To think the 2 tier GCSE system is wrong

International GCSEs with Pearson have one paper for each science for double science and then two papers per science for separate (triple) science. Paper two is much shorter than paper one. It works so much better than the foundation/higher paper split that you get with UK GCSEs

@countingdaysuntilretirement can they not just sit both exams then?

Interesting that even the teacher on here doesn’t like it!
it def feels unfair on those middle of the road candidates

that all said I do wonder if any 16+ exam system in the world is able to a. assess all students with the same scoring mechanism and b. appear fair to all kids sitting them

As others have said:

Under the old system it would say whether it was o level or cse

Now the results only say the GCSE grade not whether it is higher or foundation

They have moved recently to making as many GCSEs as possible a single paper so this issue doesn't arise.

It's still a problem in maths and science.
I'm a maths teacher.

The vast majority of kids it is very clear which paper they should be doing. Anyone routinely getting gcse grades 1-3 on foundation for end of y10 exams and y11 mocks does foundation.

Equally anyone getting 6 or above for end of year 10 exams and y11 mocks does higher.

In my school out of a year of 210 this gives about 40 students who are "borderline". From year 11 these are split into three groups - so they get very intense teaching - intending higher, intending foundation and unsure.

In y11 mocks we let them sit both papers so they get a sense of how hard the higher is. The decision is then made with the student and parents.

If they are not planning to go on to a levels (few at this level are) then foundation is usually better as it's material they are confident with and so they can get a passing grade and move onto their next course.

The danger with higher is that they can only answer a few questions and they might "drop off" and get a U.

They could have everyone take the foundation paper and then the ones who want could also do the higher. Would an extra exam (very easy for many) be that big a deal given they have so many anyway?

This is really worrying me now. My ds got a 4 in his mocks (higher paper), I’ve got him a private tutor now one hour a week, but I’m wondering if he should be sitting the foundation paper in the summer. He doesn’t need higher than a 5.

I had this situation with my DD for maths. She was doing well in all other subjects and without a 5 wouldn’t be able to do A-levels. She was allowed to choose and at one point was quite down and thought she would not get a 5 and so should do the foundation. I persuaded her to attempt higher as a 4 or lower would not enable her to do what she wanted and yes it was a gamble which does seem very tough. Luckily she did get the 5. My rationale was that in her situation she would have to retake either way. If the child is planning to go on to a course that requires a 4 then it might be wiser to go with the foundation.

Was like this in the 80's for maths! I scraped a c in the higher paper, I was borderline to take foundation but was given the choice, made no difference in the end. Teachers are generally more than aware of who is capable of 6+

But that's the point though - there's no way someone who is entered for the higher paper should be getting a 1 or a 2. That's more than a bad day, that's order's of magnitude different. If your daughter's performance is so variable- one minute a 7 or 8 and the next a 2 or 3 then you need to get more involved with the school and find our what's going on with her learning.

It’s been like this for years. Under the old grade system there used to also be a middle paper before they scrapped that.

I remember the logic at the time was if you were a solid C grade, you sat the higher paper because there were fewer marks required to achieve the C(approx 50%+), vs on the lower paper you’d need to score (80/5%)+ to get a C. (Old grade system).

DD teacher should really be guiding her based on her set, what they’re learning in class, and her ability.

As a teacher, I hate it too. The official advice from the board is only put candidates who you are confident of getting 6 or above in for higher. But (in my subject) you need practically full marks on Foundation to get a 5, so with your 4/5 candidates, you agonise over whether they are more likely to get a low mark 4/5 on Higher or a really high mark 4/5 on Foundation. It is gamble really. I wish it was just 1 paper or they all sat Foundation and the best did a shorter Higher paper as well.

Maybe you are looking at it the wrong way. You have to pass maths and English gcse and if you don't it can really limit your ability to move on. If your child doesn't aim to do stem at Alevel or university then surely its far better for them to study at a lower level and have more time to consolidate knowledge and get a 4 then be annoyed that they can't get an 8. Apart from post-16 education or training choice does anyone look back at gcse results! Also I'm not sure how a U is better than a 1,2 or 3. Same outcome of having to retake surely?

We were discussing this yesterday. In the 1990's I did the foundation paper and got a B. At DCs school they don't make the decision until March of Y11. My issue is that I think a 5 is lower than a B so isn't equivalent (but I may be wrong).

The way they run the mocks at my yr11s school, they started with foundation papers, if the students results came back as more than a certain %/grade they would try them on a higher paper at the next mock. They have done a lot of rounds of mocks (and still have one more to go) which particularly for this cohort - who didn't do their yr6 SATs - has been invaluable and given them a lot of information about each child and how they perform in exams.

For one subject my child has been a bit borderline, but I have faith in the teachers that they have thought have really considered which level is right for each student and am happy to go with their recommendation.

It’s tricky
my daughter was entered for the foundation science paper last year and got nearly full marks but highest grade she could get was a 5.
She should have done the higher paper

I work in SEND in a secondary school and I do a lot of work around language and reading. Exam papers especially the higher papers in subjects that do them have a high reading age. This in itself is something to consider, a high reading age doesn't guarantee success but a low one makes getting a higher grade 6 and above very hard indeed.
I was borderline back in the old days so I did a billion exams because I had to do O level and CSEs. And no one has ever questioned my maths CSE grade 1, some people even seem to find it exotic and interesting!

This 👆, it is easier to get a 5 on the foundation papers then the higher. So if they are board line the foundation paper can be a better option as getting 5's rather then 4's or no grades is always better.

Takes me back to sitting my own GCSEs. School made me take the foundational science paper as I’d come from overseas and had missed a lot. Had a tutor for a couple of months and caught up, but couldn’t achieve more than a B, which I did. Felt like being punished!

Not a big fan of this system.

We had the same dilemma - my Dd was also “patchy” in her performance, particularly in science. It wasn’t necessarily the “easier” foundation questions she actually found easier - some complex concepts she was great with, some simpler ones she struggled with.
Particularly with science, she was a solid six+ on some papers (eg biology), but struggling to get a 3 with physics. And with combined science they average them out.
Her science teacher said that if she was doing triple instead, he would have put her in for foundation for physics and higher for the other two, but unfortunately that isn’t possible.
She got a U in her science mocks. But her science teachers pushed really hard for her to take the higher papers. She was in the higher set and keeping up, but just had these areas (mainly mathematical) where she really struggled. We were unsure but ended up going with the teacher’s recommendation.
Maths on the other hand she was bottom set, foundation was the only option.

She ended up taking foundation maths, and actually got a 5, the only person in her maths set to get above a 3. We were over the moon.
She took higher combined science and got 4-5, so the gamble didn’t necessarily pay off, but maybe she would have got the same on the foundation.

In hindsight, she might have been better taking triple science - but that is a lot of content for someone who hates 1/3 of the subject!

Me too.

They had this over 30 years ago when I did maths. It's the students on the cusp that potentially lose out.
I was in set 4 of 6 for maths.
A few of us in set 4 were given the option to move up to set 3 and take the higher paper. I chose to move up a group

I am so glad I did. Got an A. I was just a late bloomer with maths.

Having said that, most people in the lower sets really didn't enjoy the subject

You shouldn't have to decide, the science teacher should be advising you. My DS is in the same position and despite being a secondary teacher I haven't the faintest idea how the science papers work so I'm asking what they advise. Grades 1-3 are generally not regarded by many as a "pass" so not getting one of those isn't a huge issue. If she is borderline for a 4 she's not going to get much about that anyway so not being able to access the higher grades isn't an issue. Ask for advice from school.

Bear in mind about 40% of pupils don’t get as high as a grade 4 in maths. It would be cruel to make all pupils attempt the higher paper content. Tricky for borderline pupils though.

The exam boards have past papers on their websites (except those from the last 12 months). Have a look at the papers, the questions are very different. Schools have until 20 April to make their final decision on tiers and most will do so after mocks in these coming weeks. The higher tier questions verge into A Level syllabus and would be very disheartening for a border line child.

@MintSass

The intermediate paper was closer to foundation now. Top mark was a C. The lowest level was below that.
Bottom G to E
Intermediate E to C
Higher C to A

There was a system that if you got nearly full marks on then you could score the level up.