To think the 2 tier GCSE system is wrong

I would normally expect the teacher to make the decision rather than the child/parent.

This post nails it.

If it is a 'realistic possibility' that your daughter could put in a level 1 or level 2 performance on a bad day then she should absolutely be nowhere near the higher paper. The higher paper should really only be taken by students who are consistently getting a level 6 or higher. Scoring that low would not even be in the realms of a 'likely possibility' for someone doing higher. The higher paper has an overlap to account for poor performance on the day (it goes down to a level 4 as a buffer if students have a bad day). If you're worried about the possibility that your daughter may score lower than a 4 on the higher paper, she should absolutely be doing foundation. A level 2 or 3 grade like the quoted PP said is not just a bad day, that's a huge mismatch on ability vs tier. Nobody who thinks that on their absolute worst day they would get lower than a 4 should be even considering the higher tier.

Just like a professional runner wouldn't be qualifying/running in certain 100m Olympic qualifiers if on their worst day, 20 seconds was a possibility.

I sat them in 1996 and there was an intermediate tier for core subjects. Science intermediate could go up to an A, rather than the A* of the higher.

I find it very strange that she is in year 11 and the school haven’t decided, as they ought to be directing the teaching towards the exam she is sitting.

If she doesnt want to do maths-related A levels I would veer towards the lower paper. If she gets a 5 she could always try the higher paper later.

But how would that make any difference to his life? Apart from having to sit the more difficult paper.

TBH I didn't even know there were foundation papers

I don't understand this as two of my DC were not in top set but sat the higher paper, and got high grades. Even though others in their set probably sat the lower paper.

Because they need 90 or 120 minutes to cover material aimed at grades 5+. If they haven't answered any questions (as there are none on the paper) aimed at grades 4 and below, they can't give them those grades. If they can't answer questions aimed at grade 5+ they do not get a grade.

Back in my day (1980s), there was an “upper 5th” form where failed O levels could be retaken, I definitely remember my sister doing that.

There are two differences.

1. you could sit both a CSE and an O Level in the same subject, it was known as 'double entry' and no one sniggered.

2. The other is that only the top 20% did O Levels and then the next 30% took CSEs. 50% of children left school with no qualifications, now we expect all children to sit GCSEs.

We also expect them to take them all at the same age. Which is crazy.

Back in the days of O Levels it wasn't uncommon for students to take O levels early or in some schools they actually had a fast stream where O Levels were done at the end of what is now year 10 with three years spent in VI form.

My DS sat the foundation paper and got a high 5. If he had got a 6 it would give him more options for uni courses, he’s doing his A levels now. He may have been able to get a 6 on the higher paper but it was a gamble.

When I did my GCSEs in the 90s I did the intermediate paper which went from D - B. I got a C but at least I had the chance to get a B so I was happy with that. I think there should be 3 papers: 1-5, 4-7, 5-9.

Our Welsh medium comp still does that.

In year 10 they do English lit, Welsh lit, all of their science practicals and one each of the science papers and the tops sets do half of maths (numeracy I think) which they finish off in November of year 11. Those who got A/ A* in maths then use the remaining time to cover the additional maths curriculum which they sit at the end of year 11. Those who got lower grades can resit to try to get a higher grade.

Our schools don’t get measured in the same way as English schools as Education is a devolved matter.

The pupils who should be taking the higher paper would find the questions on the foundation paper insultingly easy. A pupil who can get a grade 6 or more in y11 would have mastered everything in the foundation paper by year 8.

Here's a link to a sample foundation maths paper https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/sample-papers-and-mark-schemes/2018/june/AQA-83001F-QP-JUN18.PDF

It's quite clearly got some very easy questions where pupils who are realistically at grade 1/2/3 can pick up some marks to show they have basic understanding of number and simple mathematical operations amd then some extended questions that those who are at grade 4/5 can demonstrate that ability but which would be boringly easy to a grade 8/9 candidate.

Obviously some pupils struggle with maths and find it hard and will find this level of paper a challenge and that is ok - that's what the foundation paper is for, but it's not usually a problem to work out whether any particular individual's maths ability is such that a paper like this is challenging.

The higher paper starts off with a few questions that will allow a level 4/5 candidate to demonstrate that ability, some intermediate questions that allow for differentiation between grade 6/7 candidates and a couple of very challenging questions that only those who are heading for grade 8/9 are likely to be able to do.

Anyone whose ability is hovering at the lower end such that a grade 3 is even a conceivable outcome should not be tackling the higher paper so it's quite right that a grade 3 isn't an option as an outcome. The appropriate tool for working out whether a pupil has attained the standard of grade 3 vs grade 4 is the foundation paper.

If she isn't sure she will get a grade on the higher paper then perhaps the foundation paper is better for her. Otherwise it will just add another layer of stress to the exam period, as she will need maths for whatever else she plans to do that and if she doesn't get a grade it will impact her results day. She can always resit if she chooses to do so - you will have to pay if she has passed, but it's not that much for one exam.

Wouldn't it be better if borderline students were allowed to sit the papers for both levels. That way they wouldn't need to choose. I did O Levels but back then, a borderline student could sit both the O Level and the CSE so if they failed the O Level they would have a CSE in the subject.

This is pretty much what happens - except it is printed in booklets already combined.
The hardest questions on the foundation paper (in science anyway) are the first questions on the higher papers.
So, in your terms, foundation is paper 1& 2, and higher is papers 2&3.

That's fallen out of favour now because the EBacc and progress-8 calculations used to generate statistics on school performance only could exams that are taken in Year 11. GCSEs taken in year 10 are valid for the student but detrimental to the school's ratings.

The U.K. government effectively banned this some time ago.

What was happening was that some schools were putting students in for GCSEs repeatedly - so for example in the worst cases they might put the whole year in for foundation maths at the end of year 10, then at the November of year 11 anyone who failed did foundation again and anyone who passed sat higher, same again in the summer.

It meant you had nearly two years of just sitting exams and there wasn't as much teaching going on.

It was known as "early entry".

Schools can technically still do it but it no longer counts towards progress 8 or the league tables which is mostly what it was being done for.

I think it's actually a slightly bad thing, as my school used to enter everyone early at the end of year 10 for RS gcse. It meant they had actual exam experience before year 11 and anxiety was lower.

It’s terrible and if you investigate the benchmarks for grading, you will find that if you sit the lower paper, you have to answer more questions correctly to get the highest lower paper grade than you do to get the highest, higher paper grade. It’s shambolic.

when i did GCSEs in 2006-2007 our school put all students on the intermediate maths exam for year 10. Those that got the highest mark of a B then went on to do the higher exam. Those that didn’t took the exam again in year 11 in the hopes of increasing their previous grade.
we also did English language in year 10 then literature in year 11. So at the end of year 10 most students already had 2 GCSEs. Is this not something that could be done in the new system of foundation/higher?

I didn't even know that the foundation option existed until one of DSs science teachers mentioned it as he's currently on a 5 in mocks and suggested it could be an option. Issue is teachers are basing this on his current grades which are based on about an hour's revision per exam as he's not bothered revising, and getting 5-6s so making a decision for a foundation course instead wouldn't be appropriate because it's not his true potential level of achievement. I would prefer one exam for all students using a scaffolding approach in the questions so earlier sections were simpler and then tested high learning as they continued.

The difference in ability between an 8/9 student and a 1/2 is vast. In maths, the first few questions on the higher paper (the easy ones) are the last few from the Foundation paper (the easy ones). You need two papers.

Are you in Wales? This isn’t allowed in England, the November sitting is meant to be for resits only!

Our school does the foundation paper (for Maths anyway) at the end of the year...so the GCSE students who are sitting their exams in May/June sat it in November.

Triple Science covers 1/3 more content. That’s a lot to learn.

Higher maths is to differentiate between the more capable students. The pass mark is lower because it’s a harder paper. Imagine sitting a paper and not being able to answer a good proportion of the questions. That will knock your confidence, not just for that exam but others in the future too.

Our eldest had lost all confidence in maths after having a teacher who he just didn’t click with. We moved him from being in set 2 and due to sit the higher papers to set 3 who were taking the intermediate level. The new teacher was fabulous and he passed with a B (we’re in Wales) which was the highest he could achieve.

He didn’t have much interest in Science either so we asked for him to take double rather than triple Science (again meant moving down a set) but he passed with 2 As. I’m pretty sure that if he’d they the triple science course his grades would have been lower due to there being so much extra content. School said that our requests were unusual but we were happy with them, as was DS most importantly.

GCSEs are just a stepping stone to the next thing. Of course it’s right to aim high, but it has to be the right bar for each individual child.

My son goes to a grammar school and in year 11 he apparently wasn't doing as well as they hoped so gave him the choice to do foundation spanish and combined rather than triple science - which we took. He ended up getting all 9s and 8s including a 99 for combined science. Except Spanish the highest he could get was a 5. But who cares! Reducing his work load meant he could concentrate more on subjects where getting a higher grade means more. It really depends what subjects you are talking about and if she needs them for next steps.