are preparation for running a 100m challenge.

The revision guides, extra tutoring, teaching methods and perception of the importance of education is the preparation for the exam passing challenge.

The assertion is that some elements of exams are less challenging and less rigorous, compared to 20 years ago notwithstanding the improved preparation methods, whereas the running the 100m is as challenging as it was 20 years ago as it is the distance or challenge hasn't changed.

Re the TES research...it could be true. I don't know what exactly they looked for and how they made their comparisons...but it could be true.

However other research indicates it may not be - and that more work is required for a definitive answer to question being discussed.

The article below may be of interest to you.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/21/ben-goldacre-bad-science-exams

"

You don't need to break it down for me I am more than adequately informed and have all the information and relevant facts and they are in the majority coming to the conclusion exams have not got easier but its the students have improved their preparation methods for the exams.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I tutored in Physics and Chemistry in 2012 and 2013, my students got A*100%. How, by teaching above the exam spec and ensuring understanding and not recall.

I did start a PGCE teacher training in 2009, dropped it when I realised NQT get £23k/yr. That is GCSEs, A levels, relevant degree and 2 yes teacher training to get to £23k ... With some £35k-£40k debt. Dynorod van drivers get £30k+ and have a real sh*t job.

The exams are just as tough but the teaching methods and the ability of the children make the difference.

I would jump into teaching in an instant, but the pay is untenable."

If you're experienced you can fly through the grades and jump to one based on how many years you've done relevant work. At least you could - not sure how recent tinkering may have changed that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"When you employ somebody experienced you look to their past achievements. When you employ somebody young you try to anticipate what they may achieve in their post. To me school should reflect this insofar as enabling both young people and colleges/employers to recognise what they may go on to achieve - in mind that children don't really leave school at 16 and go to work anymore.

Currently the system can label young people as failures regardless of what their teachers may recognise they have the potential to achieve. But such a system would place a very high value on the judgement of the teacher. The EYFS is already some way towards this though.

I don't think the problem lies with any form of educationalists. It's the whim of politicians - currently somebody that has never taught in his life."

This is kinda-sorta in a crude way already being done. The expectation that all children are to make 3 levels of progress (as a minimum) in each subject is based on their KS2 results is supposedly as a result of statistical analysis and extrapolation. Teachers then refine this data by monitoring the students throughout the year, setting what should be challenging yet achievable targets. The targets are essentially predictions based on past performance and current level of effort.

Similarly colleges make predictions too based on the grades students achieve at GCSE, so may decline a pupil interested in History if he/she has failed to attain a B at English. Once again, this is based on data.

I'm sure it can be refined further to give a deeper and more accurate insight. The education system is becoming very data oriented at present, as well as heading towards an evidence-based direction, so improvements in this area could very well happen.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

There you see you are thinking like many inly in one dimension my analogy is appropriate the track may still be 100meters the shoes are different as are some surfaces although the effort expelled and the distance is the same.

Looking at the exams these days they are different but no less challenging as the examination boards have proved on multiple occasions in the last 10 years or so. The examination boards aim to maintain standards and integrity it would suit no purpose for them to make them easier. However revision methods have changed hugely, on-line tests are available research on-line and region methods have improved as have sprinters footwear.

The fact is people like to reminisce and claim everything was better harder more of a task back in the day but in reality its often hazy memories rather than facts and reality.

Let me break it down for you.

The exam is the challenge.

The 100m track is the challenge.

The trainers, supplementation (whether legal or illegal), and training methods are preparation for running a 100m challenge.

The revision guides, extra tutoring, teaching methods and perception of the importance of education is the preparation for the exam passing challenge.

The assertion is that some elements of exams are less challenging and less rigorous, compared to 20 years ago notwithstanding the improved preparation methods, whereas the running the 100m is as challenging as it was 20 years ago as it is the distance or challenge hasn't changed.

Re the TES research...it could be true. I don't know what exactly they looked for and how they made their comparisons...but it could be true.

However other research indicates it may not be - and that more work is required for a definitive answer to question being discussed.

The article below may be of interest to you.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/21/ben-goldacre-bad-science-exams

You don't need to break it down for me I am more than adequately informed and have all the information and relevant facts and they are in the majority coming to the conclusion exams have not got easier but its the students have improved their preparation methods for the exams. "

Well that's that then lol.

Not a hint of confirmation bias.

It appears that it was completely pointless of me to send you that link which shows examples of studies that actually conflict with your conclusions, and suggest that your assertion, isn't as well founded as your conviction in it demonstrates it might be.

Never mind.

Oh, the breakdown was simply to highlight a flaw in your analogy, nothing more, nothing less.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ikeC81Man
over a year ago

harrow

I wouldn't say the are getting easier, just different.

I was clearing out a lot of stuff at home recently and found my old gcse's computing text book....

I could answer most of the questions on the back of a fag packet...I am 32 now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As a teacher i can tell you that the questions being asked aren't necessarily easier but the assessment methods are . Coursework that is checked and checked again with kids told what to improve explicitly. Teaching to the test, ignoring stuff that won't be in the exam, drilling over and over, improved teaching methods (yes really!), modular exams so that you don't have to remember stuff for a long time, multiple resits etc

The education system &teachers have simply got better at training the kids to pass the exams, like an athlete training for their event, or lewis hamilton exploiting every tyre strategy or rule-loophole to win a race. Teachers ain't stupid, we look at the rules and are under a lot of pressure to improve methods every year

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As a teacher i can tell you that the questions being asked aren't necessarily easier but the assessment methods are . Coursework that is checked and checked again with kids told what to improve explicitly. Teaching to the test, ignoring stuff that won't be in the exam, drilling over and over, improved teaching methods (yes really!), modular exams so that you don't have to remember stuff for a long time, multiple resits etc

The education system &teachers have simply got better at training the kids to pass the exams, like an athlete training for their event, or lewis hamilton exploiting every tyre strategy or rule-loophole to win a race. Teachers ain't stupid, we look at the rules and are under a lot of pressure to improve methods every year"

I suspect league tables and three levels of progress have something to do with that... If x amount of students need to get level y, one way or another the teachers will ensure they will, or at least get close.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As a teacher i can tell you that the questions being asked aren't necessarily easier but the assessment methods are . Coursework that is checked and checked again with kids told what to improve explicitly. Teaching to the test, ignoring stuff that won't be in the exam, drilling over and over, improved teaching methods (yes really!), modular exams so that you don't have to remember stuff for a long time, multiple resits etc

The education system &teachers have simply got better at training the kids to pass the exams, like an athlete training for their event, or lewis hamilton exploiting every tyre strategy or rule-loophole to win a race. Teachers ain't stupid, we look at the rules and are under a lot of pressure to improve methods every year"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Whilst at school I recall talk of the CSE/O-level being changed to GCSE to remove the two tier system we had in schools. When my first born went to do her exams I found the removal of the tier system to be a complete fabrication as the GCSE had a lower tier and a higher tier. Anyway I digress.

One of the big reasons for children achieving a higher grade than back in my ancient day, was due to up to 40% of the examination mark being available via a project. With guidance these children can get 100% for the project. Which puts them in good stead for their written exam. (I undertook a Psychology GCSE and obtained 100% for the project). Since children were all getting higher marks, the grading had to change to reflect those who excelled in their subjects: the emergence of an A*. Due to these factors the exams of today and my era are not comparable as a higher grade IS easier to achieve.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I suspect league tables and three levels of progress have something to do with that... If x amount of students need to get level y, one way or another the teachers will ensure they will, or at least get close. "

League tables are, sadly, EVERYTHING. The start, end and middle. Just like profit for a company. It's all well and good talking about 'a rounded education' and 'thinking skills' but they don't mean shit if the results aren't what the government expect of us. Its very sad. But a lot of parents only look at headline gcse figures so what are we meant to do? "Yes little johnny will get poor gcse results but he'll have had a good time" just doesn't cut it with OFSTED. Ofsted are driving the process of turning your kids into statistics and they are killing 'proper' education by forcing a method/science onto teaching, trying to roll out a magic formula for all schools

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So some think education is better and some don"t .

Some come on let's have your ideas how it should or should not be run

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge


"

I suspect league tables and three levels of progress have something to do with that... If x amount of students need to get level y, one way or another the teachers will ensure they will, or at least get close.

League tables are, sadly, EVERYTHING. The start, end and middle. Just like profit for a company. It's all well and good talking about 'a rounded education' and 'thinking skills' but they don't mean shit if the results aren't what the government expect of us. Its very sad. But a lot of parents only look at headline gcse figures so what are we meant to do? "Yes little johnny will get poor gcse results but he'll have had a good time" just doesn't cut it with OFSTED. Ofsted are driving the process of turning your kids into statistics and they are killing 'proper' education by forcing a method/science onto teaching, trying to roll out a magic formula for all schools"

Sadly all too true!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The youth of today must be really fed up they are crtocised for doing well in exams as told they are easy therefore undermining their ability before they start out in life.

Then if fail or do not get the grades they want are deemed as inadequate by government and employers how can they actually win.

Give em a break and accept we have some very bright people instead of knocking their achievements.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The youth of today must be really fed up they are crtocised for doing well in exams as told they are easy therefore undermining their ability before they start out in life.

Then if fail or do not get the grades they want are deemed as inadequate by government and employers how can they actually win.

Give em a break and accept we have some very bright people instead of knocking their achievements."

Well we are not bothered what ppl think we know how hard our son worked to get the grades he required to get his place at Newcastle uni and after getting his degree In Chemistry, he"s now attending Sunderland.uni doing his PGCE

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I did GCSE in the early days too but found them very easy. My ten year old covers things in school that I didn't until half way through secondary.

I agree the system is weird though - not least the assessment of kids based on what they have done rather than what they have the potential to do. And I agree to a point about how quickly people become 'expert' - including teachers that can qualify having never stepped out of the education system in their lives. Try teaching the curriculum, with an ever moving goal post "

(

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I suspect league tables and three levels of progress have something to do with that... If x amount of students need to get level y, one way or another the teachers will ensure they will, or at least get close.

League tables are, sadly, EVERYTHING. The start, end and middle. Just like profit for a company. It's all well and good talking about 'a rounded education' and 'thinking skills' but they don't mean shit if the results aren't what the government expect of us. Its very sad. But a lot of parents only look at headline gcse figures so what are we meant to do? "Yes little johnny will get poor gcse results but he'll have had a good time" just doesn't cut it with OFSTED. Ofsted are driving the process of turning your kids into statistics and they are killing 'proper' education by forcing a method/science onto teaching, trying to roll out a magic formula for all schools"

I totally agree! I have just resigned from a school where I was expected to teach every class in exactly the same way, regardless of ability. This was to gain an outstanding in the eyes of OFSTED. Yet, by doing so, I was jeopardising the results of the children as not all children learn in the same way. The school results have since shown their methods to be wrong!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge


"I did GCSE in the early days too but found them very easy. My ten year old covers things in school that I didn't until half way through secondary.

I agree the system is weird though - not least the assessment of kids based on what they have done rather than what they have the potential to do. And I agree to a point about how quickly people become 'expert' - including teachers that can qualify having never stepped out of the education system in their lives. Try teaching the curriculum, with an ever moving goal post

( "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top