Who else fell foul of English 'downgrading'? Feeling glum.

rosa what you said in terms was that 'Actually, your top grades are available to purchase'. It's all well and good having a social conscience but that doesn't carry with it the need to insult hard-working clever students who happen to be well off. Top grades are not available to purchase.

Domino the papers are explaining it very clearly, precisely for the benefit of non-specialists.

But in terms of grades, the grades at the upper end have actually been most affected - though of course the impact of a fail as opposed to a pass at C/D may well be severe.

I'm sure that it's unarguable that each and every student, right through the spectrum, should get what they deserve - the upper end has an equal right to fair treatment; their futures may be affected too.

MAGENTADREAMER - Yes - that is exactly the situation. Assuming you are not an English teacher (and apologies for being patronising) you seem to be one of the only non-specialists to actually get the point.

Well from DS's school it is not just foundation tier who are affected, and if you want to go to a good Uni and study English having a C for English Language might look odd, even if you have A/A* for Eng Lit.

Noble, I didn't explain myself properly.

First the small cohort - the subjects you mention always have small cohorts so an error in January wouldn't be extrapolated 20x in the following June on a core subject.

Also, exam boards offer January entry but this was such a new concept - the long CA assessments at 60%, they were playing - on this one occasion with fire - if they knew Gove was going to put them under pressure to only allow a certain number to pass. If they knew though, is a moot point. If they didn't they should have stood allowed everyone producing C Grade work to pass - even if it meant a high pass rate. Indeed, C grade work is exactly that. If introducing CAs have allowed coursework to be effectively monitored and children are doing great stuff, then they should be credited for it.

I hope there is a real challenge over this to work out who actually did what but it all seems to be nothing to do with the students standard of work.

A relatively unintelligent private schooler won't achieve straight As rosa*, however spoonfed he is and however large his parents' income and however massive his house. Those who happen to have parents in the top 2% income wise are statistically unlikely to ever get near the top 2% in terms of results.

Take MCSs results (on the school website). How many achieved 11 A*s? (and these are very, very bright boys, not simply monied).

Of course I am not blinkered about how pupils at elite schools will generally get better grades than people at sink estate secondary moderns, but that is due to all sorts of complicated factors that will always be present, and always have been. It makes no real difference to the attainment of an average or below average ability pupil at an average or below average attaining school, whether people at Eton are getting 12 A* or merely 12 As, and frankly anyone with enough family money and connections to be at Eton probably doesn't need to worry too much about whether they get five A to C grades at GCSE at all, do they?

The point is that to have inflated grades year on year to a point where it is possible for someone of lacklustre, unremarkable ability to appear on paper to be equally as capable as someone of higher, or even exceptional ability is a nonsense that has had disasterous consequences both in higher education and in the workplace, and it needs addressing.

It has bugger all to do with 'posh boys looking after posh boys' unless of course you have a deep-seated suspicion that 'posh boys' are more likely to have superior intelligence and capability. And of course in many sections of society the words 'posh' and 'clever' and do seem to be interchangeable, and considered one and the same. Which is part of the problem, isn't it? It's one of expectation, and the 'not for the likes of us' mentality.

They made the mistake of taking a January entry and marking it and giving grade boundries. I suspect it was quite a small cohort and they didn't realise the possible ramifications. Basing statistics on a small number of entrants under a new syllabus was completely daft - I don't know why on earth they did it?

Kez, because that's what exam boards do, set exams and grade them. They are supposed to be experts in it. If people have sat the GCSE in January then they should get their results in March, exam boards can't fanny around saying 'we need to see how the June lot get on first'. AQA is one of the largest exam boards, and if they can't get grade boundaries right on a popular subject because it was 'quite a small cohort', then how on earth would they cope with setting grade boundaries on a subject that always has a small cohort, like GCSE Russian or Textiles?

I don't think many 'posh boys' at private schools sit Foundation Tier English and thus they will have been relatively unaffected by the AQA debacle.

rosa that stuff about family circumstance is ridiculously black and white and as a result pretty absurd. Top grades aren't available for purchase.

magneta I thought the A grades had dropped twice as much as the C grades (0.8% decline as opposed to 0.4% decline).

Remarks unless a DC is very close to the threshold for the next grade up are not going to help, it's the grade boundaries that are causing the out cry and mainly the one's for the CA's. Rightly so Teachers are outraged. From what I can gather a task that Student 1 took and was cashed in in Jan would get a C grade. Student 2 taking the same task and getting the same marks would get a D grade if cashed in in June. I reaslise that exam papers can fluctuate as in some can be hard and so very easy so grade boundaries for exams can change. But if I have got this right surely if 10 CA tasks are given to a school in September for the coming year they should have the same UMS value when ever they are cashed in.

I might be completely wrong but that is how this whole sorry situation comes across to me.

My DD is a C/D borderline Student, I am extremely greatful that her English department didn't cash in her CA's this time around as DD would have been well and truely stuffed and be repeating the whole of them again in yr11. This was the first year that Yr10's haven't completed a full English Lang GCSE.

I suspect political meddling and Gove's desire for more Academies as it's a tad bizarre that the threshold for schools deemed to be doing ok is now 40% 5 A-C including Maths and English and suddenly English results take a bit of a nose dive with the C/D borderline students being hit the most.

I don't see remarks being of any use. There isn't an issue with marking.

Basically Gove wanted grade deflation. Everyone who doesn't live under a rock new that, so the exam boards certainly did - even if they were not told directly.

They made the mistake of taking a January entry and marking it and giving grade boundries. I suspect it was quite a small cohort and they didn't realise the possible ramifications. Basing statistics on a small number of entrants under a new syllabus was completely daft - I don't know why on earth they did it? Boundries should only have been first decided once a full year had been through. Anyway, they didn't.

June cohort come along and have done much better and there is a lot of them! Exam boards had to choose - rack up grade boundries or have more students pass and incur the wrath of Gove. They appear to have chosen the former.

As far as I can see, it's likely to be that simple. No remarks, just do boundries need changing - and not, necessarily, just the C grades!

Having read some of the rubbish my DPs students (Uni) write I'm not surprised that finally the marks are going down.

But Oxbridge is a bit of an anomoly - they have their own set of selection criteria which is often nothing to do with actual results at all, and although almost eveyone who bothers to apply to Oxbridge is of A* calibre across the board, they are often made unconditional offers, and some will not have even sat formal exams at all because of some 'quirky' lifestyle. I don't think you can use Oxbridge as a barometer for what most competitive unis require.

rosajam what on EARTH is that 'posh boys at the top' comment supposed to mean?

Do you seriously think this is about punishing or stigmatising pupils who are not socially or academically elite? Or are you saying that only pupils who are socially elite are capable of being academically elite? Because it's pretty hard to read it any other way.

God forbid any student should fail.
Time this nonsense grading changed

Not all competetive Unis want a B, eg. Oxbridge! If a child is dyslexic they will often take this into consideration (personal email from Imperial).
Overall it depends on the Ofqual investigation. However if that brings my DS's D up to a C, whilst taking the pressure off him, it is a joke that his English ability is judge with the same grade I got back in the dark ages at O'level.

DS English results are being reviewed by the school & I suppose the likelihood will be a re-mark? I hope they deal with this matter promptly & sensibly because it casts doubt on all pupils English results.
My son gained a B when he was predicted A/A*. He's upset at the grade as he worked so hard, plus he has dyslexia which makes English so much harder. DD is taking sciences & Maths at 6th form & so the English result isn't the end of the world, but it's an uncomfortable result at present.

Not so sure rosa. Wycombe Abbey and Magdalen College School are both publicly pretty upset.

know I truly hope you do not teach in my DSs school. What an appalling attitude you have. I can assure you he will have to work very hard to achieve a C in English GCSE. To think some Tory know all can come along and all of a sudden the goal posts have been switched, makes me sick to my stomach.