Exams

[VinnieK]

I did my exams about the same time as you, Lao, though I only ever remember the maths one being tiered, and that had three: Higher (A*-D), Intermediate (B and lower), and Foundation (C and lower).

 

To be honest, the subject of whether or not GCSE exams are too easy is a bit of a nightmare, and I'm not familiar with any study on the matter. Quickly comparing maths GCSE papers from 1999 and 2008, my gut instinct is that they're not that different as far as content goes.

 

The real difference is in the way questions are structured. The later paper has a lot of short and multipart questions which focus on 'bookwork' (i.e. asking students to recall and state familiar facts and work through examples which are probably quite similar to things they've seen in textbooks and classrooms) and leading the student through the problem. It's the kind of set up that makes it possible for schools to teach to the exam, rather than teaching the subject itself, and I suspect that this might be a big factor in the rise in pass grades.

 

Having said that, one genuine weakness of the current maths GCSE is that it places a fair amount of emphasis on data handling and statistics. One argument in favour of this is that these subjects are more 'relevant' to society today, but the fact of the matter is that stats has a high learning curve that kicks in somewhere in the first two years of a degree and much of the material which is appropriate for GCSE students to be taught is very basic stuff that requires little thought or creativity. I don't, however, think that introducing topics that are regarded as 'difficult' will solve anything on its own. For instance, a fair number of people hark back to the good old days when calculus was a part of the 'O'-level, but the fact is that you could teach a twelve year old the basic tricks of differentiation and integration to a respectable standard without imparting any real knowledge, whilst there are any number of problems that require little more than basic geometry that would make most people cry.

 

Anyway, I'd probably say that, yes, GCSE exams probably are a bit easier for those students, especially those who have teachers who are prepared and able to teach them to the exam. However, I'd also say that:

 

1. Compared with ten years ago at least, there's not as much difference as the grumplestiltskins like to believe, and GCSE probably remain a challenge for an awful lot of students.

 

2. Any problem that exists is deeper than 'exams are getting easier' and will require more than arbitrarly making the exams what we consider as difficult. A good start would be getting rid of the obsession with league tables (not a factor on the Island, I know) and pass rates and actually deciding what we want from GCSE exams. For instance, what balance should we draw between teaching kids about things relevant to society in an obvious way, and teaching them to reason and think via abstract conceptualization? Similarly, what should be the balance between vocational and academic learning, and how should exams be divided between testing knowledge and comprehension, and the creative application and manipulation of that knowledge?

[We Like The Moon]

I personally think that A-C should be passes and then anything else be a fail.

 

The problem is that the namby pamby educationy people think that kids should not feel like they are failures - so they make every grade a "pass".

 

 

Another thing that annoys me is these "non competitive" sports days, where the kids do all these lame activities and the running races are optional - so that the fat kids and unsporty kids again don't feel like failures.

 

I'm sorry but I feel that kids need to be taught how to be competitive - don't take their competitiveness away - there is a big tough world out there - and you have to be competitive to get any success in this day and age.

 

 

Stop molly coddling the kids - teach them about failure and that failure is an option - don't hide the fact that failing exists - everyone fails at something - let the kids fail - don't just let them think that everything is rosy and that everyone is a winner (no matter how much effort you put in). Teach kids that to achieve and achieve well you have to put effort in - if you don't then you will FAIL FAIL FAIL.

 

(I love the words competitive and fail!!)

[Declan]

I personally think that A-C should be passes and then anything else be a fail.

 

The problem is that the namby pamby educationy people think that kids should not feel like they are failures - so they make every grade a "pass".

 

That's moronic nonsense, I give you a U.

 

There will be kids who are never going to get a C, but will apply themselves learn the rudiments of a subject and get a D. It might not seem much to you but it is an achievement for that kid. And it has to be better for society that he stayed in school and learnt something during 4th and 5th year, dismissing him as a failure would mean there's no point in him trying at all. And there has to be a way for employer to distinguish between kids who worked hard and learned enough literacy & numarcy skills to get by in a shop, say, and a kid that never turned up, can bearly read and can just about count.

 

We can't have an education system that only values the bright kids and beggar the rest.

[Lao]

The marking convention has nothing to do with 'molly coddling' the kids or hiding them from the harsh realities of failure, it simply give employers a system of differentiating between the under C work force.

 

As the last compulsory education test result that most students leave school with, it is essential that the marking system of the GCSE result encompass the full range of abilities.

 

the A, B, and C or Fail idea may be valid for smaller internal examinations but has no place in the real world marking system that will play a vital role in the students eventual employment.

 

but by all means force the fat kids to run laps if it satisfies your warped sense of fair play.

[bluemonday]

We can't have an education system that only values the bright kids and beggar the rest.

Agreed. I remember the 11 plus system which did just that and discarded the 'failures' at the age of 11 to a secondary school education whilst the 'elite' went on to greater glory.

 

In theory..........