This Telegraph article from June 2003 reported that "Pass marks for reading and writing examinations for 11-year-olds have been lowered again, prompting accusations that results are being manipulated so that the Government can meet its national literacy targets...markers have been ordered to drop the pass mark in this year's English stage two tests by five percentage points compared with last year. Pupils will now have to score only 44 marks out of 100 in the National Curriculum English Test to achieve level four, compared with 49 marks last year." This wasn't the first mark reduction, the article went on to explain that "In all, the pass mark has dropped 13 points from 1996, when students needed at least 57 per cent to make the grade." The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) had a ready explanation "A QCA spokesman said that the pass mark had been lowered simply because the test was harder than last year's. He said: "The questions in the test are different each year. The structure and content of the tests also changes. Different questions mean the tests can be harder one year than another. To make sure a level four is the same every year, the number of marks needed to achieve it varies with the difficulty of the test."" That was the explanation in June and was the same as the explanation as to why the pass marks were lowered in 1999 as well. In December of the same year, the Telegraph reported that a government commissioned study on the 1999 results showed that "the pass mark was being lowered by seven points to increase the number of pupils meeting the standard...the QCA report...shows that the 1999 test was not substantially harder than the one in 1996 and says the pass mark should have been at least five points and probably six points higher." The Telegraph article on the QCA report continues "The study compared the standard of the tests in l996, l999 and 2000 by setting them to groups of 11-year-olds in Ireland. It found those taking the later papers did much better because, though the standard of the test papers was similar, the pass marks were lower than in l996. "In 1999 the pass mark at level 4 was nine marks lower and also nine marks lower at level five," says the report by a team led by Alf Massey of the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. "To bring standards in l999 in line with those pertaining in l996 the l999 cutscores would have needed to have been set six marks higher," it said. Mr Massey suggested that at least half the improvement between l996 and 2000 resulted from more lenient marking. "The experimental evidence indicated that a significant proportion of the apparent improvement in national results may have arisen from variation in the standards," his report said."
Let's take a look at GCSE results, in 2005 GCSE results again improved but only because this statistic fiddling government decided that a GNVQ was equivalent to four A-C GCSE passes. Where the figure of four comes from we are not told and I doubt that one GNVQ is equal to one A-C GCSE pass. If you exclude GCSE equivalents from the pass rates in 2005 then according to this Telegraph report the magnificent results start to look less magnificent; "The inexorable rise in the five or more A*-C pass rate looks less impressive once vocational qualifications are taken out of the calculation. The GCSE pass rate on its own has remained almost stagnant for the last five years, hovering around 50 per cent. Here is a table to show this
The government also had to produce figures for students passing Maths and English as well as those who failed these but passed other subjects such as Media Studies "The table compiled for Radio 4 also compares schools with and without the requirement for passes in maths and English, with the result that the number where all pupils achieve the benchmark drops from 102 to 65."
Of course whenever someone points out that exams are getting easier and that the results might not be all that they are cracked up to be. A government minister or whining parent is rolled out to say something along the lines of "As the father of someone who has recently undertaken examinations, I have become increasingly annoyed with those who say that the examinations are easy: they are far from it. I have witnessed first hand the substantial amount of work and effort needed to be successful at this level. Give credit where it is due and celebrate the success of those undertaking these exams." or "I think we should celebrate the hard work that has gone into students attaining these results and not spoil their day". These sort of arguments are rather hard to counter without looking mean and nasty and that is of course the point behind making them.
An article in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph reports that the "National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said that the low pass marks call into question the Government's claim to have improved literacy and numeracy." It is now the case that a 14 year old can pas the English exam set for their year with a mark of just 30 per cent and in maths they can reach the level that the Government says is expected for their age with just 22 per cent in the harder papers and 39 per cent for the ones aimed at less able pupils. This is just ridiculous, the government are conning students, parents, the educational system, industry and the electorate.
This Labour government were elected promising to increase literacy and numeracy, what they have done is to raise literacy and numeracy rates by "dumbing down" the exam system with very little improvements in actual literacy and numeracy. The supine press in this country that spent most of the time from 1997 to 2005 with their metaphorical tongues right up this government's collective metaphorical sphincter have a lot to answer for, for not holding the government to task and not allowing the opposition both political and educational the space to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment