GCSEs

9 was highest grade and anything below 4 was a fail.

Allira I was in Hertfordshire

growstuff
Re examination boards
They amalgamated to give more consistency
They needed to have more consistency.

Even back when my children were GCSE, and A Level age, there was a difference in the examination boards.
We lived in an area where there were separate boys’ and girls’ schools so I could see what was going on.

The boys read their MFL literature and wrote their papers on that in English. The girls read the literature syllabus books and wrote their papers in the language they were studying.

I’m just thankful we’re past all this - at least for another 5 or 6 years - eldest Gdc is 10.

growstuff

escaped

I think the easiness of any exam depends on the individual. Maybe the format seems easier in certain subjects these days.
As mentioned earlier, it's the huge increase in the number of students achieving these highest grades that is disproportionate.

My DGC are working towards GCSE, so I haven't witnessed exam time yet and can't comment. From what I see, the marking and assessment are far lazier than in the 70's. Most of her homework so far consists of multiple choice answers done on their phones, very little physical writing. I say that because I was one who learned everything by writing it down and referring back.

Have you ever marked GCSE scripts? I was a GCSE marker for about 10 years. "Lazy" is not a word I would use for marking and assessment.

Why would I be marking GCSE scripts? If you look, I'm talking about Year 7 and 8 homework all put into the computer.

Is it a huge increaseescaped? I can only see a rise of a couple of points this year? I think I, and others, possibly mean since the 1970s where A grades were very scarce, i.e., for me, and my peers. I don't follow year on year results currently because I'm not in that job, neither have I DGC of that age, but I guess even a couple of points each year will finally lead to an explosion in numbers. (my exaggeration! 💣)

Yes it's a different world now, but if children are being taught more how to perform to achieve higher grades, because we know the tricks, I'm not sure that is necessarily progress.

WithNobsOnIt

I did my O levels in 1971 with the dreaded, very pretentious snotty and class conscious JMB. The Joint Matriculation Board.

Really only orientated towards top Direct Grant Grammar and Private Schools.

Sunk without trace. Thank God

I think by then, a U or Unclassified Grade had been introduced. Was less than a 9 and was considered to be the real mark of the no hoper by schools

Rumour had it that you could just get a U for putting your name on the paper.

Sone teachers at some schools woild enter their pupils for O levels at other examining boards such as SEB, Sothern Examining Board. Where the exam questions were more straight forward and pupils achieved better grades.

Eh? JMB was the board controlled by a group of northern universities. Most northern state schools used it. It became part of NEAB, which is now part of AQA, so it didn't sink without a trace. At the time there were a number of alternative boards, but now there are only three in England. They amalgamated to give more consistency.

escaped

I think the easiness of any exam depends on the individual. Maybe the format seems easier in certain subjects these days.
As mentioned earlier, it's the huge increase in the number of students achieving these highest grades that is disproportionate.

My DGC are working towards GCSE, so I haven't witnessed exam time yet and can't comment. From what I see, the marking and assessment are far lazier than in the 70's. Most of her homework so far consists of multiple choice answers done on their phones, very little physical writing. I say that because I was one who learned everything by writing it down and referring back.

Have you ever marked GCSE scripts? I was a GCSE marker for about 10 years. "Lazy" is not a word I would use for marking and assessment.

I don't know why they keep changing them. There is now some nonsense about 4 being a pass and 5 a strong pass. Some colleges accept a 4 and others want a 5. At the very least there needs to be a clear pass/fail position.

One of my GSs has just got 10 crazy high grades, which I am not sure would even have been possible once .... very proud of him of course.

escaped

I think the easiness of any exam depends on the individual. Maybe the format seems easier in certain subjects these days.
As mentioned earlier, it's the huge increase in the number of students achieving these highest grades that is disproportionate.

My DGC are working towards GCSE, so I haven't witnessed exam time yet and can't comment. From what I see, the marking and assessment are far lazier than in the 70's. Most of her homework so far consists of multiple choice answers done on their phones, very little physical writing. I say that because I was one who learned everything by writing it down and referring back.

Is it a huge increase escaped? I can only see a rise of a couple of points this year?
I think what has changed in the last 30 years are the resources in print and on line to allow students to have a much clearer understanding of what is required to get to get high grades. When I did A level History I found out some years later that it had required 20 correct points for each answer to get an A (highest mark at that time). If I had known that I would have known how to target my answer.
We now know much more of what is required in the syllabus, what is needed to make progress and how to support improvement for individual pupils.
It is a different world now.

I think the easiness of any exam depends on the individual. Maybe the format seems easier in certain subjects these days.
As mentioned earlier, it's the huge increase in the number of students achieving these highest grades that is disproportionate.

My DGC are working towards GCSE, so I haven't witnessed exam time yet and can't comment. From what I see, the marking and assessment are far lazier than in the 70's. Most of her homework so far consists of multiple choice answers done on their phones, very little physical writing. I say that because I was one who learned everything by writing it down and referring back.

I don't know how much people have been involved in the detail of their grandchildren's GCSEs and A level, but I completely disagree about content being easier. One of my grandaughter's did A level subjects that were pretty much the same as mine and my daughter's and I would say much of the content was more like stuff I had done at degree level.
DH said the same as about GD2 Maths and the sciences.

JamesandJon33

No sorry Allira* I got a 9 in Physics. Definitely
top of the class. I was even invited onto the stage in assembly.

How strange. I was in the Midlands.

I got 4 x 1s in languages in 1961 - my DGD were quite shocked when I told them my results, thinking I'd failed them all miserably 😁

No sorry Allira* I got a 9 in Physics. Definitely
top of the class. I was even invited onto the stage in assembly.

JamesandJon33

I took my Olevels in 1960. As I said before 9 was an extremely good pass , below 3 was not .

It was definitely the other way round in 1960

1 was the highest mark, 1-6 being a pass. 7-9 meant fail.
Then letters were introduced, A being the highest grade, followed by A* being introduced.
Then England reverted back to numbers but reversing them, 9 being the highest grade and 1 being the lowest.
Except in Wales, which still awards A - G and also a Welsh Baccalaureate alongside GCSEs.

watermeadow

Of course grades have been watered down, especially since Tony Blair wanted 50% of kids to go to university (think of all those lovely fees!)
When I did A levels just 1% got an A grade. It’s now about 30%.

Yes.

WithNobsOnIt

I did my O levels in 1971 with the dreaded, very pretentious snotty and class conscious JMB. The Joint Matriculation Board.

Really only orientated towards top Direct Grant Grammar and Private Schools.

Sunk without trace. Thank God

I think by then, a U or Unclassified Grade had been introduced. Was less than a 9 and was considered to be the real mark of the no hoper by schools

Rumour had it that you could just get a U for putting your name on the paper.

Sone teachers at some schools woild enter their pupils for O levels at other examining boards such as SEB, Sothern Examining Board. Where the exam questions were more straight forward and pupils achieved better grades.

Oh, dahling, was it posh?

I did the Cambridge Board 😁

I did my O levels in 1971 with the dreaded, very pretentious snotty and class conscious JMB. The Joint Matriculation Board.

Really only orientated towards top Direct Grant Grammar and Private Schools.

Sunk without trace. Thank God

I think by then, a U or Unclassified Grade had been introduced. Was less than a 9 and was considered to be the real mark of the no hoper by schools

Rumour had it that you could just get a U for putting your name on the paper.

Sone teachers at some schools woild enter their pupils for O levels at other examining boards such as SEB, Sothern Examining Board. Where the exam questions were more straight forward and pupils achieved better grades.

Of course grades have been watered down, especially since Tony Blair wanted 50% of kids to go to university (think of all those lovely fees!)
When I did A levels just 1% got an A grade. It’s now about 30%.

I took my Olevels in 1960. As I said before 9 was an extremely good pass , below 3 was not .

DrWatson

For Merlot, and LadyLeft (& more), the old O Levels were grade 1 down to 6 (passes), and 7, 8, 9 as failures. I think I got a 1 and 2 in Maths and English, then a 3 and a couple of 4s for the five passes that you needed then to get a passable job. Or move on to 6th form / A levels. I was put in for eight exam subjects, but worked out that the work to try and pass that lot was too hard, so I gave up on two (Spanish & Eng Lit), intending to really try for the other six (so, should be OK to pass at least five?).

In fact I messed up the History paper, I'd been good at that subject right through school, but they managed to ask questions that were a battle too far (or, our teacher steered us towards the wrong topics?).

Back then, the CSE exam had recently arrived, for secondary school kids with lower hopes, I believe a grade one pass in a CSE was called equal to a grade 6 O Level?

I've met teachers over the last few decades who are quite convinced that modern GCSEs (as everything evolved) are nothing like as difficult as O Levels. And that A Levels have been watered down too.

I agree. I have long felt that modern GCSEs are the equivalent of yesterday's CSEs and today's A levels are more like our O levels. When my daughter took her A levels in 2015, I noticed that what she was studying for music A level was remarkably similar to the work I did for O level back in 1981. I think grade inflation across the board has been a problem for years, too. When I was awarded my degree in 1986, the vast majority of us had 2:2s with 2:1s being really something. Firsts were extremely rare yet now they are ten a penny. I knew a retired university professor and commented that our 2:2s appeared to be the equivalent of today's 2:1s and he confirmed that this was the case.

They are still A B C D etc in Wales.

I've met teachers over the last few decades who are quite convinced that modern GCSEs (as everything evolved) are nothing like as difficult as O Levels. And that A Levels have been watered down too.
That makes me feel good. I've already awarded myself A*s in today's money for two of my 3 A Levels! (That grade didn't exist in my day, but of course I would have walked it!) 😆

vintage1950

I think the grades below 4 are meant to show whether the candidates failed by a whisker or failed badly. This might influence the decision to resit. Of course, these days the poor things have to repeat English Language or Maths until they eventually pass.
Why don't exam boards simply show the percentages (either alone or alongside the grades)?

Raw percentages can't be compared from one year to the next because the exams vary in difficulty. Once all the marking has been done, grade boundaries are set for each component of an exam, so that the numbers at each grade are approximately the same every year.

For Merlot, and LadyLeft (& more), the old O Levels were grade 1 down to 6 (passes), and 7, 8, 9 as failures. I think I got a 1 and 2 in Maths and English, then a 3 and a couple of 4s for the five passes that you needed then to get a passable job. Or move on to 6th form / A levels. I was put in for eight exam subjects, but worked out that the work to try and pass that lot was too hard, so I gave up on two (Spanish & Eng Lit), intending to really try for the other six (so, should be OK to pass at least five?).

In fact I messed up the History paper, I'd been good at that subject right through school, but they managed to ask questions that were a battle too far (or, our teacher steered us towards the wrong topics?).

Back then, the CSE exam had recently arrived, for secondary school kids with lower hopes, I believe a grade one pass in a CSE was called equal to a grade 6 O Level?

I've met teachers over the last few decades who are quite convinced that modern GCSEs (as everything evolved) are nothing like as difficult as O Levels. And that A Levels have been watered down too.