Will new GCSE's bring a halt to Social Mobility?

Bobo I think there's certainly a case for being able to assess which state schools are providing an appropriate education to the most able and which are not.

However, I have reservations that this new qualification/grading is going to provide much evidence one way or the other.

But if it does, then what? Parents will have no more choice or power to effect changes than is currently the case. Their children will simply find themselves inside the eye of the perfect storm with Morgan/Gove et al blaming teachers and teachers blaming Morgan/Gove et al. And parents, teachers and Morgan/Gove et al looking to the universities to somehow see through the rain and fog and produce widening access via whatever means necessary.

It will also be even harder to compare state and independent education as the later will avoid where possible this new system and continue doing what they do best, whilst the state sector struggles to implement a new system that has been badly thought out and rushed through and (perhaps more importantly) one that they do not support.

Not really.

Here in France grades aren't reported but a 0-20 grading system is very useful!

You're assuming that it will be reported, Bobo.

You might also argue that the greater transparency on levels of achievement afforded by the 9-1 grading scheme at GCSE will allow parents, teachers and pupils to measure the differences between schools more accurately and hence be better placed to advocate for improvements.

My department certainly look at GCSE grades and would be expecting to see A* in both English and English Lit.

The difficulty in respect of widening participation is that government interference in English in recent times was felt disproportionately in the state sector.

This obviously has an impact doe the road.

Introducing further distinction is unlikely to help if state schools struggle to get those 8 and 9s and independently educated applicants take IGCSE (which many will continue to so as they sit out this mess - I certainly would).

Couple this with some applicants having no AS scores to offer and some with AS scores ( some private schools will continue after decoupling simply because they can) and we will have a fairly well delineated two tier system.

Now sure, this won't be a problem at many universities that are actually recruiting rather than selecting. But if we 're talking about widening participation in a meaningful way we have to look at the most selective courses too.

I am sure some people will set great store by achieving a 9 instead of a 7 or an 8

MN Parents of Y11 pupils. And almost no-one else.

I don't think universities use or expect that level of differentiation on the GCSE front.

Quite.

That isn't quite correct. 3% don't get an A at present. It is around 7%*

GCSE English, 2015: 3.1% A*.

GCSE English Literature, 2015: 4.9%

Source: www.bstubbs.co.uk/gcse.htm

The overall figure for A* is 6.6%. But because the whole cohort is entered for English, the proportion is smaller.

But tiggy do you really think the good will be differentiated from the great or just the more perfect from the less perfect?
It is 3% for some boards.

Previous post in response to Ricardian

Noblegiraffe that sounds very sensible but is it true of all boards for maths?

You are assuming that the top 3% for ability at university level are picked out by the top 3% grades. at GCSE level (which goes back to my previous point). Even for maths that may not be the case.

I do wonder why the boards don't just distribute the harder questions (grade A* or 8/9 questions) to more expert examiners instead of having one marker marking all the questions of a candidate's paper.

They do in maths. The papers are marked electronically so the same person marks a bunch of Q5s so they really get in the swing of it. Questions like 'How many sides does a pentagon have?' are marked by random people off the street and the harder questions are marked by proper maths teachers.

No idea how it works in other subjects though.

a competitive university English course for example may decide to set the offer bar at grade 8/9 English GCSE for candidates (without the luxury of aptitude tests or information from AS results)

They could. But grade 8 is equivalent to current A*; how many applicants for competitive English courses (ie, likely to get an A at A2) don't have that?

3% of the cohort get A*, but given GCSE English (including Foundation Tier) is taken by the vast majority of the cohort, is asking for applicants to a selective English degree to be in the top 3% overly onerous?

Ricardian a competitive university English course for example may decide to set the offer bar at grade 8/9 English GCSE for candidates (without the luxury of aptitude tests or information from AS results)

Mass examinations like GCSE cannot be designed to reward "flair" or creativity and still be fair. You have to forget about flair and base assessment on other (perfectly valid) criteria for low-level mass examinations.
Off topic but actually mass examinations can be designed to reward flair and creativity as well as discriminate fairly by harder questions. The problem is that of suitably qualified and trained markers with sufficient time. I do wonder why the boards don't just distribute the harder questions (grade A* or 8/9 questions) to more expert examiners instead of having one marker marking all the questions of a candidate's paper.

"I would be surprised if the top grade in humanities is not going to be based on very prescriptive criteria and therefore not necessarily rewarding flair"

Mass examinations like GCSE cannot be designed to reward "flair" or creativity and still be fair. You have to forget about flair and base assessment on other (perfectly valid) criteria for low-level mass examinations.

I suppose what I am saying is that universities may not simply be able to assume that best students are those with the 9s even if they are in a position to be that selective.

Are there humanities course where GCSE grades (in detail, as opposed to "having some at reasonable grades") are a significant part of the admission criteria? Oxford currently look at GCSE grades, but only as part of an overall assessment and they certainly don't require all A*. Does anyone else even look?

The top exam grade is as likely to reflect well prepared exam technique and carefully taught syllabus as A* do now. It is unlikely just to be a measure of aptitude and student effort in the subject. IMO it is naive to suppose that certain private schools with experienced staff who have more time for each pupil will not to be able to continue to deliver a relative advantage for those factors compared to the state sector even if the intelligence of the pupils is similar.

I would be surprised if the top grade in humanities is not going to be based on very prescriptive criteria and therefore not necessarily rewarding flair. Differentiating a 9 from an 8 is otherwise going to be hard in the context variable quality of marking.
I suppose what I am saying is that universities may not simply be able to assume that best students are those with the 9s even if they are in a position to be that selective.

SheGotAllDaMoves - I teach at Oxbridge in a fairly popular non stem subject...because the state sector is unable to produce suitable candidates in numbers.

Is it true that sutable candidates don't exist in the state sector or is it that many of those who do exist in the state sector are not applying to Oxbridge?

I can think of an RG STEM course which was asking AAA but went into clearing this year. Unsurprisingly, there are very few people in clearing who have AAA, or anything remotely like it.

Quite a few maths/physics/engineering candidates in clearing have AAA equivalent but were rejected by their top choices because of (a) getting AAB or AAB instead of AAA and (b) not getting the required STEP grades (maths). They are a small percentage of the overall candidates in clearing, but not very few. (I think this is rather different than non STEM where AAA and AAB candidates would be much less likely to be in clearing.)

BTW quite a few RG STEM courses take the majority of their students with the required grades (or grade equivalent) but are then forced by university management into clearing to take a few extra students.

I would agree though that many RG STEM courses increased their prospectus grades just at the time that the number of As awarded was reduced and number caps were removed, so the increase in grade requirements is rather fictional: in practice only the top half dozen AAA+ courses can afford to reject somebody with A*AA equivalent or AAA.

My suspicion is that state candidates are under more pressure to apply for "vocational" degrees
Generalisation
Much

Then only the top 5 - 8% applied for university

Behave. Go and look at the gender split of university admission in the 1970s: you pull the takeup up hugely just by admitting the missing women. I know that it suits the purposes of myth to pretend that universities in the 1970s were filled with people whose parents raced pigeons, but it's just not true: the selective universities were massively male and middle-class.

It wasn't the "top" x%, it was the x% with the social and cultural capital to apply.

Shoot me, but I am not sure that students are brighter or better taught now than then. Then only the top 5 - 8% applied for university; the rest moved ahead by proving themselves via work or study.

We already find it tough to meet our widening participation target ( unofficial though that target is) because the state sector is unable to produce suitable candidates in numbers.

My suspicion is that state candidates are under more pressure to apply for "vocational" degrees, which even if not to their ideal taste are perfectly achievable for bright kids, and therefore and therefore end up doing something STEM-y at the lower end of the RG rather than English at Oxford. My child's doing the non-STEMiest of non-STEM subjects at Oxbridge, but wouldn't have had much trouble getting onto a STEM degree in the RG had I been a parent applying that pressure; a lot of parents are applying that pressure.

Back in the 1970s, it was possible to get into a highly selective university with C and B grades.

Early and mid 1980s, too. BBC would get you into pretty well any university if you weren't fussy about subject or pretty well any subject if you weren't fussy about institution (and I think that includes medicine, although I might be wrong).

But as you say, A Levels then were norm- rather than criteria-referenced and Oxbridge did their own admissions. S Papers were something of an historical anomaly dating back to the 1950s and early 1960s when local authorities could pick and choose who to fund (the "S" was held to stand for "Special" by the 1980s, but in fact still stood for "Scholarship").

There were also a hell of a lot fewer people applying; 1964 is the peak year for births so 1982/3 should have been peak for applications, but take up was 12%.

I was offered BBC or BCC by five universities all of which are now Russell Group (then a mix of redbricks and plate glass), on courses which are now all AAA+. I was offered EE by courses which are now 280 UCAS points.