To think the 2 tier GCSE system is wrong

I’m 33 and this was the case 17 years ago when it was still graded by letters

if you did foundation you couldn’t get higher than a C

It’s literally always been the case that you can’t access the highest grade if you take a lower paper. It was the case when I was doing gsce’s 20 years ago when the highest was one A*.
Of course you can’t have someone taking an easier paper and still achieving the highest grade, that would make no sense.

I got moved to the higher maths paper in order to be able to get an A instead I got a C and my friend on the lower paper got a B even though she wasn’t as good at maths. Even years later she mentioned how funny it was - I didn’t find it as funny and wished I had been left on the lower paper!

I’m not quite sure on the grading and tier system of GCSEs nowadays but, when I was doing mine I was pretty much railroaded by my school into doing Foundation tier maths for my final maths exam (C was the highest grade you could achieve in Foundation).

I’d been getting high Cs and low Bs higher tier, but as I was in top set this was “not acceptable” and they moved me straight into the lowest set. This meant that to achieve a C grade in my final exam (foundation tier) and overall, I had to get almost full marks in the foundation paper.
It was fine, I managed it, but despite it being the “easier” paper, it felt like I had much more pressure on me. Not something a hormonal 15 year old coped very well with!

I believe they used to have an Intermediate tier, which would be ideal for students like me and your DC.

Science teacher here. Ask her teacher to provide (or signpost) a higher level and foundation level paper from the same exam cycle (ideally all three sciences). She can see where the overlap questions are and have a go at both. She can then be provided with a markscheme (or go through it with her teacher) and see the difference in expectations between the two. I do this a lot with my students and many find it helpful when making a decision (although ultimately it is still up to the head of department and I to act in their best interests).
I have also had borderline 4/5 students have a go at the higher paper in their March mocks to see how they find it and what grade they get. Maybe she can try that? As a PP said we have until April to decide what paper they sit.
Most students do opt for the foundation as the language and questions are simpler (HT for science has a reading age of around 17). There are also more likely to be more multiple choice and gap fill style questions (and less extended answer questions) on a foundation paper which really helps with confidence. If she has a bad day then this can really help with motivation in the exam to answer as many questions as possible.

Hope that helps. :)

What do they want to do post 16? If they are not heading to A levels I would recommend sticking to the foundation papers as your child is in Year 11. They have missed too much teaching on higher tier topics that would have been covered in Year 10, especially if they are in sets. If they intend to do A levels, then higher tier for those subjects would be better.

Also doesn't help when they've still not covered the whole of the sciences syllabus either, yet 😡

Not all of them they don't

And be very aware of College requirements. Foundation levels don't always give a high enough grade for some colleges

My son is also Y11 and in his school they only put forward or allow the students that are predicted grade 5 and above to sit the higher papers. He is good at most subjects except sciences which he has no interest in at all and are his lowest grades, but as he’s predicted a 5-6 he still has to sit the higher papers

This and also what @KnickerlessParsons said.

I was 16 in 1978 and, for each subject, we had to choose O level or CSE based on our teacher's assessment. If you were borderline then you could do double entry, but at our school you were only allowed two double entries. I think you were discouraged from more by having to pay for any additional double entries.

Even then there was a move to try to find a unified exam. In fact, one of the subjects I took(music) we did an experimental syllabus called 16plus which was an early attempt to have one exam.

It does rather sound like the range is too great to be adequately covered by one syllabus.

If a student does get a U, a 1, 2 or 3......... it wont make any difference which (as far as Im aware -happy to be told otherwise). Colleges want 4s and higher - particularly in Maths and English.
Another thing to consider, to get a 4 when taking the lower papers a student needs to answer a lot more questions, get a lot more right. But in doing the higher papers they can get a 4 by answering fewer/getting fewer correct.

I get why its frustrating (I took the higher paper in Physics in the 90s - thats why I got a D! I should have admitted I was struggling a bit and opted for the lower paper, if I had I might have got a C!) but GCSEs have always been thus (CSEs vs O levels were even more "separate") but I agree altering the system surely wouldnt be that tricky - certainly imho a much better idea than the new 9-1 grading system! CSEs vs O levels were even more "separate"

This isn't the case, because with O-levels and CSEs you got different qualifications entirely, and despite the supposed equivalence between a top CSE grade and an O-level pass, people didn't see them as the same.

If you get a grade 4 or 5 at GCSE, no one knows whether you got it on the foundation or the higher paper, it doesn't appear on your certificate.

Because they won't have answered level 1 and 2 questions as they aren't on the higher paper.

And before that it was split with some taking GCEs (o level)and lower level CSEs. Grade 1 CSE was equivalent of a GCE pass at C but you couldnt access the higher a, b grades.

How is it unfair? Teacher will have their best interests at heart.

About 25% of the questions are the same on both papers, so you are either answering the grade 4/5 questions at the end of the foundation paper, or at the start of the higher paper.

By now they should know what sort of grade your DD is getting on mock papers. If she looks like she is in with a shot of getting a 6 (i.e. already getting a 5) then she should enter the higher paper. If she is not, she should be entered for Foundation. There shouldn't be anyone entering for the higher paper with the slightest concern that they will fall off the bottom.

(that's maths, I'm not sure how the other subjects work).

It would be too many questions to do it this way. The smartest pupils getting levels 8 and 9 should not have to bother answering lower ability levels 3 and 4 questions.

It's not a gamble. The teachers will give the children many practise and past papers to identify which tier would be best for them. The higher paper is not just harder or more content; the questions and language used is of a higher ability too. A higher paper will enable pupils to achieve levels 8 and 9 and so if a pupil can't get a level 4 on it then the higher tier isn't suitable for them.

Yes I did mine in Late 90s and was higher or foundation paper.

My dd did foundation in maths and science. She was really motivated to succeed and got 5s in those subjects. She is dyslexic and it was lots of hard work and revision that got her the grades.
If she had had to sit higher papers, the language, content and feeling she was behind would most likely have meant she wouldn't have passed.
She got 6s in English, Dance and Drama that she is taking for A level. It really is horses for courses op. If your daughter does sit for foundation then I would accept that the teachers see this as the best root to secure a good pass.
Dd needs science and maths if she wants to become a primary teacher, and now she has them in the bag, first go.

This is the best set up available.

The higher level paper doesn't include the questions that are designed to evaluate a 1-3 level of understanding because the vast majority of students sitting the higher paper will only ever be harmed by including those questions... for those students those questions awould simply be an opportunity to lose points to foolish errors, exhaust themselves, and lose focus. The other option is to make the exams significantly longer and cover the entire range of levels-of-understanding. This would mean that students who really needed the foundation paper are faced with question after question they can't answer - it's discouraging, tiring, and likely to make them underperform on the questions that are within their abilities. And the students who need higher level are having to wade through questions that are well below their abilities and basically amount to busy work - it's fatiguing and means students will lose more points to silly mistakes rather than a genuine lack of understanding.

I understand your DD is one of the frustrating border cases (it's the best structure but still an imperfect one) but I'm sure you understand the massive downside of having significantly longer exams where she has to spend time trying to identify out-of-her-level questions and avoid wasting time and focus on them, especially for a student who struggles to focus. If she's patchy then having a longer combined test could actually create the bad day you're worried about.

Omg I didn't know this existed at GCSE.

I have a y8 dc but i am scottish so never thought about it... back in late 90s we sat 2 papers for each standard grade (gcse equiv) subject to maximise our chances so out of three levels foundation, general, credit you did 2 so you were guaranteed the best grade possible.

Yanbu Op - I'm scared now!