GCSEs: what’s luck got to do with it?
A small handful of students “got lucky” in January, according to the chief exam regulator Glenys Stacey, as she published her review into the GCSE marking mess.
Got lucky? You get lucky in poker, or at the bingo, you’re not supposed to get lucky in the way potentially life-changing exams are graded.
But yes, the chief regulator admitted yesterday, it had been easier to get a C for part of the English GCSE if you took it in January rather than in June. And how is that inherent unfairness being resolved? The students who took the exam with the tougher grade boundary have been offered the chance to resit for free – yes free! – in November. Now those students definitely “got unlucky” – if you’ll excuse the Grade E grammar.
The critical thing, according to the Ofqual review is this: although the exams in January were graded “generously”, the grades in June are sound.
It’s a very straightforward explanation to a hugely complicated situation that has been met with fury by head teachers, students and parents across the country. There is, predictably, talk of legal action.
What’s not yet been fully explained is how schools with previously impressive English departments – including someone of the education secretary’s most feted academies – saw drops of 10 to15 per cent in their English results this year compared to last. A particularly untalented bunch of students? A shoddy year of teaching by staff? All possible, though Ofqual boss Ms Stacey was certainly batting away any criticism of the students in her round of interviews yesterday.
So the chances of the regulator’s decision being the final one here looks unlikely.
Even the former head of Ofsted, Sir Chris Woodhead – never scared of taking on the teachers – said he’d initially thought Ofqual’s plan was the right one. But he now finds himself siding with the teachers’ demands for a re-grade this year for the students who took the exam in June.
As for the future, he says this is yet more evidence of the need for total reform of GCSEs. And there he sides with the Education Secretary Michael Gove. The one person still silent in the midst of this noisy row.
He’s due to speak on the issue next week. All change again?
Follow Jackie on Twitter via @JackieLongc4
There are 9 comments on this post
I have heard two different reports in the media about the C pass mark for this GCSE English exam. One, was that it had increased from 43 out of 100 to 53; the other, that it had increased from 54 out of 100 to 64. Which is it? The former would be understandable, the second not.
All the exams I have ever encountered give the second best grade at 60% or above (B or 2(1)
for example).
It does seem on the face of it that we have moved to a system of relativism and rationing which
was prevalent in my era. However, I am convinced that students and teachers work harder
these days. Surely there should be some research done into any change in standards that there has been on an objective basis. One way to do this would be to retain a representative sample of exam papers and exam scripts over time for comparison work. Then we might get to
the bottom of this.
So, in the interests of “Fairness”, are they going to remark those papers that were taken in January?
Why change the marking system half way through an academic year? Why not wait until all the results for the academic year are in then decide on a new marking structure for the next academic year.
That would then give the teachers time to prepare for the new scheme for the following academic period.
By the way, is Glenys Stacy’s wage paid for by the tax payer? If so she either be sacked or docked wages for gross incompetence.
My daughter has been a casualty of this. What is missing from all of this is -what about the students who took their GCSE English a year ago Summer 2011? Only to find that the C awarded according to her at school – comes in as a D, over a year later? The reason being that the final part of her English has to be marked in the final year 2012 (which I was not aware of) hence a D? In between all of this she has been diverted by the school to take an additional GCSE in her final year, so has not been following through on an already achieved C (now known as a D). What about her re sit? a year later and with a gap? The fact that she has left school and has had to take a lower level course than originally she wanted to do. The local further education college is an option to re do her GCSE, good job she achieved a D in English as that is the criteria to take the GCSE!
What matters at the end of all this is that my daughter has been badly let down. On paper my daughter has only come out with 1 GCSE in the core subjects – Maths.
Numbers seem to be the thing. If they compare overall English results % with a previous overall English result % that is bound to translate differently than say the Schools achievements or the Counties achievements. Not acceptable at all! – Massaging figures. Changes and amendments are always required but not like this. What is the saying “shutting the gate after the horse has bolted”. Too late and not the right thing to do.
Horrified for individuals concerned but sanguine, where you land on any given league table age 16 just shouldn’t mater this much. Life goes on, or it should do, and isn’t it up to the grownups to ensure that? For me this is the only issue of note here.
Exam standards have been fiddled with in line with the ideological (socio-economic) beliefs of governments for decades past. So what’s the big deal with this example?
It makes clear that government sponsored standards are a gate-keeping tool, and this government are evidently closing ‘their gate’, even to members of the articulate middle classes.
This is so unfair. If something had effected 60,000 adults in this country there would be more done. 16 year olds have not got a voice and don’t vote at the moment. They need this resolved. I agree with Gary above, if a system has to be changed fine but change it at the start of an academic year so that every one is working towards the same goal. Imagine if the Olympic officials said to Mo Farrow as he crossed the finish line, sorry if you want gold keep running another 200 meters, we have moved the finish line just because too many golds are being won.
I personally think that this has not just effected English, there has been a general lowering of grades but the exam bodies seem to have targeted the kids that are on the C boundary, the kids who really need these grades to move on.
Come on Ofqual and AQA what a fiasco sort it out and make it right. AQA say there are lessons to be learnt, well don’t punish the students for ineptness in the system. Offering free re-sits is a nonsense, just put it right now.
Youngsters have missed out on Apprenticeships and College courses due to no fault of their own or even their teachers/schools.
Ofqual had a chance on Friday to admit that the system had failed these youngsters and put things right. Some of the youngsters might have even managed to maintain their place on relevant courses.
My son has missed out in his Apprenticeship due to this English re-grade even though he was set to achieve a C and a B in English only a month or so ago.
Our world and that of my son has been thrown upside down and I really don’t know what to say to him other than its not his fault.
These changes to the C/D band are extreme and these youngsters affected have taken the brunt. I’m not sure how my son even takes a re-sit, as he’s now left school and has no college place.
As far as I’m aware, these youngsters would need to not only re-sit their exam but all their controlled assessments aswell. Exactly how is this to be done AQA and is there likely to be any further changes to the gradings or have you finally got things right in this respect !!
These youngsters must get a re-grade NOW!! Be fare and allow them to move on with their lives..
Jackie,
Anybody who believes a word coming out of the mouth of Glenys Stacey deserves all they get. The woman is the most cynical Janus-faced hypocrite produced even by recent right wing standards. I wouldn’t ask her to mark a bingo card, never mind assess the future of hopeful young adults.
But that’s what you get when you hand everything over to the profit motive. You either “get lucky” or you “get unlucky.”
I hold that woman in as much contempt as I do dead-faced Michael Gove. And that’s saying something.
Well said, Philip.
What people need to realise is that these actions are totally political and represent the ruling classes battening down the hatches, in preparation for a long, roll backwards into a new age of privilege reigning over merit. They, Deep Whitehall, spent 20 years, slowly, bit by bit, – yet under the noses of everyone – dismantling OUR “free” higher education sector and replacing it with a corporate buisiness model to benefit private whealth at the expense of the majority of those who would otherwise benefit, namely you and I, the majority tax payers. Now, whilst we subsidise private business (scroungers) and bankers (gamblers and fraudsters and other tax avoiders) to sums previously unimaginable, thereby preserving the lifestyles they have grown ucustomed to, our kids have to fork out nine thousand pounds a year just in fees alone. Yes, the world as we knew it was turned upside down in the space of twenty years, right under our very noses and we just gawped and let it happen, as did all those in HE/FE who are in positions of influence – particularly those top shool and University nobbs who were invited in to plan it all. So, maybe it’s time we got together and turned it all back the round again. Any suggestions, people?
I feel concern for young people who get the grades they require and then go-on to college or university but after that they find it very competitive trying to find a suitable job but many end-up taking what they don’t want just to get a wage, e.g., a postman/women; although there’s nothing wrong with that but what would be the point of furthering education if there aren’t the jobs to gain after the extra years of education. – There needs to be more jobs via building-up our industries and increasing exports; not relying of imports and making our nation job-less.