Record A-level results in Bolton as pupils discover their grades (From The Bolton News)

Record A-level results in Bolton as pupils discover their grades

9:01am Thursday 16th August 2012 in Local

Teenagers in Bolton are waking up to their A-level results, with many hoping that their grades will be good enough to secure a coveted university place.

Experts have predicted that the pass rate will stall this year, amid fresh attempts by the exams regulator to tackle grade inflation.

But there has been an increase in top grades at Canon Slade and record A-grades at Thornleigh Salesian College.

It has been suggested, however, that around 8 per cent of exams will achieve an A* and just over one in four exams will score at least an A - the same as in 2011.

In a bid to tackle rising pass rates, Ofqual has told exam boards they will be asked to justify results that differ wildly from previous years. It means that the proportion of students awarded top grades is unlikely to increase greatly from 2011 levels.

Concerns have also been raised this year that changes to university admissions will mean that able teenagers who are predicted to score two As and a B, but just fall short, will struggle to gain a place.

Under a new system, there is now no limit on the numbers of students with two As and a B at A-level that universities can recruit, allowing them potentially to offer last-minute places to youngsters who do better than expected and meet this threshold. But it means universities are likely to have less flexibility to admit students who just miss this standard, as there is still a strict cap on those who score less than AAB.

This year's students are already facing up to being the first to pay tuition fees of up to £9,000.

And Brian Lightman, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said it would be a "tragedy" if bright teenagers who just missed their grades and lost out on a university place were disheartened. Mr Lightman said it was not yet known what effect the move would have, adding that there was a risk with any change that there will be "unforeseen circumstances".

Students predicted to score three As and get AAB could benefit, and despite missing their grades, still gain a place, he said.

Asked if there will be students who miss out on places, Mr Lightman said that happens every year. "When you are talking about those sorts of high grades, A and two Bs, people scoring those sorts of grades - for those to be disheartened would be a tragedy and we must do everything we can to enable them to get their place," he said. "My advice to students would be don't give up, to look at the options that are open, and there are still plenty of opportunities out there."

Comments(27)

Michael123 says...
11:10am Thu 16 Aug 12

Lets face it, A levels have become too easy to obtain top grades in soft subjects.

When I passed my 3 A levels in 1978 the emphasis was on maths, science and english. We all had to work hard over 2 years to obtain good grades,

These days the most students go to universities to obtain degrees in subjects that have no use in todays world. They use degrees as a way to avoid the real world for 3 years with little chance of ever repaying the loan

Ask yourself what benefit is there in going to university for both yourself and society

Report this post »

MsMooseGirl says...
3:50pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Michael123 wrote:
Lets face it, A levels have become too easy to obtain top grades in soft subjects.

When I passed my 3 A levels in 1978 the emphasis was on maths, science and english. We all had to work hard over 2 years to obtain good grades,

These days the most students go to universities to obtain degrees in subjects that have no use in todays world. They use degrees as a way to avoid the real world for 3 years with little chance of ever repaying the loan

Ask yourself what benefit is there in going to university for both yourself and society

Not everyone goes to university to do degrees like this, what about people who go on to study medicine, nursing, English or other subjects to go into worth while careers like teaching?

You cannot tie everyone with the same brush!

Report this post »

slward says...
7:34pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Michael123 wrote:
Lets face it, A levels have become too easy to obtain top grades in soft subjects.

When I passed my 3 A levels in 1978 the emphasis was on maths, science and english. We all had to work hard over 2 years to obtain good grades,

These days the most students go to universities to obtain degrees in subjects that have no use in todays world. They use degrees as a way to avoid the real world for 3 years with little chance of ever repaying the loan

Ask yourself what benefit is there in going to university for both yourself and society

well that's just the attitude of someone who is still very much stuck in 'their days' every teenager of who has received a level results today after 2 years of hard work needs to hear. Once again all the hard work and effort will be sidelined for ridiculous comparisons to to 1987. Well note to Michael123 the world has CHANGED! Students can no longer rely merely learning facts which I am assured was mostly the case back in your day! I feel that these comments are not only rude but entirely unjustified and old fashioned. I'd just love to see micheal123 attempt to do the exams I sat 2 years ago and then make comment.

Whilst I do believe there are some soft subjects, like in 1978 undoubtedly there are some students who are more practical than academic and their skills lie elsewhere other than in a maths class however that does not give people the right to blatently disregard the work of students today.

I am currently studying at university and work dammed hard in the hope gaining all the necessary skills to secure a job at the end of next year!
It is a proven fact that graduates add a lot more money into the economy than the government does to put them in university.

I think its people like Michael 123 who need to ask themselves how when being in education in 1978 gives them any justification to speak of those taking the exams today!

[quote][p][bold]Michael123[/bold] wrote: Lets face it, A levels have become too easy to obtain top grades in soft subjects. When I passed my 3 A levels in 1978 the emphasis was on maths, science and english. We all had to work hard over 2 years to obtain good grades, These days the most students go to universities to obtain degrees in subjects that have no use in todays world. They use degrees as a way to avoid the real world for 3 years with little chance of ever repaying the loan Ask yourself what benefit is there in going to university for both yourself and society[/p][/quote]well that's just the attitude of someone who is still very much stuck in 'their days' every teenager of who has received a level results today after 2 years of hard work needs to hear. Once again all the hard work and effort will be sidelined for ridiculous comparisons to to 1987. Well note to Michael123 the world has CHANGED! Students can no longer rely merely learning facts which I am assured was mostly the case back in your day! I feel that these comments are not only rude but entirely unjustified and old fashioned. I'd just love to see micheal123 attempt to do the exams I sat 2 years ago and then make comment. Whilst I do believe there are some soft subjects, like in 1978 undoubtedly there are some students who are more practical than academic and their skills lie elsewhere other than in a maths class however that does not give people the right to blatently disregard the work of students today. I am currently studying at university and work dammed hard in the hope gaining all the necessary skills to secure a job at the end of next year! It is a proven fact that graduates add a lot more money into the economy than the government does to put them in university. I think its people like Michael 123 who need to ask themselves how when being in education in 1978 gives them any justification to speak of those taking the exams today! slward

Report this post »

lindlandl says...
11:45pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Michael123, are you absolutely sure you're not really Victor Meldrew?

Report this post »

wild one says...
2:45am Fri 17 Aug 12

you don't need to study to get a job in the real world? jobs are there for the masses...simple?

Report this post »

nettyp says...
8:24am Fri 17 Aug 12

Re michaels comments: my son studied like a demon , most nights 8hrs or more . Hence his 2A* and 2A in chemistry maths physics and biology.I am 1 proud mother, and cannot understand your need to diss these students,I bet you didn't have the burden of the studentt debt that my son and others will face over the next 3/4 yrs either

Report this post »

oftbewildered says...
9:44am Fri 17 Aug 12

I don't think anyone is dissing the hard work put in by individual students; I think the comments are directed towards the prevailing system.

Report this post »

Michael123 says...
9:54am Fri 17 Aug 12

in response to nettyp

You have every right to feel proud of your talented son as he has worked hard in genuine core subjects and I wish him well for the future.

As for student debt I worked and paid through out my student days with no parental help which I never asked for or expected.

I do feel that your son should not need to pay for fees as he, I would imagine is now following a degree of real worth both for himself and in the future others

Report this post »

Andreas28 says...
11:44am Fri 17 Aug 12

Michael123 wrote:
Lets face it, A levels have become too easy to obtain top grades in soft subjects.

When I passed my 3 A levels in 1978 the emphasis was on maths, science and english. We all had to work hard over 2 years to obtain good grades,

These days the most students go to universities to obtain degrees in subjects that have no use in todays world. They use degrees as a way to avoid the real world for 3 years with little chance of ever repaying the loan

Ask yourself what benefit is there in going to university for both yourself and society

You say soft subjects, but only mention 3 scientific/empirical based subjects. What is your opinion on arts and humanities, where the A*/A grade is rarely given out, as opposed to sciences and mathematics where it seems like it is given out like confetti. You always hear in the news how scientists complain that we're not encouraging enough people to take up these subjects, yet the take-up rate is somewhere in the region of 60-80%, compared with languages which languish with around 5%. Surely that is something that needs rectifying, less we become an uncultured, illiterate nation.

Obviously, something like basketweaving studies isn't a proper subject, and I agree with you there, but the majority of students choose solid, hard subjects and find a proper course that will lead to employment. Making sweeping generalisations about one demographic is one step on the road to discrimination.

Report this post »

Michael123 says...
4:37pm Fri 17 Aug 12

In response to Andreas28 as to my view as to the arts and humanities. These are "hobby" subjects for those who can study after entering the real world in a attempt to gain something lacking in themselves as a person

Report this post »

lindlandl says...
12:02am Sat 18 Aug 12

Michael123. Oh dear, it's, perhaps a shame you didn't study the arts or humanities. Maybe such pursuits would have broadened your mind. Would be interesting to know what makes you qualified to judge the worth and academic rigour of all 'A' Level subjects.

Andreas, I assume you have several top grade 'A' Levels in several sciences as well as Maths, of course, to know just how easy they are. Look up the stats. You are wrong in your extremely vague analysis of the distribution of grades.

Report this post »

Michael123 says...
12:10pm Sat 18 Aug 12

The job centre plus centres are full of graduates who have studied the arts or humanities, living on benefits or working in menial jobs (the real world) that offer little chance of ever repaying their student loans. What a complete waste of money.

However there will be some who do obtain worthwhile careers, but this does not compensate the vast majority who do'nt

Report this post »

slward says...
12:32pm Sat 18 Aug 12

I am very happy to agree that the job market for graduates isn't as strong but neither is it for all those many adults who are also queuing for benefits! Michael 123 your statements are just absurd you cannot make such sweeping statements it's ridiculous! Plenty of humanities graduates are in really good in fact it is a proven fact that we need more language graduates for example!

Report this post »

Michael123 says...
1:22pm Sat 18 Aug 12

what proven facts?

What do you want to achieve by having a language degree, if so what is stopping you.

Too many graduates these days believe they are owed a living for having one. The real hard work starts now when you leave your cocooned world of academic life.

Report this post »

slward says...
1:50pm Sat 18 Aug 12

Eu institutions are crying out for graduates literally! I have high ambitions thank you very much and if by cocooned world of academic life you mean holding down a 9-6 job in Germany well..I pity such small minded people such as yourself it is pointless trying to reason with you. Tip...focus on your own life and let everyone get on with theirs. you don't know everything. ADIOS AMIGO!

Report this post »

Michael123 says...
6:49pm Sat 18 Aug 12

Yet again you have a inflated opinion of your worth.Ok there is nothing wrong with ambition and some people acheive it, usually those who give back to society more than they take out of it.

I have spent 33 years working for the same company in different parts of the UK meeting and helping people from from all walks of life from the unemployed to wealthy sports people and politicians, as well as having a family the youngest of which is going through the state education system

So I think I may know a little bit more than you.

So my friend break out of your world and enter reality

Report this post »

lindlandl says...
11:51pm Sat 18 Aug 12

Michael123. My! What vast experience you have, working for one company for 33 years and to think 'all over the UK'. Wow! I'm sure that must qualify you to know the demand for language graduates (unlike the person working in Germany eh?). It must be your vast experience that makes you come over as being a miserable, conceited, bitter, narrow-minded individual, though I'm sure you don't mean to. (not do'nt - correction from a languages and humanities graduate!) All I can say is I'm really happy to not be living in your grim, sad perception of reality. I am a parent too (gosh! You must have encouraged some great aspirations in your children). Still, you must know the saying 'Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger', so they'll probably survive and, hopefully, be a little happier than you!

Please also note that students were not required to pay the equivalent of up to £27,000 in fees for a 3 year degree or pay a lot more over their working life, in 1978. You didn't have to expect your parents to support you in paying your fees. At that time, all University students, who qualified under the rules of residency in the UK etc had their fees paid by the tax payer. One rule for you and and another for today's students?

What was your degree in? Grim Reaping?

What was your degree? Grim Reeping?

Report this post »

Michael123 says...
10:03am Sun 19 Aug 12

It's just as well I stayed in this country as the tax I have paid helped fund your education, although I fear that in your case it has been wasted. All my friends and others obtained work placements as soon they graduated,unlike today as we see them walk away from university to the job centre putting more strain on the tax payer. Its always someone elses fault

Neither myself or wife have ever claimed benefits which is a testiment to our hard work and values.

It would appear you are someone in a deadend work/home pattern who expects that anyone who does not agree that anything they wish should be free are not normal.

As for students who want a language degree should study for it at a university of that country. This would be far more impressive.

So do us all a favour and emergrate to Ecuador

Report this post »

lindlandl says...
6:20pm Sun 19 Aug 12

Unsurprisingly, you make a lot of assumptions about me that are incorrect. I note you do not comment on the fact that the tax payer paid for your university education. However, the tax payer didn't pay for mine. Unusually my parents paid my fees directly, although I was entitled to a free university education as were you. (I think it is a testament to paying for whatever they could afford, instead of expecting things for free). My foreign languages degree was studied for abroad, when I was working and living in two European countries so I'm glad you're suitably impressed. I have never had to claim benefits and I too gained a graduate trainee job as soon as I graduated. Weren't we fortunate? By coincidence, I had the misfortune of working for the Dept of Employment, so spent a considerable amount of time in Job Centres and monitoring community programme schemes (the Tory government's way of massaging the unemployment figures in the 1980s, whilst providing unemployed youngsters with no skills or useful work experience). I was very well-paid, had many perks, not least of which was a non-contributory, index--linked pension scheme. I certainly didn't consider this to be 'the real world' and, if I'm honest, at the time, rather than hyperventilating about the hoards of young unemployed people claiming benefits, I couldn't believe what a ridiculously high salary the tax payer was providing me with to be complicit in massaging unemployment figures. It really did seem immoral and was quite soul-destroying. I've no doubt that most of the extremely complacent people I worked with are still trundling round the office, marking their time until they can retire at the expense of the tax payer.

I have no idea why you are getting in to such a lather about the particular subjects that people choose to study as, the last time I looked, the vast majority of 'graduate' positions were non-specific as to the actual type of degree required. I think you are also confusing training and education. No, I don't have a dead-end work/home pattern. I am very happily educating youngsters like your youngest, though obviously in a useless modern language. I am very tolerant of people with hugely differing views, but I am also aware that our youngsters have a lot to offer, deserve to have choices and, yes, actually follow their dreams. However much you rant on, not everybody needs, wants or has the requisite talents to become an engineer or an accountant or whatever you would approve of, though I encourage those with these aspirations wholeheartedly. What should unemployed young graduates do in your world? Shoot themselves to save the tax payer some money? Or perhaps they should have done a GCSE in conjuring and produced a job for themselves instead of doing 'A' Levels or going to university. Why do you think I believe that everything should be free? I think most parents would hope that, as a teacher, I would encourage their child to do their best in whatever they have a talent in. Just for you though, if I ever come across your 'youngest' I'll direct them to the nearest salt mine, or whatever you have in mind for them.

Are you really trying to suggest that anyone who is in the position of claiming benefits doesn't have values and hasn't or isn't willing to work hard?

I think the regime in Ecuador would be far more suitable for you than me, though at least I would understand how the population was being repressed in a way that you could only dream about for the UK.

By the way it's 'testament' and 'emigrate'. I normally try not to be too judgmental about people's spellings, but I do feel the ability to spell is the mark of a good education.

Unsurprisingly, you make a lot of assumptions about me that are incorrect. I note you do not comment on the fact that the tax payer paid for your university education. However, the tax payer didn't pay for mine. Unusually my parents paid my fees directly, although I was entitled to a free university education as were you. (I think it is a testament to paying for whatever they could afford, instead of expecting things for free). My foreign languages degree was studied for abroad, when I was working and living in two European countries so I'm glad you're suitably impressed. I have never had to claim benefits and I too gained a graduate trainee job as soon as I graduated. Weren't we fortunate? By coincidence, I had the misfortune of working for the Dept of Employment, so spent a considerable amount of time in Job Centres and monitoring community programme schemes (the Tory government's way of massaging the unemployment figures in the 1980s, whilst providing unemployed youngsters with no skills or useful work experience). I was very well-paid, had many perks, not least of which was a non-contributory, index--linked pension scheme. I certainly didn't consider this to be 'the real world' and, if I'm honest, at the time, rather than hyperventilating about the hoards of young unemployed people claiming benefits, I couldn't believe what a ridiculously high salary the tax payer was providing me with to be complicit in massaging unemployment figures. It really did seem immoral and was quite soul-destroying. I've no doubt that most of the extremely complacent people I worked with are still trundling round the office, marking their time until they can retire at the expense of the tax payer. I have no idea why you are getting in to such a lather about the particular subjects that people choose to study as, the last time I looked, the vast majority of 'graduate' positions were non-specific as to the actual type of degree required. I think you are also confusing training and education. No, I don't have a dead-end work/home pattern. I am very happily educating youngsters like your youngest, though obviously in a useless modern language. I am very tolerant of people with hugely differing views, but I am also aware that our youngsters have a lot to offer, deserve to have choices and, yes, actually follow their dreams. However much you rant on, not everybody needs, wants or has the requisite talents to become an engineer or an accountant or whatever you would approve of, though I encourage those with these aspirations wholeheartedly. What should unemployed young graduates do in your world? Shoot themselves to save the tax payer some money? Or perhaps they should have done a GCSE in conjuring and produced a job for themselves instead of doing 'A' Levels or going to university. Why do you think I believe that everything should be free? I think most parents would hope that, as a teacher, I would encourage their child to do their best in whatever they have a talent in. Just for you though, if I ever come across your 'youngest' I'll direct them to the nearest salt mine, or whatever you have in mind for them. Are you really trying to suggest that anyone who is in the position of claiming benefits doesn't have values and hasn't or isn't willing to work hard? I think the regime in Ecuador would be far more suitable for you than me, though at least I would understand how the population was being repressed in a way that you could only dream about for the UK. By the way it's 'testament' and 'emigrate'. I normally try not to be too judgmental about people's spellings, but I do feel the ability to spell is the mark of a good education. lindlandl

Report this post »

lindlandl says...
7:37am Mon 20 Aug 12

'A' Levels in 1978 and 33 years working for the same company, with a very resentful attitude to the 'cocooned' world of higher education. Mmmm. Are you sure you've actually got a degree Michael123?

By the way, I don't resent contributing from my taxes to your child in the state education system and I apologise on behalf of everyone who has been ill. All these people, expecting something for free eh? Maybe you'd like to start with banning women from going to university as, according to government statistics, they will be the ones most likely to not be able to pay their loans back, due to not earning enough. Don't worry though, many graduates will pay back many times more than the original loan to cover that. I don't advocate getting everything for free, but it hardly seems fair that more wealthy people can pay the fees upfront for their children and avoid a lifetime of paying back a loan many times over because of interest rates that rival high street loans with no chance to make earlier repayments in future years. It's more like a dodgy car loan, but not even they go on for all your working life!

Report this post »

DaveLister says...
5:33pm Tue 21 Aug 12

I took my A levels in 1977 and got 2A's and 1B (Maths Physics and Further maths).

As the debate raged over the past few years I decide to retake one of my A levels to see how they compared (Maths in 2009). Being in full time employment and having restricted time I did not go to night school I simply bought a revision guide and worked through the examples. I did no real revision and got an A*.

I am not saying the current A levels are easier, they are different. The do not cover the breadth of the subject my original did, it is a much reduced syllabus and it is easier to get a grasp of the subject. (No real calculus in the modern A level)

Being much more worldly wise and under no pressure will have helped me, but I can say from personal experience that the current A levels are not as complex as they were back in the late 1970's, and if you know your subject they are much easier to get a high mark in. However, this does not detract from the hard work put in by today’s students as they will be work to the standard required of the current A levels.

I know that some university have to run extra classes in maths to allow some students to catch up on areas not in the current A levels but which are need to complete the math degrees.

So well done those who have worked hard to get their A levels recently, but I will hang on to my 1977 versions!

Report this post »

Michael123 says...
9:07am Wed 22 Aug 12

Thank you DaveLister
Someone else who as a A Level student during the later 70s believes the exams then were a much sterner test of someones abilility and has done so by taking them again.

Report this post »

lindlandl says...
9:33am Wed 22 Aug 12

Does anything seem as complex when you are a mature adult than when you are a teenager also busy trying to grow up? I am in no way disputing your opinion of the degree of difficulty involved in Maths 'A' Level as I haven't taken one, let alone two. From experience of other subjects though, I would add that the revision guides available today are far superior to anything that I came across as a youngster. There is also a wealth of materials in every subject under the sun on the Internet for the discriminating user, which is also of huge aid to pupils to supplement their class work. I think though, rather than retaking an 'A' Level in 2009, it may have been useful to compare old papers with new, side by side, as I'm sure our memories of 30 odd years ago and how we felt about our 'A' Levels at the time aren't quite the same as objectively examining the old papers. I think you are right that exams are very different now and let's face it, if you got an A back then, it's not that surprising that with a good revision guide you could get an A* now. No pressure, maturity and no A* band at that time may mean you have retained your competence. Well done. Now if you'd have achieved a D or E back then, your recent result may have been quite worrying (unless you've had a work life of using your Maths 'A' Level knowledge) and maybe it would have been more meaningful for someone with a previously low grade to have taken the 'A' Level again. I think this has been done before with adults with 'O' levels taking GCSEs. It didn't seem to get a great deal of attention as they did not manage to come up with any particular conclusion apart from that they were different (at least as far as comparing 'O' Levels with the 'higher' paper GCSEs).

One might have thought that with our generation of such fabulously educated people with fantastic mathematical skills that we would not have manged to stuff up the economy and the future or our children quite so badly. So now can we give them a break pleeeeeeeeeeeeease!

Does anything seem as complex when you are a mature adult than when you are a teenager also busy trying to grow up? I am in no way disputing your opinion of the degree of difficulty involved in Maths 'A' Level as I haven't taken one, let alone two. From experience of other subjects though, I would add that the revision guides available today are far superior to anything that I came across as a youngster. There is also a wealth of materials in every subject under the sun on the Internet for the discriminating user, which is also of huge aid to pupils to supplement their class work. I think though, rather than retaking an 'A' Level in 2009, it may have been useful to compare old papers with new, side by side, as I'm sure our memories of 30 odd years ago and how we felt about our 'A' Levels at the time aren't quite the same as objectively examining the old papers. I think you are right that exams are very different now and let's face it, if you got an A back then, it's not that surprising that with a good revision guide you could get an A* now. No pressure, maturity and no A* band at that time may mean you have retained your competence. Well done. Now if you'd have achieved a D or E back then, your recent result may have been quite worrying (unless you've had a work life of using your Maths 'A' Level knowledge) and maybe it would have been more meaningful for someone with a previously low grade to have taken the 'A' Level again. I think this has been done before with adults with 'O' levels taking GCSEs. It didn't seem to get a great deal of attention as they did not manage to come up with any particular conclusion apart from that they were different (at least as far as comparing 'O' Levels with the 'higher' paper GCSEs). One might have thought that with our generation of such fabulously educated people with fantastic mathematical skills that we would not have manged to stuff up the economy and the future or our children quite so badly. So now can we give them a break pleeeeeeeeeeeeease! lindlandl

Report this post »

lindlandl says...
9:35am Wed 22 Aug 12

By the way Michael123, you still haven't told us who paid your fees?

Report this post »

Dirk59 says...
2:17am Thu 23 Aug 12

The ' manipulated ' exam success figures, year on year, are designed to kid folk that educational standards are improving at the time. Of course ...the top 15-20% of students today would still likely have achieved top grades 20, 30, 40 years ago. But now, we are expected to believe that the other 80-85% of lesser ability students are far smarter than their counterparts of a generation ago. What rubbish. There are children today coming out of schools / colleges these days with B or C exam grades, who are barely able to read or write, let alone answer the most basic of questions in any topic you care to choose. If the authorities continue to dumb-down examining standards, you'll end up where kids will be getting A grades merely for turning up for an exam! All this does is devalue the work of high grade students, and makes exam results not worth the paper they're written on. In fact, this is already the case - many employers choose to ignore exam results, and rely entirely on putting job applicants through their OWN testing procedures ...such is the mistrust in school exam gradings. It's not the fault of the kids ...it's the ' educate everyone on the cheap ' policies enforced by successive Governments ....

Report this post »

lindlandl says...
11:15am Thu 23 Aug 12

I think there is some truth in what you say, but I think this has always been the case. I have got a fabulous set of 'O' Level results, from a top grammar school. However, I didn't really have a clue about a couple of subjects, but by regurgitating my 'Letts Revision Guide' my physics and chemistry grades were very good. For my actual understanding of the topics I would have surely failed. Nowadays, there seems to be a lot more attempt to 'apply knowledge' in some examinations, but from my experience as a parent, some of these questions seem quite ambiguous and whether the pupil manages to supply the required answer can seem quite arbitrary. In addition, there are 'foundation' and 'higher' papers for GCSEs. Really, it's similar to the two tier system of 'O' Levels and CSEs. If you got a Grade 1 CSE it had an 'O' level pass equivalency, but that did not mean you'd actually pass an 'O' Level. You can get a C grade on a foundation GCSE (the highest grade you can get on this paper), but it is not the same as getting a C on a higher tier paper. It is a different exam. A student would only be entered for a higher tier if it was thought that they would be likely to gain at least the C and hopefully higher, otherwise they would be entered for a foundation paper so they get a chance of getting a C, the magic grade for the school league tables. Do employers really understand that there are two sets of GCSEs? Additionally, the GCSE results continue to rise, not because everyone has mysteriously become more academic, but a wider range of subjects are studied. Many schools now avoid history, (notoriously more difficult to gain a good GCSE grades in) and swap exam boards and means of examining pupils in order maximise the chances of more passes and higher grades. Why? Political pressure. You can judge for yourself, as an employer, whether you value a sociology, drama, PE or whatever GCSE more or less than a physics, history, french or whatever GCSE. I suppose the A* banding knocks down the value of the other grades compared with the old system that didn't have an A* banding. Take all this into consideration when assessing the worth of someone's education. Your argument goes a bit haywire, however, and I assume you have exaggerated in order to emphasise your point (which does nothing to validate it!) I have taught in several types of educational institutions (college, grammar school, comprehensive, pupil referral units etc but I have never come across a pupil with a B or C grade who is 'barely able to read and write'. I also do not think it fair to judge their exam succes on answering the 'most basic of questions questions in any topic you care to choose'. They didn't take a GCSE 'in any topic you care to choose'. They follow an extremely prescribed curriculum that teachers are obliged to follow. Yes, they are inexperienced and, no, they do not come out of school trained for a job. They have been in education. From your line of argument, it would suggest that there are about 40% of school leavers who are totally illiterate (those who fail to gain GCSEs at C grade) Really? The last time I looked there was a 1% illiteracy rat in this country. I know only too well that many of our youngsters are underachieving and a whole lot more are simply not academic, but to say that means they are barely literate or illiterate is plain silly. There is, however, mounting pressure on schools to churn out ever improving exam results. Only this morning in the same BBC news report it was stated that the Government will take measures against schools that are not improving their GCSE passes and, at the same time, examination boards are determined to cap the improvements in exam grades.

There are many major problems in our education system, most of which no government wants to tackle because they are huge societal problems and the government is probably quite happy for the general public to be squabbling over whether GCSEs are easier than previously because it takes the heat off the more pressing issues in our schools that result from problems outside of school that make it impossible to educate a small, but increasing minority of pupils.

Finally, us older adults can whinge on about 'easier GCSEs' nowadays. What are we afraid of? .....that people might think we're not up to much because of our, on the whole, seemingly lower 'O' Level results by comparison. We could return to a system where we could write off a lot of the population at 11 as factory fodder. Oh, sorry we've already had that one and we don't have too many factories to even shove them in to at the other end. Perhaps we should try something radical by trying to educate them instead. Not a perfect system, but what do you suggest? I notice you seemed a bit short on suggestions, for all your wisdom. Do tell.....

I think there is some truth in what you say, but I think this has always been the case. I have got a fabulous set of 'O' Level results, from a top grammar school. However, I didn't really have a clue about a couple of subjects, but by regurgitating my 'Letts Revision Guide' my physics and chemistry grades were very good. For my actual understanding of the topics I would have surely failed. Nowadays, there seems to be a lot more attempt to 'apply knowledge' in some examinations, but from my experience as a parent, some of these questions seem quite ambiguous and whether the pupil manages to supply the required answer can seem quite arbitrary. In addition, there are 'foundation' and 'higher' papers for GCSEs. Really, it's similar to the two tier system of 'O' Levels and CSEs. If you got a Grade 1 CSE it had an 'O' level pass equivalency, but that did not mean you'd actually pass an 'O' Level. You can get a C grade on a foundation GCSE (the highest grade you can get on this paper), but it is not the same as getting a C on a higher tier paper. It is a different exam. A student would only be entered for a higher tier if it was thought that they would be likely to gain at least the C and hopefully higher, otherwise they would be entered for a foundation paper so they get a chance of getting a C, the magic grade for the school league tables. Do employers really understand that there are two sets of GCSEs? Additionally, the GCSE results continue to rise, not because everyone has mysteriously become more academic, but a wider range of subjects are studied. Many schools now avoid history, (notoriously more difficult to gain a good GCSE grades in) and swap exam boards and means of examining pupils in order maximise the chances of more passes and higher grades. Why? Political pressure. You can judge for yourself, as an employer, whether you value a sociology, drama, PE or whatever GCSE more or less than a physics, history, french or whatever GCSE. I suppose the A* banding knocks down the value of the other grades compared with the old system that didn't have an A* banding. Take all this into consideration when assessing the worth of someone's education. Your argument goes a bit haywire, however, and I assume you have exaggerated in order to emphasise your point (which does nothing to validate it!) I have taught in several types of educational institutions (college, grammar school, comprehensive, pupil referral units etc but I have never come across a pupil with a B or C grade who is 'barely able to read and write'. I also do not think it fair to judge their exam succes on answering the 'most basic of questions questions in any topic you care to choose'. They didn't take a GCSE 'in any topic you care to choose'. They follow an extremely prescribed curriculum that teachers are obliged to follow. Yes, they are inexperienced and, no, they do not come out of school trained for a job. They have been in education. From your line of argument, it would suggest that there are about 40% of school leavers who are totally illiterate (those who fail to gain GCSEs at C grade) Really? The last time I looked there was a 1% illiteracy rat in this country. I know only too well that many of our youngsters are underachieving and a whole lot more are simply not academic, but to say that means they are barely literate or illiterate is plain silly. There is, however, mounting pressure on schools to churn out ever improving exam results. Only this morning in the same BBC news report it was stated that the Government will take measures against schools that are not improving their GCSE passes and, at the same time, examination boards are determined to cap the improvements in exam grades. There are many major problems in our education system, most of which no government wants to tackle because they are huge societal problems and the government is probably quite happy for the general public to be squabbling over whether GCSEs are easier than previously because it takes the heat off the more pressing issues in our schools that result from problems outside of school that make it impossible to educate a small, but increasing minority of pupils. Finally, us older adults can whinge on about 'easier GCSEs' nowadays. What are we afraid of? .....that people might think we're not up to much because of our, on the whole, seemingly lower 'O' Level results by comparison. We could return to a system where we could write off a lot of the population at 11 as factory fodder. Oh, sorry we've already had that one and we don't have too many factories to even shove them in to at the other end. Perhaps we should try something radical by trying to educate them instead. Not a perfect system, but what do you suggest? I notice you seemed a bit short on suggestions, for all your wisdom. Do tell..... lindlandl

Report this post »

Michael123 says...
11:57am Thu 23 Aug 12

What was you specialist subject?

I bet it was "woffle and how to bore"

It now appears that in teaching you may be part of the reason for the decline in standards.

Please let us know how you qualified to teach in these institutions and what subject.

Report this post »

Record A-level results in Bolton as pupils discover their grades (From The Bolton News)

Local RSS Feed

Record A-level results in Bolton as pupils discover their grades

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies