Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

Rant about the new maths GCSEs. Michael Gove you tosser.

242 replies

noblegiraffe · 14/06/2017 00:06

I've got to write this because I've been fuming all day and I need to get it out or I'll never sleep.

So today was the final maths paper, the first round of teaching of the new GCSEs complete. What a total and utter nightmare the whole thing has turned out to be. The poor kids today looked like wrecks. Over 20 different exams spread over weeks has really taken its toll, thanks to all subjects being made linear. We had a revision class yesterday and they had nothing left to give, it was a really horrible ending to the course, trying to cajole them into squeezing in some last minute revision. Three papers for maths has meant it has been a real trial to keep the momentum going (not to mention the added expense of all the extra photocopying of 3 papers instead of 2). Next year it will be even worse as at least this year they still have the cushion of coursework in some subjects.

Due to the last minute scrapping of SAMs which meant the textbooks were out of date and useless even before they left the warehouse and school funding cuts which meant we couldn't afford to buy them even when updated, teachers have been scrabbling over the internet for resources to teach the new topics on the syllabus. The syllabus is unclear and teachers have been trying to find out what they actually have to teach from looking at the sample papers put out by the exam boards. Workload has been horrendous. One question on Edexcel Foundation caught lots by surprise because that style of question wasn't on any papers, and being an old A* topic, many schools hadn't taught it.

Some of the syllabus is just stupid. Memorising exact trig values on foundation? Really?

Before the most recent higher and foundation papers we had foundation (up to a D) intermediate (up to a B) and higher (up to an A) which were then replaced with foundation (up to a C) and higher (up to an A). Essentially what has happened is that we've gone back to the old system with an intermediate and higher paper, but got rid of foundation and are making all the weaker kids sit intermediate. There is nothing for them on the papers. Kids who would have got a G or F grade are having to sit 4.5 hours of papers where they can answer maybe 2-3 questions on each. What does that say to them? The first question on the first maths paper that they sat was (non calc) 2^4. The third was solve x/5 = 2 1/2. Those poor kids.

And the papers themselves? Awful. It used to be 'the examiners are looking to reward what you know, not trying to catch you out'. Well that seems to have passed Edexcel by. Questions which could have been fine had twists put into them for no reason other than to increase the chance of failure. Foundation kids for the first time have to solve simultaneous equations. But why put a question on which is going to trip them up and confuse them? Lots of fuss about trig being on Foundation so we dutifully taught it and spent lots of time on it because it's hard. It was on every sample paper they produced. It wasn't on the sodding real thing. What a waste of time.

My foundation class would have comfortably got Cs and be able to answer the majority of a paper without breaking a sweat. Now it's all very, very difficult and they hate it. We've had higher tier students lose all confidence, bomb out of the higher paper and be moved to foundation, capping their potential grade. Other higher students have decided that maths isn't for them and wont be taking A-level.

All this has served to do is to put kids off maths and make them think they can't do it.

And it's all very well saying 'the grade boundaries will be low, it will be fine, the same proportion will get a C as last year' etc etc. As a maths teacher who is interested in the maths education of the population, this is simply not good enough. You can't make kids better at maths by battering them over the head with stuff they can't do.

OP posts:
Sadik · 15/06/2017 17:16

All I can say is I'm very, very glad that we live in Wales . . . I don't think from the reports of the first results from the new qualifications that things are sorted here either, but at least it seems a bit less of a car-crash.

DramaQueenofHighCs the maths GCSE has been split in two here, with one qualification in 'numeracy', the other 'maths', I guess the aim is something like your 'functional maths'?

BarbarianMum · 15/06/2017 17:13
Snowchaser · 15/06/2017 16:57

Noble, do you happen to know yet if the newly signed off A level specs are wildly different from the old ones? DS is set on doing A level maths starting in September and I'm wondering what he's letting himself in for.

cantkeepawayforever · 15/06/2017 16:41

Iam, that's my memory of O-levels as well - that most were 1x 2.5 hour paper, rather than lots of shorter papers.

Maths had 2 papers (did in Y10, along with French, which had a live oral with an examiner and a dictation test as well as comprehension / writing), as did Further Maths (in Year 11). Also did the single paper of English language in the November sitting of Y11.

So I ended up with 12 O-level (or A/O level) qualification, but for the majority I had 2.5 hours of examinations, each in a single sitting. DS's total hours are not totally dissimilar to this in most subjects - maybe 3 hours not 2.5 - but he has many more papers on many more days.

titchy · 15/06/2017 16:13

Actually a third of A levels are being trialled by current year 13s including Biology....

Iamastonished · 15/06/2017 16:09

I am so thankful that DD took her GCSEs last year. However the current year 12s are also guinea pigs for A level reforms. The spec for geography has completely changed, and the spec for biology has, so looking at past papers isn't very helpful.

I am old enough to have taken O levels back in the day, and our curriculum didn't allow for more than 8 subjects to be taken in one go. We didn't have as many exams, but they were longer. Each exam was 2.5 hours long, and all the A level exams were 3 hours.

DD was stressed enough doing AS levels, and I feel for everyone - students, teachers and parents going through the exam mill right now.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 15/06/2017 14:26

This isn't the end of it either for these kids. A-level has also been reformed, with maths for first teaching in September. The specifications have only just all been signed off so now we're left with another mad rush to learn all the new stuff and set up schemes of work. Next year for AS and then A-level we're going to have exactly the same issues about lack of resources, no grade boundaries and so on. Other subjects are already battling with this.

OP posts:
Laniakea · 15/06/2017 13:46

I did the bulk of my GCSEs in 1992. I have 9 in total - maths was done a year early, geology in lower 6th so I only had 7 to do in one go. Of those Eng lit was 100% course work and RE was 50% so I only sat exams in 5.5 subject and only had one (maximum two) exams for the other subjects. We were also chucked out of school at Easter & had exams spread over weeks and weeks.

Dd has done 11 subjects (9 GCSEs, a BTEC and a AS level) - all have at least two, many have three, exams and they were all crammed into 4 weeks. Very little study leave. She is absolutely drained and exhausted, it has been miserable. Not even remotely comparable to my experience of GCSEs.

DD is easily as good at maths as me - I did well at maths A level & went on to do STEM at university - but she has absolutely zero confidence in her ability now.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 15/06/2017 09:28

No way should the boards have been the ones comparing notes afterwards and realising that actually Ofqual had accredited three vastly different specs.

If you thought I was letting Ofqual off the hook, that wasn't the intention. That the SAMs were signed off and then turned out to be so terrible that everything had to be ripped up and started again, taking another 6 months shows what a mess the process was. What's worse is that when the exam boards were arguing that one board was too easy, when put in front of actual kids it turned out that all but one paper was too hard. We already know that you can't gauge the difficulty of a paper without kids sitting it, that's why grade boundaries are set after the exam. But no one thought to give these brand new papers to kids, and if it wasn't for the exam boards scrapping, we'd have been stuck with the ridiculous papers. I don't know if you saw the original SAMs but they were totally horrifying, I don't understand how the experts couldn't see that the kids would just fail them.
Gove wanted to rush everything through before the 2015 GE and the timelines were so insane that nothing could be piloted but it's just like everyone went 'fuck it, that will do'.
The new papers were then tested for the first time in the November mock. The results for that were appalling. The report from Edexcel is pleading with schools to switch kids from higher to foundation.
No way should exams ever be put in front of kids that haven't been properly piloted. It's a recipe for disaster - as we have seen so far.

OP posts:
TestTubeTeen · 15/06/2017 08:43

I.e top grades in every A level subject, not just one grade A.

TestTubeTeen · 15/06/2017 08:41

Yes, to the relentless pressure.

26 exams, in addition to the various coursework and practicals already undertaken. Revision sessions in school at Easter and half term (all credit to the staff ).

And pressure? Round here you cannot get a place in a school sixth form to do any sciences, maths or English without an A or 7/8.

CupOfTeaAndAGoodBook · 15/06/2017 05:58

noble, normally I agree with everything you post, but can I nitpick here:
Ofqual had signed all the exam boards off. The textbooks were written and ready to go. Then exam boards started bickering between themselves about whether some SAMs were too easy and the 'easy' exam boards were stealing their custom. There were threats to sue. Then Ofqual stepped in, got some kids to sit all the SAMs and it was discovered that they were way too hard (except one) and the exam boards were told to rip them up and start again.

That "bickering" was the exam boards doing Ofqual's work for them. No way should the boards have been the ones comparing notes afterwards and realising that actually Ofqual had accredited three vastly different specs. It's exactly what Ofqual is meant to prevent from happening.

I blame Gove ultimately, of course, because he came up with this shit, ignored the experts he "consulted" and then made it all happen at breakneck pace so no one would have time to undo it. It's literally like deliberate sabotage.

For those protesting against easy questions: can I ask, how would you like examiners to be able to differentiate between:
Someone who turned up and wrote nothing
Someone who can do the tiniest tiny bit of maths
Someone who can do a little bit more than that
...all the way up to someone who is fantastic at it?
Same goes for any subject. This is what exam papers are supposed to help examiners do. Now if you don't care about the low end of the ability range then fine (Hmm) but if you do, then that's what those questions are for.

Michael Gove fucking well SHOULD care about the low ability kids, because he does not understand what "average" means and thinks it's possible for all schools to be "above average"

TheDrsDocMartens · 15/06/2017 05:12

One thing I've noticed this year is that this week is particularly intense with core subjects. I've never noticed in previous years or they've been more spread out.
Ours have English, maths, chemistry, RS, Physics plus history/geography and other options.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 15/06/2017 00:52

Schools will stop caring about league tables when both parents and Ofsted stop caring about them.

OP posts:
caroldecker · 15/06/2017 00:42

Noble maybe the schools are at fault. I went to the top school in the country in the 80's, and did both last year O levels and first year GCSE's (took some a year early). I did 8 subjects, most schools did less.
Post O level maths was unnecessary for anyone but maths and engineering students - irrelevant to the rest of the world.
Perhaps teachers and schools should focus on the children rather than the league tables?

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 14/06/2017 23:51

It's awful isn't it, Teen, the kids look so ill and exhausted.

People who go 'oh all my exams were linear and it was fine' probably don't appreciate a) how many papers these kids sit and b) how much more pressure is put on them. Back in our day we were chucked out on study leave practically after Easter and our time was our own. These kids have been in school full time till very recently and in many schools are back in every day/weekend/over half term for lengthy revision sessions delivered by increasingly stressed teachers. It's unrelenting.

OP posts:
TestTubeTeen · 14/06/2017 23:38

Standing ovation for noblegiraffe's OP.

My 15 year old is grey and dead skinned with revision and exam fatigue, and is dreading the final further maths and triple science papers next week.

DramaQueenofHighCs · 14/06/2017 23:33

Our bottom set is very low ability. Struggle with basic addition and subtraction sometimes!

To be fair it's more that they "get the concept of how to work out simultaneous equations/how to lay out the working@ rather than actually manage to get the right answer! When left to their own devices they more often then not get the answer wrong, but demonstrate they know how it should be done so would get 1-2 marks in an exam should the questions be there. (Unless the Mark scheme for showing working has changed.)

To be fair it was a big claim I made as I've only seen them when they've been talked through them in class as I've been away for tests. I think more should be made of 'functional skills' maths as a viable qualification for lower ability students. IIRC That mostly deals with things that they may come across in day to day life. (But I may be wrong as haven't been in a class that did that for 3 years.) In fact I think it should be offered as a more accepted qualification for any student who struggles or doesn't like maths, but maybe that's my memories of wasting whole maths lessons trying to get a straight answer from our maths teacher to the question "So when exactly are we going to use this in real life sir?".

I hated maths when I was at school and I hate it even more now. 8 yr old DS loves maths at the moment and I hope it will continue but... I fear!

Doordye · 14/06/2017 23:28

DD did higher & is hoping for a 6, shes in set 1. Maths is her weakest subject but she was predicted A, she only got a C in Mocks. Shes put loads of time & effort into revision for a long time & a weekly maths tutoring.
Shes predicted As or 7s for everything else, other than Computer Science which was a choice shes regretted, shes on target for a B.

Ita really affected her A Level choices as Sciences were initially her interest but the advice was to take Maths if she wanted to take Chemistry so shes totally changed her mind.

PlymouthMaid1 · 14/06/2017 23:11

PRIMULA ty for explaining you views re functional skills. I dont want to derail thread as it is about Gcse but I see your point. I teach fs to those who gained low grades or no grades at school and yes, interpreting the question can be difficult for them but the reality of usable everyday maths is problem solving rather than pages of sums. I am shocked that your college do not offer the paper based assessments as most students do prefer them for the reasons you mentioned. We provide highlighters, coloured overlays etc and try the best we can to meet all learners' needs. I am pleased to say that most succeed where the gcse really knocked the stuffing out of them.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 14/06/2017 23:02

Will this exam ever be released to the general public to have a look at?

The actual paper that has just been sat will be kept secure until next year so that schools can use it as a mock, but there are 'practice' papers on the exam board websites that you can have a look at to get an idea of content/level.

OP posts:
pieceofpurplesky · 14/06/2017 22:57

Timing has been a huge issue for lower ability pupils in English this year - both language and literature. Some of the pupils have not attempted to write anything as the prose is too hard Hmm

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 14/06/2017 22:40

Are you saying bottom set GCSE won't be able to do them OP?

That depends on the ability of your bottom set! If your bottom set struggles with solving normal equations then it won't go well.

My foundation set spent ages on simultaneous equations and were mostly pretty good at them by the time we got to the exam. Edexcel saw fit to make the sim eqns question more difficult by having the coefficient of x the same but the ys one positive and one negative, and one of the other sides negative. If they decide to eliminate the xs, they have to subtract the negative which will trip lots up. It's so frustrating that they have spent ages learning this technique and then Edexcel decided not just to test that technique, but put on a deliberately not nice one.
Yes we could have spent hours more time practising but then how much time are you going to devote to a single topic?

OP posts:
Original poster
noblegiraffe · 14/06/2017 22:28

I think timing would be a real issue for the brightest kids. There was a question on the last Edexcel paper with circles inside a rectangle that would have been a nice puzzle to sit down with a cup of tea and have a look at, but in a time-pressured and stressful environment would have just relied on how quickly you could spot the trick to it. I don't think they should be testing speed and luck.

Don't get me wrong, the old GCSE was a pile of pants for the brightest students, poor preparation for A-level, insufficiently challenging and so on. It's possible that in time, as the better prepared students come up through the school - the ones who did the new SATs, the ones who will get an extra hour of maths teaching each week - will be ok at the top end. We'll figure out properly who to enter for Foundation and the middling students will cope. Unless there are major changes, I don't think it will ever serve the bottom end well and we'll see these students entered for other qualifications so that they actually achieve something, in an informal workaround similar to how further maths qualifications were used at the top end up till now.

But right here and now, for this cohort of students that it was foisted upon at the last minute with inadequate resources and insufficient preparation, it has been totally unacceptable.

OP posts:
DramaQueenofHighCs · 14/06/2017 22:22

Yes the maths papers are bloody awful, but I'm a bit confused about what the OP said about simultaneous equations. Are you saying bottom set GCSE won't be able to do them OP?

Only asking cos I know our very weak bottom set year 9s are doing them at the moment and managing (though they hate them). If taught in real baby steps and introduced alongside other stuff it's very doable and they are by far not the hardest things on the new maths syllabus! (Some of which even my Cambridge university Maths degree DH who used to say the old papers were far too easy says are 'a bit harsh'.)