Comments on: GCSEs: What does an ‘A’ grade mean?

By: Bernard Naylor

Bernard Naylor — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:48:38 +0000

I guess the answer to your comment 1 is that there is only one point of comparison that matters, namely the level they have reached when they finish full-time school education. And that is examined and is, I assume, the basis of the international comparisons which,so I read, repeatedly confirm the superior quality of the Finnish education system. Any interim measure is without value if you have confidence in your system. E.g. the Finns don’t start formal education until aged 7. And we are already measuring by then. But what’s the point of measuring our children against the Finns at 7, if the next 11 years confirm that in the long run the Finnish children do better? I think it is widely acknowledged that public examinations are usually detrimental to good education, because they inevitably lead to ‘teaching to the defined curriculum’, which, since it has to be defined, is most commonly narrower than is required for the best education. The frequency of public testing of children in the UK could well be one of the reasons why our children don’t do as well as we would wish. Public examinations are a ‘necessary evil’, and as such should be kept to the absolutely indispensable minimum.
Finland, so I read, selects its teachers with great care (no unqualified teachers, no ex-army officers etc), takes great care over continuing professional education and practice guidance, and pays them really well. And, incidentally, they decided to abolish private education some years ago because of the detrimental effect it was having on education overall. (Sounds familiar?)

By: teddnet

teddnet — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:46:29 +0000

Latest news about the Welsh results getting regraded while the English stays the same confirms what my Welsh wife has always told me- that the Welsh clearly have a better command of English than the English do…

By: protonsforbreakfast

protonsforbreakfast — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:35:05 +0000

Good points all.
1. I read about foreign systems being better than ours with suspicion (Grass: Greener: Other side). If the Finnish system is so much better than ours but there are fewer examinations, how do they know its better?
2. League Table Abolition: Yes please
3. Unified examining body: absolutely essential.

I think one of the main problems with our education system is that people keep trying to fix it! Every Government wants radical change. This does some good things but breaks other = parts of the system that were doing OK. Actually we just need to stop changing things and let the school system evolve slowly. Teachers and parents are weary of radical change.

By: Bernard Naylor

Bernard Naylor — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:53:08 +0000

If the school leaving age is really to be raised to 18 – isn’t that still the intention? – surely the best option is to abolish GCSEs altogether? British young people are over-examined as it is. Finland – so I understand – makes do with one public examination at school leaving age, and they are said to have the best education system in the world. Along with that, school league tables should be abolished, and there should be a single, unified examining body, instead of the present system of various examining bodies. Perhaps if the system is simplified along those lines, minds could be bent towards ensuring that the one public examination, set and examined by one body, serves the purposes required of it.

By: teddnet

teddnet — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:54:07 +0000

The personal ramifications of the systems are too complex for me. It would be a huge start if you could truly understand what a GCSE in ANY subject really meant, which is more than can be said at the moment for English, in which we don’t know how much the candidate knew, and we don’t know how well they did against their cohorts. In fact we know nothing about those results with any confidence. In the old days, I believe (someone correct me) that O level meant what an ordinary adult could be expected to achieve in a year of study. If maths is 1 year, and additional maths is 1 year, then someone who did both simultaneously for 1 year is likely to be better at maths than someone who did only the vanilla qualification. Whether Add maths should then be seen as being worth the same is sort of moot- I can’t see how one could be expected to get a high grade in add maths and a low grade in maths, so clearly there will be some distinctiveness about the worth of these subjects.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:45:49 +0000

teddnet – if GCSEs do not have similar intrinsic worth, then don’t all the statistics and 5 A*-C ratings become (more) meaningless?
It is bad enough at the moment where, for example, at my children’s school if you are judged able enough you can do Physics, Biology and Chemistry as threes gcses, if judged less able then you can do Combined Science which counts as two gcses, and if you are not judged able to do that you can do a BTEC which is claimed to be worth four gcses! Under Michael’s proposed scheme you could probably increase your (personal or school’s) A/A* count by switching from Classics to Leisure and Tourism. Since no-one, I suggest, really thinks the statistics are showing that Classics is easier than L&T, rather than which pupils in which schools are being entered for the exam, discrimmination of the most able might tend to the fee paying school+classics+oxbridge ethos.

If you mean we could have an extra layer with “Additional” being recognised as a higher grade qualification than GCSE that would be fine. Just don’t call it a GCSE!

By: teddnet

teddnet — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:23:27 +0000

I don’t see a problem with that. ‘Additional’ would then imply some additional knowledge / ability. The anomaly would be if you could get a C in maths and an A* in add maths.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:17:36 +0000

What would happen with, for example, Maths and Additional Maths where the intakes are likely to be different in ability? I’m assuming the difference in the table is because only those good at Maths do the Additional as a GCSE.With your system you could have a B in Additional Maths being harder to get than an A in Maths. You would have to grade the actual GCSEs themselves, some being better than others.

By: protonsforbreakfast

protonsforbreakfast — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:19:42 +0000

The cohort sizes for the data I showed ranged from a few hundred to a few hundred thousand. I would think a few hundred candidates is enough to get meaningful statistics on a exam. If everyone ‘fails’ then the exam was too hard and so yes – the best 5% would get A*. This allows colleges and employers who was the best at a particular exam.

By: Julian Onions (@julianonions)

Julian Onions (@julianonions) — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:43:30 +0000

Looking at edge cases, what happens if only one person takes an exam. Or two? How many takers do you need before you can judge 5%? What if everyone fails, do the top 5% get A*?