British Curriculum Grading Scale

[joethelion]

For the first time this year, I am teaching at a school that uses the British curriculum. I'm surprised to find out that this school uses what I think to be a very generous grading scale. For the MS and HS, it is as follows

90-100%--A+
80-90%--A
70-80%--B
60-70%--C
50-60%--D
Below 50%--an assortment of letters going from E to G

Having looked at the IGCSE exams, I can see why that grading scale would apply to *the exams*. (Like AP exams, they are meant to be difficult. Scoring 79% of the MC questions on an AP exam is usually very, very good and is certainly not a "C" performance.)

But I am really struggling to adapt my usual grading scale. I consider myself to be a firm, but fair grader. Over the years, more often than not my class averages tend be consistently in the upper 70's to lower 80's. But by this system, my average student becomes an "A" student.

I guess my question is for those of you who have grown up with or are very familiar with British curriculum: Is this the grading scale used in all British schools, both in the UK and around the globe? And secondly (and this is a harder matter to judge) is an "A" considered "excellent" work? Or would an 82 merely be "good" (as the US system generally means a "B" grade to represent)?

I really need some guidance here.[/b]

[PsyGuy]

This is pretty standard. The school is maintaining consistency between the examination scoring and how student performance is marked. This is designed to reduce your workload, and save you time and energy, by limiting confusion and misunderstanding when explaining or predicting examination performance. Otherwise the question is always going to come up "what would my mark be if Tis was my exam". The school is just removing that extra metric for you.

In Ye olden days during the GCE, A levels were scores as a forced distribution, so regardless of performance the top 10% got As, etc. This made students very competitive amongst themselves. The A+ really conforms more to an A-Star (A*).
My advice and have used in practice when comparing students across, American, UK, and IB marking systems is to simply refer to performance measures in terms of percent, and save the actual marking scores for formal reports. Qualified (subjective) marking terms such as "excellent, great, good, acceptable, passing, etc" should be refrained from when referencing a students score or grade.

Wen I taught TOK, I had a system of "smily faces" for grades that bothered and frustrated my students no end.

[shadowjack]

Joethelion

what you describe seems to be a bit of a mish-mash system, perhaps to accomodate those students who wish to attend North American universities.

"Real" British marking is very similar to IB. When I taught GCSEs in the UK, my students had predicted grades based on previous assessments in Key Stage 3 (years 7-9). My job was to make sure that they learned to the level needed in order to obtain or exceed those grades.

The scale was from 0 to 7, I believe, or else 0 to 5...it was awhile back. It took me a bit to wrap my head around it, but I eventually did and my students did well on their GCSE courses.

[sangster2]

deleted

[joethelion]

Thanks for the input, everyone. I guess the bottom line is a reminder that point or mark or letter grades are inherently somewhat random. Now that I'm in the second term, I'm just assigning fewer points for "average" work. Assuming that my general grading scale has been reasonably fair over the years--which I tend to think it has, but who can really know?--I guess I'd be looking to drop the percentage per student about 10 points, which would lead to a similar grade distribution (if student quality of work remains constant.)