2014 GCSE league tables

Bingo!
'Oxbridge' and 'Unfair to State School pupils'
Compulsory in every MN education thread...

What are schools meant to do when they know that they will be judged on something they did two years ago but not what?

As I said, the ones that provided a rounded education - i.e. did the job properly - did OK in the EBacc tables. It was the ones who were playing with the children's lives that got caught out.
The criteria were nothing like as bizarre or outlandish as you are trying to make out.

senua
Imagine the outcry if Oxbridge suddenly announced in mid June that they were no longer recognising IGCSE and PreU that kids had already taken / were working towards.

that is what has been done to state school kids who worked bloody hard for exams that they have now been told were valueless

senua
The Ebacc was applied to courses that were started two years before.
AS have all the other changes.

What are schools meant to do when they know that they will be judged on something they did two years ago but not what?

Put it into a work context.
Your bonus this year will be based on how much coffee you drank two years ago

the following year your bonus is based on whether you parked your car straight in the car park, and which space you used

Would that result in good staff morale?

You can't complain about schools gaming the system and complain about retrospective changes.
It was really interesting the year they introduced the EBacc - all those apparently-brilliant schools (when you include basket weaving) were shown up to be not-so-brilliant after all (when you include MFL).
They ought to have a different surprise retrospective every year, that would stop the schools gaming!

What amuses me about Gove's utter horror of resits was his rule that anyone not getting a C in maths or English resit these until they get their C or they turn 18, Are those C's worth less because they are the product of endless resits?

talkin I just have visions of kids who are struggling doing it again and again and again like groundhog day.

Kids with no natural aptitude for exams being forced to sit them every term.

I know it was like that for my nephew and he hated it with a passion.

It might have been a God send to the school and their league table position, but I suspect it didn't feel that way to a fair few students.

noble can see that.

Which is why I can see that although modular GCSEs might have been easier to do well in, as in the final grade, many children found them torture, as I'm sure did their teachers.

I think modular GCSEs coupled with endless resits is the complete opposite of a good education. And certainly not what most teachers got into the profession for.

I recall going to a parents evening at the beginning of year 9 and quizzing quite a few teachers how they felt about the linear exams for the 2015 cohort. I thought, frankly, they'd be bricking it, as the school isn't academically selective but way over achieves in terms of grades.

But no, the teachers to a (wo) man said they were bloody glad to see the back of them and the English teacher said if only she could get rid of CAs she'd be a very happy bunny indeed.

I'm absolutely not saying that modular is a good system. I suspect it made a good many lives an absolute misery, all that endless sitting chunks. I suspect it made some kids a nervous bloody wreck.

Interesting you say that.
In the middle to lower reaches of DCS comp, the modular approach was an utter godsend.
For kids who find it really hard to retain huge chunks of information, the term by term basis got the best out of them - and they were NOT the ones doing retakes
after all, if you are mending a Mercedes, do you remember all of the wiring looms or remember where to look them up?

It's always going to be easier to learn a bite sized chunk of information, than the whole curriclum. Particularly, if you're allowed to resit that bite sized chunk a few times and your best mark count

Yes, in a lot of cases; however it can also lead to kids not taking the exams as seriously as terminal exams because 'it's only worth 25%' and 'I can always resit', thus underperforming. Particularly the type of students who only really mature and start to think about the future in Y11. My department seems to do pretty well whether teaching linear or modular tbh. I hated modular though.

Having taught both GSCE and IGCSE English I would say that the IGCSE is a lot easier for the C grade and the A* is pretty similar. Independent schools tend to use it as they can guarantee 100% pass rate at C or above. They are not measured on levels progress (until this year) as those schools answerable to OFSTED are.

talkin of course some with an A at IGCSE will struggle. As will plenty with an A at GCSE.

The jump is big.

Well let's be very honest here.

It's always going to be easier to learn a bite sized chunk of information, than the whole curriclum. Particularly, if you're allowed to resit that bite sized chunk a few times and your best mark count!

That's why grades improved when we switched to modular.

I'm absolutely not saying that modular is a good system. I suspect it made a good many lives an absolute misery, all that endless sitting chunks. I suspect it made some kids a nervous bloody wreck.

TBH I have no direct idea about the IGCSE A* other than what those with kids at private schools have said.
BUT
In DDs maths classes at PSC are kids who got A/A* at the IGCSE and have struggled with bits of the A level due to the different emphasis.

BUT
To get back to the point.
The tables were there to be gamed.
As are all black white tests. That is called using ones initiative.

The retrospective changes are why this year's results are so worthless.

Schools will not get credit for retakes : fine, but bring it in before the exam entries.
Schools will not get credit for IGCSEs : fine, but announce it when the kids are in year 10 not year 12
Speaking and Listening exams are worthless : fine, but announce that BEFORE the test, not after

I think linear suits some kids and modular suits others so it's not straightforward to say one is easier than the other. We didn't swap to IGCSE linear, we swapped to normal GCSE linear.

But noble you're talking about the C/D boundary, I'm talking about the A* end of the shot.

I think most people accept that it's easier to get a C on an IGCSE (linear), which is why some state schools swapped over for their borderline students.

But not for their top sets...

Funnily enough, when it got to the point with some of our kids that they weren't going to get a C on the modular course because they hadn't accrued enough UMS on the modules they had sat, we found it easier to abandon modular and enter them for the linear paper and a lot got a C that way. So it's amusing when people try to claim that the modular course with retakes made it easier than linear. Linear was our fallback!

yellow I don't think anyone would argue that IGCSEs are hugely more difficult.

Ultimately these are all the most basic of exams!

However, I simply cannot thin that the most selective schools in the UK would specifically choose the easier option.

To be honest, they're not going to rise or fall on their GCSE results. They get and would get enormous amounts of A*s whatever the kids sat.

It's all about sixth form and where DC go thereafter.

Also, I have no axe to grind here.I have twins, one sitting GCSE and one IGCSE. I see the evidence daily.

In addition, I think the most selective universities did and still do pay close attention to GCSEs, both the subjects taken, grades etc.
And whilst the world and his wife were dong modular exams with re-sits a-go-go, there was definitely a perception that an A* won at a linear/terminal exam (be that IGCSE or GCSE) was a better indication of ability.

Obviously, Mr Gove has now scrapped modular GCSEs so things are equalling.

Finally, what I can see from the two different set ups, is that IGCSEs leave a lot of space in the timetable to simply teach.

There are no CAs and ISAs and orals that can be prepped in advance. All things which eat in to the precious time a teacher has with their students.
The process is not one of stop/start, but far more organic.

It's Ofqual's job to ensure parity between qualifications, surely they've got the evidence of equivalence somewhere?

yellowdasies
Having argued the toss on threads passim ad nauseam with Happygardening, WordFactory and others,
the consensus we settled on seemed to be that IGCSE was harder to get an A* but easier to get a C

schools are still gaming the system and looking at what looks good for the league tables.

Of course they bloody are. Schools are now mostly academies and are desperate for bums on seats to maintain funding. Do you really think a school would do anything to deliberately jeapordise their headline figure? Set parents wondering why results seem to be slipping at a good school. Put a borderline school in danger of dropping below the floor target resulting in the school being shut down? Schools are under immense pressure because of league tables and really cannot be blamed for trying to get the best headline figures that they can. It would not be in the best interests of the pupils for schools to lose funding or be shut down over league table scores so do try to see it that way before you bang on about how appalling it is that schools try to 'game the system'.

It's the system that's the problem.

I'm unconvinced by the "IGCSEs" are tougher argument. Private schools care hugely about their exam marks, specially the number of As and A*s. Just doesn't seem plausible to me that they'd enter all their students for an exam that was harder to get the top grades in. There are other ways they can stretch their students (additional maths, extended essays, etc) And I've never come across a sixth form or university that says it prefers IGCSEs. They all say they count them as equal.

I imagine the Indie sector will produce their own tables with themselves slotted in where the Indies think they belong. The newspapers will run the story, tables reproduced with iGCSE stats, nobody will lose anything.

I think in some cases it is obvious because a schools website will have headlines like top 100 schools for past 10 years, or something like this, but they all don't.
I wonder about those that may just have had a particularly good year, what else should we be looking at?
I am a bit dim in this department.

Subjects they enjoy and are good at and improve their self esteem and confidence. They have to instead work on subjects that will count towards the league tables, even though they are of no benefit to the student
Precisely - schools are still gaming the system and looking at what looks good for the league tables.
Of course they could still continue these for the benefit of the students, but they are choosing to benefit the SLT performance pay instead.
But parents swallow the school spin. And the DC suffer.
The interests of the 'school' or the interest of the DC? They are not the same.