Tiering at GCSE : Is there a fairer system?

Educational Research

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 175-187

  Burghes, David ^a   Roddick, Margaret ^a   Tapson, Frank ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assessment; GCSE; Grade boundaries; Mathematics; Tiering

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035374201     PISSN: 00131881     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00131880110051164     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. COCKROFT REPORT. GREAT BRITAIN. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1982). Mathematics Counts. London: HMSO.
2. GOOD, F. J. and CRESSWELL, M. J. (1988a). 'Can teachers enter candidates appropriately for examinations including differentiated papers?', Educational Studies, 14, 289-97.
3. GOOD, F. J. and CRESSWELL, M. J. (1988b). 'Placing candidates who take differentiated papers on a common grade scale', Educational Research, 30, 177-89.
4. GREAT BRITAIN. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1985). General Certificate of Secondary Education, General Criteria. London: HMSO.
5. MARSHALL, B. (1996). 'No more tiers!', British Journal of Curriculum Assessment, 6, 2, 18-19.
6. MURPHY, R. J. L. (1979). 'Teachers' assessments of GCE results compared', Educational Research, 22, 54-9.
7. MURPHY, R. J. L. (1981). 'O-level grades and teachers' estimates on prediction of the A-level results of UCCA applicants', British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 1-9.
8. SCAA (1996). Tiering in GCSE Examinations. London: SCAA.
9. SEAC (1992). Differentiation in GCSE Mathematics. London: SEAC.
10. WILIAM, D. (1996). 'It'll all end in tiers!', British Journal of Curriculum Assessment, 5, 21-4.