45% of A Level grades A & A*

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

People at schools where you pay money to enter get better results.
In order to reflect this an algorithm was produced.
The algorithm was criticised for disadvantaging state school pupils.
The algorithm was removed.
Pupils sitting at state schools the previous and this year therefore did not have the traditional disadvantage of not having shitloads of money thrown at them.
Next year presumably this will revert back to normal.

Criticism was unfairly levelled at those creating the algorithm. They were merely reflecting unfair reality.

I assume clarksons getting praise on twitter. The pressure put on kids to achieve good results is ridiculous sometimes, and poor results are in no way a barrier to success in later life.

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

Actually I tell a lie. The independent ones have just marked their grades even higher.

 

[Muttley]

I assume clarksons getting praise on twitter.

I'm wasting my time on here!


Come on peoples!

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

Yes I know. But he's right isn't he.

 

[Primus84]

Yes I know. But he's right isn't he.

It's easy for someone in a privileged position to say it, I like the sentiment but unfortunately times have changed, qualifications are more important now than they ever have been. If you don't get what you need or want you can resolve it and move forwards but someone who went to Repton many years ago saying they're alright and they underperformed on their A-Levels isn't the same as the kid who goes to Middlesbrough College right now.

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

I don't know. I hear about kids killing themselves under the pressure of exams. I think being happy in what you are doing is by far the most important thing.

 

[Primus84]

I don't know. I hear about kids killing themselves under the pressure of exams. I think being happy in what you are doing is by far the most important thing.

Yes there is a lot of pressure on kids these days and it would be a lot better if that pressure was reduced but you cannot lie to them, their qualifications are very important now, more so than in the past.

 

[Unravel_Morrison]

The main issue that I see is what Universities do based on the offers that they give out based on A Level results. Surely they are going to have courses that will be vastly oversubscribed.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Broadly speaking that's what the usual GCSE and A-Level exams do - they adjust grade boundaries every year so that they limit how many people get each grade. Whether you think that's fair or not is a matter of great discussion.

Thanks for the reply but is that still the case? as Massimo's Header says:-

Up until the mid 1980's there were prescribed percentages. There were no A*s in those days. The top 10% of scores were granted an A grade at A level.

If it is still the case, how can there be an increase of of 16 or 17%?

 

[Andy_W]

Are there any obstacles to working in percentiles where for instance, to earn an A* you must be in the top 3% and so on, which would iron out problems like some exams being set much harder or easier than other years.

I agree that there should be fewer obtaining higher levels, but it makes it difficult to compare years if only 3% can get A* etc.

The standard now might just be the same as what it was in the 90's, but teaching and approach is better, and also easier for research with the internet etc. It may have been harder before, but the level of knowledge might have been the same.

Next year the questions may be easier and the kids just do worse, the top 3% wouldn't be a patch on those that have done well this year, especially in the circumstances.

I don't know what the answer is, maybe harder papers and grades better than A*, go A*2, A*3, A*4 as level of knowledge goes up over time?

 

[Primus84]

Thanks for the reply but is that still the case? as Massimo's Header says:-

If it is still the case, how can there be an increase of of 16 or 17%?

In recent years the Government even more aggressively returned to norm referencing, the introduction of the 9-1 system was designed to have even more closely restrictive quantities of students in each band.

The reason we have seen increases this year is that we are using centre assessed grades and not external exams, although 99% of schools will have had the students sit exams internally.

The reason you see increases in normal years can be down to many factors, the improvement in teaching over time, the desire of a government to appear like their changes are working etc. etc.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

I agree that there should be fewer obtaining higher levels, but it makes it difficult to compare years if only 3% can get A* etc.

The standard now might just be the same as what it was in the 90's, but teaching and approach is better, and also easier for research with the internet etc. It may have been harder before, but the level of knowledge might have been the same.

Next year the questions may be easier and the kids just do worse, the top 3% wouldn't be a patch on those that have done well this year, especially in the circumstances.

I don't know what the answer is, maybe harder papers and grades better than A*, go A*2, A*3, A*4 as level of knowledge goes up over time?

Surely there would be no need to compare years. If the top 3% get A* and the next 7% get A, then they are the top 10% of able students regardless of how easy the exam is from one year to the next.

 

[Subbuteo_171]

My son got 3 A*. He had excellent performance at Gcse so his results are probably not too far off, however has been and will continue to be impacted by the absolute mess caused by this inept government.

Public school pupils will be OK of course. As they always are, and always will be.

An absolute mess.

 

[Andy_W]

Surely there would be no need to compare years. If the top 3% get A* and the next 7% get A, then they are the top 10% of able students regardless of how easy the exam is from one year to the next.

I get that, but when it comes to CV's, people compare grades, especially if some don't go to uni, or can't get the place they want.

You could have an A* from 1998, worth more than some dude in 2021 getting a C, not because Mr C's knowledge is worse than Mr A*'s, but that the other guys in Mr C's time just know more. Don't get me wrong mind, put Mr A* in Mr C's time, and he might get an A* then too, but he might not. Competition may have been much poorer back then.

I don't know what the answer is, but if people obtain a set level, then they have to be given the grade, irrelevant to their peers. The standard of the paper should be easy to assess, and keep constant, or to back work old grades and convert to a number, with no upper limit.

Grades need to go though, and just go to numbers in the thousands, and there needs to be no upper limit, or a limit which is likely not achievable.
If too many are meeting the A* level, and are at the grade of previous A*'s then the A* is no longer of use as a term of comparable reference and needs to be replaced with a different system, to reflect the higher level, albeit in a time of maybe easier resources and better teaching.

It's not a simple fix though, probably needs everyone's historical grades adjusting for the time.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

I get that, but when it comes to CV's, people compare grades, especially if some don't go to uni, or can't get the place they want.

You could have an A* from 1998, worth more than some dude in 2021 getting a C, not because Mr C's knowledge is worse than Mr A*'s, but that the other guys in Mr C's time just know more. Don't get me wrong mind, put Mr A* in Mr C's time, and he might get an A* then too, but he might not. Competition may have been much poorer back then.

I don't know what the answer is, but if people obtain a set level, then they have to be given the grade, irrelevant to their peers. The standard of the paper should be easy to assess, and keep constant, or to back work old grades and convert to a number, with no upper limit.

Nobody is going to be comparing the CV school results of someone from today with a bloke from 23 years ago My doesn't even have his exam results on his CV, just his Uni grade and his experience. Using percentages is a measure of your ability at any time. If you are in the top 3% you are in the top 3% regardless of when you took your exams. This prevents tampering with the difficulty level of exams to create the impression that the DfE has done its job.

 

[Primus84]

Nobody is going to be comparing the CV school results of someone from today with a bloke from 23 years ago My doesn't even have his exam results on his CV, just his Uni grade and his experience. Using percentages is a measure of your ability at any time. If you are in the top 3% you are in the top 3% regardless of when you took your exams. This prevents tampering with the difficulty level of exams to create the impression that the DfE has done its job.

The problem with this over crierion-referenced exams are that you condemn a certain portion to fail every single year.

The benefits of a criterion-referenced system is that rather than knowing whether someone is in the top x% or middle x% of a year, you know what they can actually do, in the same way that driving tests are criterion-referenced. If over time students are capable of more for whatever reason then using norm-referenced set percentages holds people back.

 

[Muttley]

The benefits of a criterion-referenced system is that rather than knowing whether someone is in the top x% or middle x% of a year, you know what they can actually do

When you are dealing with such a large sample then statistically there will be little difference. The top 10% 2021 will be no cleverer than the top 10% 1981, how could they be? The variation in teaching methods, scope of syllabus and exam questions will affect the results more than anything else. Which is why the quest for more pupils to get A grades is a nonsense.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

If over time students are capable of more for whatever reason then using norm-referenced set percentages holds people back.

I see that but do not most A level students use their grades immediately to gain a place at university? If you are a late achiever (my daughter was such) you can always do an access course. Handing out high grades to people on the basis that they may blossom at some point in the future isn't helping anyone is it?

 

[Primus84]

When you are dealing with such a large sample then statistically there will be little difference. The top 10% 2021 will be no cleverer than the top 10% 1981, how could they be? The variation in teaching methods, scope of syllabus and exam questions will affect the results more than anything else. Which is why the quest for more pupils to get A grades is a nonsense.

There is some truth to this, however there are studies that show intelligence (often represented by IQ) is rising over time.

Teaching has changed dramatically since the 1980s.

 

[Primus84]

I see that but do not most A level students use their grades immediately to gain a place at university? If you are a late achiever (my daughter was such) you can always do an access course. Handing out high grades to people on the basis that they may blossom at some point in the future isn't helping anyone is it?

I think you've totally misunderstood what I was saying - I didn't mean giving someone a grade on the basis they might blossom in the future! See my most recent post and read it with the post you quoted and I think you'll see what I meant.