I hope they publish the full set of results, as they did with the first series. But just a couple of questions. Why is it that English Language is the only O-level any of them seem to have passed, and why (if the results broadcast are typical) do they seem to have performed not only terribly but a fair bit worse than the kids on the first series in maths and english?

There doesn;t seem to be any outstanding achievers in the O-levels like Emma from the first series, which makes me think that the program has been manipulated in some way. At least one student should have outstanding results in a group of 30.

It was heavily edited. The students who came across as the brightest didn't have their 'O' level results shown, for one thing. Then, when they filmed the opening of the GCSE results later, the cameras only showed students reading out the subjects in which they got their A grades. The idea was that viewers who weren't paying close attention would think that virtually all the kids got grade 8s or 9s at 'O' level, and A*s at GCSE. How thick do the programme editors think we are?

Because of the biased editing it's impossible to draw any kind of comparison or conclusion from the experiment - what a wasted opportunity. And as an ex-teacher, I really resent the implication made in the voice over that a) students today aren't marked down for spelling and punctuation mistakes - they most certainly are - and that b) high coursework grades are all achieved by copying off the internet. I can tell Channel 4 from personal experience that it's obvious if a student has lifted text from another uncredited source - it's like a patch on a pair of jeans.

They're only marked down by 3-5 marks though, which is practically nothing.
I agree though that the editing seemed heavily biased - although they did say that the girls only achieved 13 O Level passes IN TOTAL! They wouldn't have been able to lie about that. It seems fairly appalling and does suggest that there were no O-Level high-fliers in that particular group.

It suggests only that you can't absorb a whole O level curriculum in five weeks. Clause analysis, for example, takes a lot of practice - if you're brought up doing it from top primary age it's second nature, but to be confronted with it new, and then just over a month later be made to sit an exam that O level students would have two years to prepare for, is no comparison of the students. I'm wondering how many 1950s students would have been able to pass a basic - say a Key Stage 3 (for 13 year olds) - IT course in the same time.

quote:

They're only marked down by 3-5 marks though, which is practically nothing.

I've just taken this in. Do you mean if a student is caught cheating they're docked a handful of marks? That's absolutely not the case. We would refuse to submit work we thought had been plagiarised, and all the children were told when they signed their declaration on the cover of the folder about 'their own work' that they ran the risk of being disqualified from all their GCSEs if examiners caught them cheating in one.

It's easy to see if a student has taken paragraphs from someone else's work, just as it would be if theat pupil suddenly broke into a different accent when they were speaking to you.

The examination results of the third series appeared follow the trend of the first series of THAT'LL TEACH 'EM in that academically GCSEs can in no way be compared to 'O' levels, the former being almost impossible to fail. Even when the children received their GCSE results many of them were astonished to find that they had passed certain subjectswith an A*. If any of them make it to university (to take degrees in real subjects) then academically they will be in for a very rude awakening.

quote:

Originally posted by vole-woman:
It suggests only that you can't absorb a whole O level curriculum in five weeks. Clause analysis, for example, takes a lot of practice - if you're brought up doing it from top primary age it's second nature, but to be confronted with it new, and then just over a month later be made to sit an exam that O level students would have two years to prepare for, is no comparison of the students. I'm wondering how many 1950s students would have been able to pass a basic - say a Key Stage 3 (for 13 year olds) - IT course in the same time.

I agree with much of what you say however I don't really think the IT comparison is altogether valid. If such an experiment were possible then IT would be an entirely new subject to which 1950's pupils had had no previous exposure. In the program the subjects taken were English Language, Maths and Sciences and, while the curriculum was significantly different, it surely wasn't as if they were starying from scratch. The pupils had presumably been studying these same subjects for several years so had just to absorb a different way of applying them and being examined in them.

I think a very telling point was made by one of the boys (Luke Mills?) at the end when he said that GCSEs were designed to help you to pass whereas O levels were designed to make people fail. I guess O levels were very much more discriminating - I mean that in a positive sense. The criticism against them though was that only the brightest could do well so the majority of children might be seen as "failures" because they had no O levels.

I guess the GCSE is an attempt to have a qualification that can measure everyone so that most children get some qualifications when leaving school. It may be though that this does not discriminate at the top end of achievement as much as O level did so an A grade is in danger of being devalued.

quote:

Originally posted by vole-woman:

quote:

They're only marked down by 3-5 marks though, which is practically nothing.

I've just taken this in. Do you mean if a student is caught cheating they're docked a handful of marks? That's absolutely not the case. We would refuse to submit work we thought had been plagiarised, and all the children were told when they signed their declaration on the cover of the folder about 'their own work' that they ran the risk of being disqualified from all their GCSEs if examiners caught them cheating in one.

It's easy to see if a student has taken paragraphs from someone else's work, just as it would be if theat pupil suddenly broke into a different accent when they were speaking to you.

No, my statement was in reference to spelling, punctuation and grammar. Only 3-5 marks per exam are docked for shoddy spelling, punctuation and grammar. I wasn't disputing the severity of plagiarism.

Sorry, Angel, I understand what you mean now.

But the grade criteria stipulate clearly that to get a C or above you have to be able to spell and punctuate and construct sentences with a reasonable degree of accuracy. My grade A and A* students were bloody good, and deserved their grades.

quote:- "The pupils had presumably been studying these same subjects for several years so had just to absorb a different way of applying them and being examined in them."

But would it not be unreasonable to think that if a pupil had been predicted an A* or A grade in GCSE subjects Maths, English & Science as was the case with several of these pupils then one would have hoped that they would be able to:-

a) spell reasonably simple words without the use of a dictionary or spell checker.

b) carry out basic arithmetic (long division and multiplication) and basic algebraic manipulations.

c) in science know what an element is and what the formula for sulphuric acid is.

But as was clearly seen without any so called selective editing (a), (b) & (c) above was far beyond the capabilities of these predicted GCSE A* or A grade pupils.

I see your point, BlueFly. Clause analysis, though, is in effect a brand new subject for GCSE students. And we don't know whether the things they were taught in other subjects were on the GCSE curriculum either. There might have been almost no cross-over of content at all.

What I'm saying is, the programme was so biased in tone it makes me completely distrustful of structure too, as there was a clear political agenda. All I can do is look back at my own years in secondary teaching (1990-2003) and ask: Did my top-end English students deserve the grades they got? Were the exams stretching the able pupils and teaching them skills they needed to take the subject further? Did they finish the course with a sound understanding, for 16 year-olds, of Language and Literature? And the honest answer to all three questions is yes.

The question is, would all of your A and A* students have got decent O Level grades if they'd been born 30 years ago?

Angelil, my answer would be probably no to that question, but that they would receive substantially higher grades than these kids did. Remember in the first series, there were kids who got A* grades but got quite different grades in O-level mathematics and english (Emma got grade 1's for all the subjects she got A* in, whereas other A* students were barely scraping passes). Mind you the english results did not seem too bad, which suggests that english isn't as weak in the modern education system as maths and the sciences.

And I must admit I would find it difficult to pass the O-level sciences, with the possible exception of biology.

E-mc^2, I am sure it wasn;t above the ability of all the astudents to know those things. If it was, then I despair, especially as I got my GCSE's in 2000, and all the high fliers in my comprehensive school in maths and english could do a) and b) and most high fliers in science could do c). I cannot see how any student gets an A* in maths without doing simple algerbraic manipulation.

thirdchill said "I am sure it wasn;t above the ability of all the astudents to know those things. If it was, then I despair, especially as I got my GCSE's in 2000, and all the high fliers in my comprehensive school in maths and english could do a) and b) and most high fliers in science could do c). I cannot see how any student gets an A* in maths without doing simple algerbraic manipulation."

In series 1 and this last series of TTE the pupils clearly demonstrated an inability to carry out these most basic of tasks. It's a mystery to me how the pupils were ever considered as being capable of getting A* or A's , but they did!!!!

I feel that it is really sad the show has finished, as it was one of the best things on tv. I feel that a lot of the pupils go on the show more for the experience.

quote:

In series 1 and this last series of TTE the pupils clearly demonstrated an inability to carry out these most basic of tasks. It's a mystery to me how the pupils were ever considered as being capable of getting A* or A's , but they did

You see, this is what worries me; viewers like this who simply take what they're fed by tv and don't stop to think about it.

quote:

Originally posted by vole-woman:
You see, this is what worries me; viewers like this who simply take what they're fed by tv and don't stop to think about it.

I think the facts speak for themselves. Ask the universities who are having to run catch up courses and the employers who are finding it difficult to recruit school leavers who are able to string a coherent sentence together and are numerate to a certain standard.

not all students are like this, i think you are being quite steriotypical

True, not all are, but plenty are, or this wouldn't be appearing in the national press in the first place.
vole-woman: I think E=mc^2 was not just being fed by what he/she saw on the TV. While it was clearly heavily edited (and in a biased manner at that), for them to be able to show a child saying that they think they'd be able to live without their liver, the child does have to say it - it can't be fabricated from thin air.
But you know all that

It was a dumb comment about the liver, but can we extrapolate from that that therefore all kids taking GCSEs are thick and that the exams aren't worth the paper they're written on? I think not. (Incidentally, can anyone remember the adults on The Generation Game playing 'draw the internal organs on the human body'? Remember what an unholy hash they all made of it every time the game was run?)

As I said, I taught English Language and Literature for 13 years at GCSE and A level. The skills the kids are required to have for a pass grade require hard work and intelligence, and cover areas that no O level pupil ever had to worry about, such as assessed public speaking. I really don't know what else I can say.

I've sat O levels and taught GCSEs and they're different exams but both valid. It seems to me that if we continue to disparage our young people like this, we shall surely get the generation we deserve.

quote:

As I said, I taught English Language and Literature for 13 years at GCSE and A level. The skills the kids are required to have for a pass grade require hard work and intelligence, and cover areas that no O level pupil ever had to worry about, such as assessed public speaking. I really don't know what else I can say.

I've sat O levels and taught GCSEs and they're different exams but both valid. It seems to me that if we continue to disparage our young people like this, we shall surely get the generation we deserve.

I couldn't agree more.
These boys and girls were obviously taught according to the prescribed GCSE syllabuses (is that the correct plural? It doesnt look right!) Judging by their results they worked hard at their subjects and obtained good - excellent reults. They cannot be blamed for what was not taught. That is the fault, not of them or their teachers, but of those who write the GCSE schemes of work.

quote:

(Incidentally, can anyone remember the adults on The Generation Game playing 'draw the internal organs on the human body'? Remember what an unholy hash they all made of it every time the game was run?)

Yes I can, but I doubt that they had been predicted an A* or an A in their examinations

We don't know that the student who made the liver comment had been predicted an A in his biology, though, do we? He might have been predicted an A in drama, or Spanish, or Technology. That's the trouble. There's no real comparison of like with like here. Am I going round saying the old grammar school system produced dunces because a great swathe of my parents' friends can't switch on a computer?