Skip to main content

GCSE results and entries 1993-2014

 
Source: http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/gcse.htm
 
               A*   A    B    C    D    E    F    G    U   A*-C    A*-U
 
 French
       2014   9.6 14.2 19.3 26.6 19.5  7.3  2.5  0.8  0.2  69.7  168042
       2013   9.8 15.0 19.8 25.6 18.3  7.3  2.9  1.0  0.3  70.2  177288
       2012  10.7 15.6 20.9 24.5 17.1  7.2  2.9  0.8  0.3  71.7  153436
       2011  10.2 16.6 21.9 23.8 15.9  7.4  2.9  1.0  0.3  72.5  154221
       2010  10.9 15.8 20.1 25.1 16.6  7.3  3.0  1.0  0.2  71.9  177618
       2009  11.2 15.1 19.2 24.6 16.8  8.1  3.5  1.2  0.3  70.1  188688
       2008  10.3 14.7 18.8 24.5 17.3  8.7  3.9  1.5  0.3  68.3  201940
       2007   9.7 13.5 18.6 24.7 17.2  9.1  4.7  2.0  0.5  66.5  216718
       2006   9.6 13.2 17.7 24.2 17.5  9.7  5.1  2.4  0.6  64.7  236189
       2005   8.5 12.3 16.3 23.2 17.9 11.1  6.7  3.1  0.9  60.3  272140
       2004   7.4 10.7 14.5 21.1 18.1 13.0  8.9  4.9  1.4  53.7  318095
       2003   6.6 11.3 12.7 20.6 20.1 13.7  8.8  4.7  1.5  51.2  331089
       2002   7.4 10.9 13.5 21.8 18.6 13.6  8.8  4.6  0.8  53.6  338468
       2001   7.2 10.8 13.3 22.1 18.3 13.6  9.3  4.8  0.6  53.4  347007
       2000   6.6 11.6 14.0 20.5 18.1 14.2  9.7  4.7  0.6  52.7  341004
       1999   6.4 11.7 14.4 19.9 18.7 14.5  9.5  4.3  0.6  52.4  335816
       1998   6.3 11.9 13.9 18.6 19.2 15.1  9.7  4.6  0.7  50.7  335698
       1997   4.1 15.1 14.9 17.2 18.5 13.4 10.8  5.2  0.8  51.2  328299
       1996   4.4 14.8 14.6 17.2 18.2 13.5 11.1  5.5  0.7  51.0  342751
       1995   4.3 14.3 14.0 17.4 17.8 13.7 11.9  5.7  0.9  50.0  350027
       1994   4.1 14.9 14.0 16.6 18.3 14.2 12.1  5.1  0.7  49.6  324343
       1993       18.6 14.0 16.1 16.4 13.4 12.9  7.3  1.3  48.7  315246
You will see that entries remained stable from 1993 up to 2004. When languages became optional from 2004 entries fell rapidly, the decline being halted by the effect of the EBacc accountabilty measure. The latter did not see a continued effect this year. The fall in entries in 2014 is at least partly explained by the fact that the cohort overall was smaller. Entries may, therefore, have stabilised for French. Spanish has seen an increase over the years and is now clearly taking linguists away from French and German. The rise in top grades over the years is explained by the fact that the average ability level of candidates has risen substantially. Whether the top grades have risen enough is questionable. MFL is still subject to "severe grading". The exam boards and Ofqaul are trying to mainatin the same standard over the years and now take into account the general ability of that year's cohort (based on KS2 results). The slightly lower top grades in 2014 may be explained by this fact It is easy to conclude that entries for languages are generally disappointing nowadays. They have certainly declined rapidly since 1993, as they have done at A-level, but it would be interesting to know how they compare with entries to the old O-level and CSE back in earlier times. Historically it is possible that entries are not that bad at age 16. There remains a fear, however, that we are returning to an era when languages were for only the brightest and, alas, the middle classes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

Second language learning and acquisition

This is a long, referenced blog which combines all the posts in my earlier series entitled Conscious and Unconscious Language Learning. If you have already read those posts, you should look away now. Part 1 Throughout the history of the study of language learning and teaching reference has been made to two distinct types of language learning. The first could be characterised as "picking up" a language and normally involves the apparently unconscious acquisition of a language in an informal or natural setting. One thinks of the child who learns their native tongue, or the immigrant who learns the new language without recourse to formal study. The second type of language learning involves the practice of a language in a formal, systematic way, often in a classroom setting. This has frequently been termed conscious learning. Such a clear distinction may be controversial and you may already be thinking, quite reasonably, that both types of learning have a role. However, when

What is "Input Processing"?

Input Processing (IP) was proposed by Bill VanPatten, Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition from Michigan State University. Bill may be known to some of you from his podcast show Tea with BVP. He is one of those rare university academics who makes a specific effort to engage with practising teachers. IP was first proposed in a 1993 article (published with T. Cadierno in the Modern Language Journal) entitled "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction." My summary of it is based on an article "Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues" (2013) by Hossein Hashemnezhad. IP is a little complicated to explain, but I'll do my best to summarise the key points before suggesting how it relates to other ways of looking at classroom language teaching. Is this actually any use to teachers? I apologise in advance for over-simplifying or misunderstanding. To paraphrase Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek &q

New MFL GCSE consultation

Updated on 7th April, with a few modifications to the original post written about a month earlier. ........................................................................... The DfE in England has recently published information about the proposed new GCSE exams, first teaching September 2023, first exams June 2025. There are two consultations going on, one regarding the subject content, and the other (much shorter) with respect to the assessment arrangements such as tiering.  The context is important here. DfE are worried about uptake in GCSE MFL, especially with their EBacc target of 90% uptake in mind. (This is highly unlikely to be achieved.) Therefore they would like an exam which makes the subject more attractive, both in terms of interesting content and accessibility (how easy it is thought to be). They are aware also of criticisms levelled at current papers that the exam is elitist, featuring too much subject matter which appeals to middle class students. Recall that MFL has be

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can