almost ready
Inactive
0%: What this year's top science pupils would have got in 1965
CSE students flunk past papers in experiment that exposes decline in standards
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...ce-pupils-would-have-got-in-1965-1036889.html
By Richard Garner, Education Editor
Thursday, 27 November 2008
High-flying GCSE students set for an A or A* pass scored zero points in a mock science exam which included old O-level questions.
The two-hour exam, devised by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and named "The Five Decade Challenge", included questions from past science papers spread over the past 43 years.
The results published today showed the older the paper, the fewer marks the students scored. For instance, the average score for the 2005 paper questions was 35 per cent, compared to 15 per cent for the 1965 questions.
Overall, the average score was 25 per cent but the RSC said some children scored no marks at all. The RSC called the test, taken by just over 1,300 of the country's brightest 16-year-olds, the first hard evidence of a "catastrophic slippage" in exam standards.
In a petition launched on the Downing Street website, the RSC says the current examination system was "failing a generation, which will be unequipped to address key issues facing society, whether as specialist scientists or members of a scientific community".
Too many teachers were "teaching to the test" because of the pressure of performance league tables, so students were missing out on background information to help them understand their subject. Despite taking into account syllabus changes which meant certain topics – such as enthalpy and bond energies – were not tackled until A-level, the results, it argued, provided conclusive proof that the papers had become easier. In particular, it added, today's pupils lacked the maths skills necessary to tackle the calculations associated with equations.
Dr Richard Pike, chief executive of the RSC, said: "The brightest pupils are not being trained in mathematical techniques, because they can get a grade A* pass without doing a single calculation. Conversely, the majority get at least a 'good pass' (grade C) by showing merely a superficial knowledge on a wide range of issues but no understanding of the fundamentals.
"The fact highly-intelligent youngsters were unfamiliar with these types of questions, obtaining on average 35 per cent from recent papers and just 15 per cent from the 1960s, points to a systematic failure and misplaced priorities in the education system."
The top mark was 94 per cent. The average was 33 per cent for independent schools, 23 per cent for state schools, 27 per cent for boys and 23 per cent for girls. "Children are being asked questions that show our curriculum isn't preparing them for the 21st century," said Michael Gove, the shadow Education Secretary.
A campaign to recruit 6,600 science teachers in the next two years is being launched today by the Training and Development Agency, which is responsible for teacher recruitment. It is exceeding its recruitment target for science teachers by two per cent this year.
"The Schools minister thinks science should be made more 'girl-friendly'. How so? By studding lab coats with pink rhinestones?"
Sophie Morris, page 45
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
*****
From personal experience, this is true locally as well. An old lady (80+) had a degree in chemistry from the local University. She told me a few years back that a young college girl she knew was studying for exams at the same U. The old dear was shocked when she saw the material the girl was studying. It was the level of what she'd studied in high school chemistry! Apparently only grad students these days get what she'd learned in college. She was deeply concerned that the knowledge we took for granted simply wasn't being passed on to the young, but was effectively being let die on the vine.
In the same vein, I've noticed a decline between what I had to produce in literary works in HS, compared to my kids. Here's one little example:
We were writing poetry in iambic pentameter by 9th grade. Now they do haiku. Now true Japanese Haiku is written in the most difficult language in the world, with extremely challenging nuances for a westerner to grasp, in a precise mathematical form of syllable counts (as is Iambic pentameter), combining contrasting images, seasonal references.
To say our kids are writing "haiku" in english is like applauding them for making music with no notes and no rhythm. The teachers don't require anything but short lines and imagery from their kids. It's just awful to see standards of output collapse, disguised as "world culture". Nonsense! Our kids would get crossed-eyed and pass out on the floor if they were required to understand the relationship between Japan's different writing forms, hirigana, katakana, and kanji, and how they are placed together in the same piece of writing, much less learn to write in true Japanese form. Our kids aren't being required to use their heads for anything.
This is a five alarm fire, educationally. We've just got to get a handle on how serious this has become. I tried to supplement my kids' educations, but it was expensive (I quit my day job for years) and time-consuming, not something that can be done on a large scale.
Ideas are welcome!
CSE students flunk past papers in experiment that exposes decline in standards
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...ce-pupils-would-have-got-in-1965-1036889.html
By Richard Garner, Education Editor
Thursday, 27 November 2008
High-flying GCSE students set for an A or A* pass scored zero points in a mock science exam which included old O-level questions.
The two-hour exam, devised by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and named "The Five Decade Challenge", included questions from past science papers spread over the past 43 years.
The results published today showed the older the paper, the fewer marks the students scored. For instance, the average score for the 2005 paper questions was 35 per cent, compared to 15 per cent for the 1965 questions.
Overall, the average score was 25 per cent but the RSC said some children scored no marks at all. The RSC called the test, taken by just over 1,300 of the country's brightest 16-year-olds, the first hard evidence of a "catastrophic slippage" in exam standards.
In a petition launched on the Downing Street website, the RSC says the current examination system was "failing a generation, which will be unequipped to address key issues facing society, whether as specialist scientists or members of a scientific community".
Too many teachers were "teaching to the test" because of the pressure of performance league tables, so students were missing out on background information to help them understand their subject. Despite taking into account syllabus changes which meant certain topics – such as enthalpy and bond energies – were not tackled until A-level, the results, it argued, provided conclusive proof that the papers had become easier. In particular, it added, today's pupils lacked the maths skills necessary to tackle the calculations associated with equations.
Dr Richard Pike, chief executive of the RSC, said: "The brightest pupils are not being trained in mathematical techniques, because they can get a grade A* pass without doing a single calculation. Conversely, the majority get at least a 'good pass' (grade C) by showing merely a superficial knowledge on a wide range of issues but no understanding of the fundamentals.
"The fact highly-intelligent youngsters were unfamiliar with these types of questions, obtaining on average 35 per cent from recent papers and just 15 per cent from the 1960s, points to a systematic failure and misplaced priorities in the education system."
The top mark was 94 per cent. The average was 33 per cent for independent schools, 23 per cent for state schools, 27 per cent for boys and 23 per cent for girls. "Children are being asked questions that show our curriculum isn't preparing them for the 21st century," said Michael Gove, the shadow Education Secretary.
A campaign to recruit 6,600 science teachers in the next two years is being launched today by the Training and Development Agency, which is responsible for teacher recruitment. It is exceeding its recruitment target for science teachers by two per cent this year.
"The Schools minister thinks science should be made more 'girl-friendly'. How so? By studding lab coats with pink rhinestones?"
Sophie Morris, page 45
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
*****
From personal experience, this is true locally as well. An old lady (80+) had a degree in chemistry from the local University. She told me a few years back that a young college girl she knew was studying for exams at the same U. The old dear was shocked when she saw the material the girl was studying. It was the level of what she'd studied in high school chemistry! Apparently only grad students these days get what she'd learned in college. She was deeply concerned that the knowledge we took for granted simply wasn't being passed on to the young, but was effectively being let die on the vine.
In the same vein, I've noticed a decline between what I had to produce in literary works in HS, compared to my kids. Here's one little example:
We were writing poetry in iambic pentameter by 9th grade. Now they do haiku. Now true Japanese Haiku is written in the most difficult language in the world, with extremely challenging nuances for a westerner to grasp, in a precise mathematical form of syllable counts (as is Iambic pentameter), combining contrasting images, seasonal references.
To say our kids are writing "haiku" in english is like applauding them for making music with no notes and no rhythm. The teachers don't require anything but short lines and imagery from their kids. It's just awful to see standards of output collapse, disguised as "world culture". Nonsense! Our kids would get crossed-eyed and pass out on the floor if they were required to understand the relationship between Japan's different writing forms, hirigana, katakana, and kanji, and how they are placed together in the same piece of writing, much less learn to write in true Japanese form. Our kids aren't being required to use their heads for anything.
This is a five alarm fire, educationally. We've just got to get a handle on how serious this has become. I tried to supplement my kids' educations, but it was expensive (I quit my day job for years) and time-consuming, not something that can be done on a large scale.
Ideas are welcome!
