Fisking the Mail on Sunday's "Gove-Levels" story

Adam Creen uncovers the inaccuracies in the paper's big education scoop.

Inaccuracies in the Mail On Sunday's story from 16th September 2012:
 
The new exams, dubbed "Gove-levels", follow claims that GCSEs, which replaced O-levels in 1986, are too easy. Under Mr Gove’s shake-up, the current system whereby nearly three in ten pupils get A or A* grades will go. Instead as few as one in ten will get the top mark, Grade 1.
 
They replaced O-levels in 1988, when they were first examined. Inaccurate grading comparison - at present as few as 1 in 12 get the top grade A* in some subjects. And you cannot compare the new "Grade 1" with the top two grades under the old system.
 
Marks will depend on a traditional ‘all or nothing’ three-hour exam at the end of the two-year course, rather than the current system in which up to half the grading is based on modules and continual assessment, followed by a 90-minute exam at the end.
 
Currently the final grading must be a minimum of 40 per cent, not 50 per cent. It's called controlled assessment, and the exams may be two lots of 1h45m, as they are in Maths, so three and a half hours not 90 minutes. Anyway, in Maths this would have to be split in two to have calculator and non-calculator, as present. 
 
Pupils will no longer be able to bump up their grades with endless re-sits of each exam module. In future they will have to re-sit the entire exam, which is expected to deter most.
 
In two years there have been at most three resit opportunities, and the vast majority of students would do no resits, or one retake of an early module. What will the new re-sit rules deter most students from? Not doing any work? This sentence makes no sense.
 
There will be more complex algebra questions in maths exams and a return to essays in English literature exams instead of trendy GCSE ‘bite sized’ answers.
 
Newsflash: current Higher Maths papers contain 40 per cent algebra questions, including complex questions. So more than 40 per cent algebra? Something's gotta give - students' skills in data handling are already being knocked by the lack of coverage in the iGCSE, leading to problems in the A Level statistics modules.
 
Catch up: The new exams are more rigorous and top grades will only go to the brightest children in an attempt to help English schools catch up with other countries as we trail in school standards
 
Top grades currently only go to the "brightest children". We do not trail in school standards. See Warwick Mansell's article about PISA and TIMSS and how students are not doing as badly as Gove would suggest.
 
And in a controversial move designed to counter claims that GCSEs are far too easy for bright pupils, questions in the new exam will be graded, starting with easy questions and building up to difficult questions which will stretch the cleverest pupils. It means that less able pupils may be unable to complete the paper. But Mr Gove will argue it is vital to boost standards.
 
This is already the case, particularly in Mathematics GCSEs, both Higher and Foundation. Is this a serious case for a single exam covering seven levels of ability at once?
 
In addition, the new exams will be run by a single exam board following complaints that competition between rival boards is driving down standards.
 
This makes no difference as the government has always forced exam boards to offer papers covering exactly the same syllabus, and only approving papers that meet standards. No "driving down" has occurred. Competition is lauded in many other areas of government.
 
Board officials have been accused of boasting how easy their exams are, and giving tips to teachers on the content of papers. Ministers said the current rules had created a ‘race to the bottom’ in standards.
 
Some board officials made inexcusable comments. In Maths no one has ever been given "tips" because we know the whole syllabus is covered by the papers anyway. Everything is taught, everything is tested.
 
According to a 2010 OECD study of 15-year-olds, the UK fell from 17th to 25th for reading, 24th to 28th for maths and 14th to 16th in science over a three-year period.
 
And in the TIMSS, referred to in Warwick Mansell's article:
 
TIMSS tests are given in maths and science, to 10- and 14-year-olds. Between 1995 and the last tests in 2007, England’s primary maths performance improved by a greater margin than that of any of the other 15 nations which had pupils taking tests in the two years, including Singapore, Japan, the Netherlands, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Norway.

Its score went from below the international average to comfortably above it in that time, while its ranking improved from 12th out of 16 countries in 1995 to 7th out of 36 in 2007.

The other tests in the last round of TIMSS also brought good news. In secondary maths, England was the joint third most improved of 20 countries over the 1995-2007 period, rising from 11th out of 20 to 7th out of 49 in the rankings.
 

In science – which is traditionally England’s strongest subject in international tests – the country was seventh most improved out of 16 in primary (its ranking moving from 6th out of 20 countries in 1995 to 7th out of 36 in 2007) and fifth most improved out of 19 in secondary (its ranking improving from seventh to fifth between these two years, even though the number of countries taking part increased from 19 to 49). In these science tests in 2007, English pupils finished ahead of, in primary, countries including the United States, Germany, Australia and Sweden; and in secondary, ahead of these countries plus Russia, Hong Kong and Norway.
 

HOW THE NEW EXAM WILL WORK [Daily Mail "fact" box]

 
NOW Tens of thousands of pupils can bump up grades by re-sitting parts of the GCSE exams until they get a pass.
IN FUTURE Partial resits will end. Pupils will be forced to resit the entire exam.                                              
Already the case.

NOW Final exam can be as short as 90 minutes.                                            
IN FUTURE Three-hour exams.                                                        

Already the case.
 

NOW Maths exams have little algebra, English exams include ‘bite sized’ replies and rigorous English-to-foreign-language translations are rare.

IN FUTURE More algebra in maths exams, more full length essays in English and a return to full English-to-foreign-language translation tests.
Not true. Already the case.

NOW Up to 50 per cent of exams are studied via modules and continual assessment.
IN FUTURE Replaced by one exam at end of two-year course.
 
Already the case. EDIT: Apologies, I had got in a bit of a rut by this stage. This is of course a major change for many subjects, but not Maths.
NOW Technically, everyone who gets a grade from A to G grade is deemed to have achieved  a ‘pass’.
IN FUTURE New 1 to 6 pass grade, 7 onwards will be fail.
1 to 6 would be equivalent to A* A B C D E. So only F or G would be a fail.
NOW 22 per cent get A or A* grade. Around seven per cent of all candidates gain an A*.
IN FUTURE As few as five per cent may get Grade 1.
At the top of the article, it said 1 in 10 get the top grade, not 5 per cent. Basic maths. So may be easier to get a top grade than at present.
 
This post first appeared on Adam Creen's blog here, and is reproduced here with his permission. You can find him on Twitter as @adamcreen
Michael Gove. Photograph: Getty Images
Dan Kitwood/Getty
Show Hide image

I believe only Yvette Cooper has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy Corbyn

All the recent polling suggests Andy Burnham is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy Corbyn, says Diana Johnson MP.

Tom Blenkinsop MP on the New Statesman website today says he is giving his second preference to Andy Burnham as he thinks that Andy has the best chance of beating Jeremy.

This is on the basis that if Yvette goes out first all her second preferences will swing behind Andy, whereas if Andy goes out first then his second preferences, due to the broad alliance he has created behind his campaign, will all or largely switch to the other male candidate, Jeremy.

Let's take a deep breath and try and think through what will be the effect of preferential voting in the Labour leadership.

First of all, it is very difficult to know how second preferences will switch. From my telephone canvassing there is some rather interesting voting going on, but I don't accept that Tom’s analysis is correct. I have certainly picked up growing support for Yvette in recent weeks.

In fact you can argue the reverse of Tom’s analysis is true – Andy has moved further away from the centre and, as a result, his pitch to those like Tom who are supporting Liz first is now narrower. As a result, Yvette is more likely to pick up those second preferences.

Stats from the Yvette For Labour team show Yvette picking up the majority of second preferences from all candidates – from the Progress wing supporting Liz to the softer left fans of Jeremy – and Andy's supporters too. Their figures show many undecideds opting for Yvette as their first preference, as well as others choosing to switch their first preference to Yvette from one of the other candidates. It's for this reason I still believe only Yvette has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy and then to go on to win in 2020.

It's interesting that Andy has not been willing to make it clear that second preferences should go to Yvette or Liz. Yvette has been very clear that she would encourage second preferences to be for Andy or Liz.

Having watched Andy on Sky's Murnaghan show this morning, he categorically states that Labour will not get beyond first base with the electorate at a general election if we are not economically credible and that fundamentally Jeremy's economic plans do not add up. So, I am unsure why Andy is so unwilling to be clear on second preferences.

All the recent polling suggests Andy is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy. He trails fourth in London – where a huge proportion of our electorate is based.

So I would urge Tom to reflect more widely on who is best placed to provide the strongest opposition to the Tories, appeal to the widest group of voters and reach out to the communities we need to win back. I believe that this has to be Yvette.

The Newsnight focus group a few days ago showed that Yvette is best placed to win back those former Labour voters we will need in 2020.

Labour will pay a massive price if we ignore this.

Diana Johnson is the Labour MP for Hull North.