Well done to all who's got them. I'm sure they're not easy.
I can categorically say from my own experience that people who went on to be teachers from my generation were absolutely shocking ediuts. So it can't be anything to do with the quality of teaching. Kids do have access to a whole wealth of information which is damn helpful.
The main real reasons for improvements is not due to any generational improvements but the shocking breadth of the curriculum. I had a lot of quality teachers so we were able to study subjects way wider than the curriculum. In Maths we did our AS Level in the last GCSE year. Our teacher used to give us old O Level papers as he was one of the guys that set exams, it was laughable how hard they were we'd piss all over AS Level papers and then one and all stuggle on the O Level with most of us getting B's and C's. The huge difference was the breadth of subject, there were so many areas the questions came from. In A level and GCSE the same questions popped up regularly just with slightly different scenarios. If you did a couple of papers, exams were a doddle. At Uni it could be even worse than that.
As the years went by at school the old teachers went and we got in the main rubbish young one's who taught from off the shelf lesson planners. For my sins I lost all interest in those subjects and messed them up. In my mind if these kids get by with the mainly shocking teachers - I do know a few excellent ones - good luck to them, they've got to be having a fair bit of intent.
i struggle to comprehend that all these students/kids are as gifted as one would assume from their grades. i went to a very good secondary school in sheffield in the mid-eighties. my mates brother got 5 B's at A level and was accepted at oxford to study architecture, as one of the highest scoring pupils in the school. whilst at uni he designed a military hospital for the MOD and it went into production. i wonder whether a string of B's would get you into oxford these days?
[cite]Posted By: addick1965[/cite]My step-daughter got the grades she needed to get into Hull uni so will be joining fellow lifer stu there on Sept 24th
One of my daughters went to Hull (Scarborough Campus). She loved it there.
[quote][cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: addick1965[/cite]My step-daughter got the grades she needed to get into Hull uni so will be joining fellow lifer stu there on Sept 24th [/quote]
One of my daughters went to Hull (Scarborough Campus). She loved it there.[/quote]
I lived just outside Hull (Beverly) in the 80's - tell them to try a pub call Skidby Mill - its still there i believe
I can categorically say from my own experience that people who went on to be teachers from my generation were absolutely shocking ediuts. So it can't be anything to do with the quality of teaching.
Do you mean ALL teachers from your generation, and which generation might I ask? Incidentally there are about 400,000 teachers in the UK.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]A-Level results have improved for 28 years on the trot. The knee jerk reaction is to say the exams have got easier, but the picture is not as simple as that. For a start the perception that those youngsters are cretins despite their levels of education have been there all my life. people have always complained...in the old days it was along the lines of 'sheesh, got a qualification in Geography, but doesn't even know the name of the main river in Rome, or the capital of Chile'. However education has moved away from those times when the regurgitation of facts was the mark of 'intelligence'. History for example no longer starts with cavemen, and follows a line of received information to 1945, which is then memorised. These days History is taught in a more complex manner, for example posing questions about what you can summise from source materials.
There is a now well established culture that students use reasoning, and deduction, co-operation and imagination, knowledge of how systems work and how to research, problem solving and a panoply of other, often practical skills. General knowledge is still highly respected, but more so if you have an idea how to apply that knowledge. Examining facts used to be a much more straightforward process than examining some of the things I have listed above.
Schools never used to be under the pressure to teach to exams, things such as league tables have changed that, and schools and teachers have become more savvy about going for exam scores, and with intense focus on results it may be that teachers are doing a better job getting students through exams, rather than exams getting easier.
Grade boundaries, especially at GCSE and also at A-level have also got higher, some subjects such as Art demand 97% for an A* at GCSE, whereas Mathematics is in the seventies in terms of percentage. So as results have improved the benchmark is set higher and higher. If somebody gets an A-level, even at grade E they have a substantial achievement whatever the subject. A grade 'A' in Dance for example means you are a pretty formidable student and have done really really well.
There has been an huge shift in the cultural life of younger folk too, where the internet, and electronic communications is second nature, and even sometimes drives a divide between generations, certainly I call on Seth Jnr often to suss out a computer problem, perhaps I am the cretin in his eyes!
Finally, it sticks in the gut of some people that Teachers, you know those lefty liberal useless holidaying parasitic do nothings, might actually be doing a good job. Dealing with large groups of teenagers, and getting something worthwhile out of them is a difficult and highly skilled job, many try and many give up, even parents with one or two teenagers of their own have been known to give up.
28 years of improvements suggests to me that Teachers, schools and of course loads of great students have been getting on with it well, and that the kind of youngster that provides the fodder for the various types of gawp TV are in the minority.
Superb!
A well reasoned and illuminating post if I may say so, Seth.
It's too easy to knock teachers or to belittle those who have tried to make the most of their education.
They're really not as easy as the media would have everyone believe. One of the hardest things I've ever done. Well done to all.
I take your word for that ..............but I see very little evidence of this super dooper intelligence when I bump into the little cheerubs in the street, or on the bus, or when they come to work for me. All I have evidence of is a bunch of cretins who can't speak the queens, can't add up without a calculator and can't spell for toffee. Apart from that, I look forward to the A level results being smashed again next year for the £20 millionth year running.
Oh and well done to those who got the grades they were after...........
Cheerubs? Spell check needed -:)
I am O level educated - no A*** 's for me - so I am allowed the odd spelling error. :-)
Chunes - I would ask them on the bus but I would have to shout too loud to try to get and make myself heard over the music. The ones who we employ through agencies all come with A*'s and some are as thick as dogshit.
They'll be in good company if they're working for you then!
Russ - I need good quality staff to carry me mate...........
Funnily enough Seth that's why I said from my experience. So it is subjective and as such to be taken anecdotaly.
My generation is 80's to mid 90's, including uni. My experience is from my peers at school who went on to be teachers, whom not one were anywhere near either sharp or academically capable. Then my peers/mates from various Unis, who're mainly now heads of dept with one deputy head in Peckham. Then from the utter muppets at Greenwich Uni's PGCE who are mainly utterly incapable - my oppinion and others whom I know who are involved with the recruitment of teachers for Local Authorities; who generally prefer to get hold of Irish teachers as they're quality is much higher. So yes it's subjective but a lot broader in contact than no doubt most journos.
Of course there are brilliant teachers out there. The truth of my youth was that teachers I was taught by, who themselves came from roughly up to the seventies generation, were sometimes of the brilliant end of their peer group. Some teachers from my peer group I know are exhilerating to talk to and I feel they'd be excellent teachers, the great shame as I see it is that from my generation not one of the many brilliant people academically I knew were attracted to teaching. That in part was down to the pressure to teach to curriculum and the banal narrowing of education it leads to.
Colin...you added that improvements can't be down to the quality of teaching, maybe you can't believe anybody you know of from your generation could contribute to the success of the students, but to assume from that that improvements can't be down to the quality of teaching, but to the shocking state of the curriculum, is a wonder to me. Society could save a fortune on taxes if we got rid of the shocking curriculum, the idiot teachers of your knowledge, and closed down the schools and left things to the parents to sort out.
As the parent of an A level student who has just received results and somebody who did A levels himself many moons ago I think the fundamental differences between now and then are two fold.
1) They are not totally exam based as there is a coursework element. If you are prepared to work hard on coursework that can be advantageous in helping you achieve a decent grade. A surprisingly significant number of students scrimp on their coursework though, leaving it to the last minute and handing in a relatively slapdash effort.
2) The modular system assists in improving grades in that students have the choice of retaking parts of the course to improve their grades (assuming they or their parents are prepared to pay the exam fees).
As I said higher up the thread students don't devise the system and can only deal with it as it is. They don't deserve to be criticised for doing well and as I also said there is more pressure now in a way in that both good universities and employers will only consider the highest grades and will simply discount anything lower.
Students can only pass the papers that are put in front of them. From speaking to my daughters maths teacher, many years in the profession, her opinion in that subject at least was that it's become much easier to get better grades each year. The point of these exams, partly anyway, is surely to enable employers/unis etc to differentiate between students. If As and A*s are common, that becomes impossible. I'm not sure why you would not just make the exams difficult, then award grades on the basis of top 5% get A*, next 10% get A and so on. At least the clamour that exams are getting easier would abate, and students would be judged in a competitive environment.
But then, I speak as someone who took A levels in the last year before continuous improvement began. And got an E in maths.
Seth that's some wonderful pourous sophistry, the sort I'd expect from most teachers. I do know people who are friends, and that I talk to on a regular basis, whom I believe to be excellent teachers. One of whom is the deputy head, one of whom would be considered from his school days as educationally poor.
When I talk to them about their lesson plans, their enthusiasm and their approaches it is fascinating. Funnily when I ask any of my teacher friends how easy GCSE's and A-Level's are one and all say they're a whole lot easier today. Not necessarily because at a glance the questions are easier in the GCSE era, just that the repetitive nature of the exams leads to coaching that an imbecile would enjoy. If you think that the depth and breadth of science O-Level's are in anyway comparable to GCSE's you must have industry myopia to a very strong degree.
Colin you know good and you know bad teachers in your judgement, you're entitled to make those judgements. I think the 28 years of improved exam results are for complex reasons, the depth and breadth of the GCSE curriculum is of a different kind now, you say easier (do you?), but have you any reasoning as to why you think it's easier now than in past times?
1. Teaching Maths In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price.
What is his profit?
2. Teaching Maths In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 80% of the price.
What is his profit?
3. Teaching Maths In 1990
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80.
How much was his profit?
4. Teaching Maths In 2000
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20.
Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Maths In 2009
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habit of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. Your assignment: Discuss how the birds and squirrels might feel as the logger cut down their homes just for a measly profit of £20.
:-)
Well done to anyone who has just got the grades they needed to enter further education. I understand that it's very difficult to get to uni via clearing this year, a combination of a cut in places and the economic situation meaning that 5 potential students chasing each available place compared with 2 this time last year. If you are in that position then the best of british luck to you.
Comments
I can categorically say from my own experience that people who went on to be teachers from my generation were absolutely shocking ediuts. So it can't be anything to do with the quality of teaching. Kids do have access to a whole wealth of information which is damn helpful.
The main real reasons for improvements is not due to any generational improvements but the shocking breadth of the curriculum. I had a lot of quality teachers so we were able to study subjects way wider than the curriculum. In Maths we did our AS Level in the last GCSE year. Our teacher used to give us old O Level papers as he was one of the guys that set exams, it was laughable how hard they were we'd piss all over AS Level papers and then one and all stuggle on the O Level with most of us getting B's and C's. The huge difference was the breadth of subject, there were so many areas the questions came from. In A level and GCSE the same questions popped up regularly just with slightly different scenarios. If you did a couple of papers, exams were a doddle. At Uni it could be even worse than that.
As the years went by at school the old teachers went and we got in the main rubbish young one's who taught from off the shelf lesson planners. For my sins I lost all interest in those subjects and messed them up. In my mind if these kids get by with the mainly shocking teachers - I do know a few excellent ones - good luck to them, they've got to be having a fair bit of intent.
One of my daughters went to Hull (Scarborough Campus). She loved it there.
One of my daughters went to Hull (Scarborough Campus). She loved it there.[/quote]
I lived just outside Hull (Beverly) in the 80's - tell them to try a pub call Skidby Mill - its still there i believe
Do you mean ALL teachers from your generation, and which generation might I ask? Incidentally there are about 400,000 teachers in the UK.
Superb!
A well reasoned and illuminating post if I may say so, Seth.
It's too easy to knock teachers or to belittle those who have tried to make the most of their education.
Mate, you need bloody strong staff to carry you!!
My generation is 80's to mid 90's, including uni. My experience is from my peers at school who went on to be teachers, whom not one were anywhere near either sharp or academically capable. Then my peers/mates from various Unis, who're mainly now heads of dept with one deputy head in Peckham. Then from the utter muppets at Greenwich Uni's PGCE who are mainly utterly incapable - my oppinion and others whom I know who are involved with the recruitment of teachers for Local Authorities; who generally prefer to get hold of Irish teachers as they're quality is much higher. So yes it's subjective but a lot broader in contact than no doubt most journos.
Of course there are brilliant teachers out there. The truth of my youth was that teachers I was taught by, who themselves came from roughly up to the seventies generation, were sometimes of the brilliant end of their peer group. Some teachers from my peer group I know are exhilerating to talk to and I feel they'd be excellent teachers, the great shame as I see it is that from my generation not one of the many brilliant people academically I knew were attracted to teaching.
That in part was down to the pressure to teach to curriculum and the banal narrowing of education it leads to.
1) They are not totally exam based as there is a coursework element. If you are prepared to work hard on coursework that can be advantageous in helping you achieve a decent grade. A surprisingly significant number of students scrimp on their coursework though, leaving it to the last minute and handing in a relatively slapdash effort.
2) The modular system assists in improving grades in that students have the choice of retaking parts of the course to improve their grades (assuming they or their parents are prepared to pay the exam fees).
As I said higher up the thread students don't devise the system and can only deal with it as it is. They don't deserve to be criticised for doing well and as I also said there is more pressure now in a way in that both good universities and employers will only consider the highest grades and will simply discount anything lower.
The point of these exams, partly anyway, is surely to enable employers/unis etc to differentiate between students. If As and A*s are common, that becomes impossible. I'm not sure why you would not just make the exams difficult, then award grades on the basis of top 5% get A*, next 10% get A and so on. At least the clamour that exams are getting easier would abate, and students would be judged in a competitive environment.
But then, I speak as someone who took A levels in the last year before continuous improvement began. And got an E in maths.
When I talk to them about their lesson plans, their enthusiasm and their approaches it is fascinating. Funnily when I ask any of my teacher friends how easy GCSE's and A-Level's are one and all say they're a whole lot easier today. Not necessarily because at a glance the questions are easier in the GCSE era, just that the repetitive nature of the exams leads to coaching that an imbecile would enjoy. If you think that the depth and breadth of science O-Level's are in anyway comparable to GCSE's you must have industry myopia to a very strong degree.
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price.
What is his profit?
2. Teaching Maths In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 80% of the price.
What is his profit?
3. Teaching Maths In 1990
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80.
How much was his profit?
4. Teaching Maths In 2000
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20.
Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Maths In 2009
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habit of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. Your assignment: Discuss how the birds and squirrels might feel as the logger cut down their homes just for a measly profit of £20.
:-)
Well done to anyone who has just got the grades they needed to enter further education. I understand that it's very difficult to get to uni via clearing this year, a combination of a cut in places and the economic situation meaning that 5 potential students chasing each available place compared with 2 this time last year. If you are in that position then the best of british luck to you.