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Due to the last minute scrapping of SAMs which meant the textbooks were out of date and useless even before they left the warehouse and school funding cuts which meant we couldn't afford to buy them even when updated, teachers have been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:
EmpressoftheMundane · 14/06/2017 22:13

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

grufallosfriend · 14/06/2017 22:11

Thanks Noblegiraffe!

Michaelahpurple · 14/06/2017 21:58

I always rather enjoyed exams at school. I cannot imagine the horror of sitting an exam most of which was. It just beyond me but designed to be beyond me. How utterly ghastly.

loveyouradvice · 14/06/2017 21:40

This makes me want to cry - and my heart aches for you noblegiraffe and all our children....

I've always been passionate about children learning Maths - having found it easy all my life, I spent a lot of time teaching my peers in classes as well as teaching kids extra maths in DC primary and pbelieve that building Maths confidence is as important as skills... especially in later life

So speaking as a layperson - plus mother of DD in year 10 - I can't believe we are doing this to our children.

I was so excited last year when I read that Maths was the most popular A level in the country, outstripping English for the first time...This is so going to change and so unnecessarily.

And I hate the fact that so many children who think they are "stupid at Maths" are having this reinforced by the new exams... rather than celebrating what they can do and being excited to learn more...

Signing off in great sadness...

OhYouBadBadKitten · 14/06/2017 21:17

It's been a horrible year for those taking gcse maths and for those teaching it.

user98765432101 · 14/06/2017 19:25

You can't make kids better at maths by battering them over the head with stuff they can't do.

And if they can't do it by now.... well we'll just test them again in a years time. I really really feel for my SEN and LA kids who will be lucky to scrape a grade 1 and rather then being told well done for doing that as I know it was a huge achievement for you, they are being forced and forced to resit.

cantkeepawayforever · 14/06/2017 19:19

A paper in which ALL children of low ability get a uniform tiny percentage is a badly designed paper, also. A paper should be able to differentiate between 1s and 2s and 3s reliably and reproducibly. If it has no questions designed to differentiate between these different, though still all low, levels of ability, it is a badly designed paper. A well-designed Foundation paper should give a smooth range of results across the full range of marks available on the paper (from 0 - 100%) which can then be sensibly assigned to levels.

titchy · 14/06/2017 19:16

User I don't think you understand what 'pass' means. Most people meanLevel 2 - grade C and above.

The kids that are at the level of the KS2 tests WON'T pass GCSE maths at Level 2. They'll get a Level 1 GCSE qualification, which they can then use to access Level 2 qualifications at college or wherever.

Except now they won't.

castleontheground · 14/06/2017 19:16

Boo hiss

Rant about the new maths GCSEs. Michael Gove you tosser.
cantkeepawayforever · 14/06/2017 19:11

I would agree that a foundation paper where ALL questions are below KS2 standard would be wrong. However,. given the distribution of grades and mathematical competence at 16, it is not unreasonable to expect SOME questions to be at that level.

cantkeepawayforever · 14/06/2017 19:09

User, that depends.

If you want an exam and grading scheme that is designed to demonstrate what maths someone CAN do, then you need a range of questions on core content through which a student can demonstrate what they know. That core content, IMO, should be weights, measures, money, calculations, everyday problem solving to do with ratios, areas, etc.

The grade available to students who can only do such 'limited' maths should, i agree, be the lower ones. However, simply in terms of a grade reflecting what they know, is it better to have a paper on which a low grade reliably means 'could do 25% of the paper, the basic functional stuff' (on which a future employer or educational establishment or apprenticeship could build) or a paper on which a low grade means 'couldn't do 95%, the few marks I did get were randomly distributed and can't be used to indicate anything'?

Moussemoose · 14/06/2017 19:05

user1495025590 I know this thread is about maths but can I question your ability to read and comprehend.
The GCSE has to be suitable for the majority of students to access. Students who are working at a 1 or 2 deserve the opportunity to show what they can do.
In your opinion these questions could be done by a KS1 child, this might be true but less able children have a right to exams they can attempt. Or do you think we should just dismiss their needs?

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 14/06/2017 19:03

Just been looking at some foundation past papers and they are similar to Y6 SATS , some much much easier.

Yes, because as I said before, the old G grade was roughly equivalent to a level 3 so some students in Y11 will be working at a level below the expected level of the Y6 SATs.

If you consider a C a 'pass' (it's a level 2 pass, officially) then these students will not be passing their GCSE, but they will be able to demonstrate their level of mathematical competence which will inform their next steps.

The new GCSE does not cater for them in questions, although it is supposed to cater for them in grades.

OP posts:
cantkeepawayforever · 14/06/2017 19:03

Totally non-scientific view here - noble is definitely the expert - but I would say that further Maths has more advanced content but with questions asked in a more straightforward, less 'designed to trick you up' way, whereas Edexcel GCSE Maths takes slightly more straightforward [though in some cases not very engaging] topics but twists them into unusual shapes for the questions.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 14/06/2017 18:58

do you know how the new, more difficult (edexcel) Maths GCSE compares with the FSMQ (advanced level) Additional Maths?

The FSMQ is level 3 so should be more difficult, but I've not taught it so don't really know how they compare. The new GCSE doesn't have calculus on it so the FSMQ content is more advanced.

I'd say that the new GCSE has questions on it comparable to the AQA Further Maths GCSE and in some cases more difficult. The AQA Further Maths is also, IMO more fun. Some of the new GCSE questions just seem like a slog for the sake of it.

OP posts:
TheHobbitMum · 14/06/2017 18:58

I have 2 in yr 11 (the school moves up in years after the GCSE students leave instead of Sept) and I am so worrying about these new GCSEs. My kids are doing extra lessons after school most days now and I've one kid who is completely turned off from learning and 1 who is throwing herself into school work/revision at detriment to everything else. She's frightened of missing out on grades needed for a levels. What a clusterfuck this all is, Gove can get fucked Angry

Cafeconleche · 14/06/2017 18:58

Hmmmm, I'm spitting teeth at some of the responses on here to Noble's informative front-line rant. Please go back to your perfect-maths-world-bubble and have a word with yourselves. The point is, these new 9-1 exams are not going to raise numeracy standards, which was supposed to be one of the main objectives, and will put many kids off maths for life, even those who were capable of being stretched. There are other ways to raise the bar whilst engaging students, but no one wanted to listen to the 'experts' (ie the teaching profession) especially not Gove - remember??? - he was sick of experts. Knob.

user1495025590 · 14/06/2017 18:53

Somebody who cannot display a reasonable level of competence in a subject should not be passing a GCSE. Just been looking at some foundation past papers and they are similar to Y6 SATS , some much much easier.I mean showing a picture of a jug of water with a scale on the side filled up to the 500 ml line and asking how much water it contains.I mean that is stuff i would expect a KS1 child to answer with ease.It should not be on a GCSE paper!

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 14/06/2017 18:52

So, in England, children can drop maths completely after 16/GCSE?

Yep. Unless they fail to get a C or above at GCSE, in which case they have to resit it in sixth form/college. Most of these students went on to fail it again. Students who got an E or below were allowed to sit functional maths instead. These resits continue until they leave school.

Professor Sir Adrian Smith wrote a report into making maths compulsory post-16 that was due to be published in January but has been kicked into the long grass delayed. It was expected to reveal that this would be incredibly difficult as the country doesn't have enough maths teachers to teach the maths already on offer let alone fill new sixth form teaching posts, and that any measures would take at least 10 years to implement.

OP posts:
Moussemoose · 14/06/2017 18:43

The old foundation papers were absurdly easy

For who? Kids with special needs? Not everybody is clever, these students need an exam they can access as well.

It pisses me off that all the emphasis is on the bright kids and no one gives a fuck about kids at the other end of the spectrum.

One of the reasons we are not 'good at maths' as a nation is cultural. Parents hate and fear maths and pass that on to their children. They hate and fear maths because they have been made to sit exams they can't access. We were trying to combat this but now we are back to square one. Or minus square 1.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 14/06/2017 18:32

what is the point of an exam everyone can pass???

We didn't have one. Nearly a third of Y11s failed maths last year.

The old foundation papers were absurdly easy

Michael, is that you?

OP posts:
titchy · 14/06/2017 18:24

The old foundation papers were absurdly easy.

If all the kids taking the old foundation papers found them absurdly easy there'd be 100% achieving a grade C. Was there? No, so I think we can readily infer that actually, a lot of kids did NOT in fact find them absurdly easy. FFS.

cricketballs · 14/06/2017 18:21

A couple of the responses on here such as "In all honesty, I would really hope that most 16 year olds could answer such questions." is the problem with the new exams; a lot of 16 year olds are being basically told they are worthless - when students can't read the question how are they going to answer It?

It's the same with the grades available - more grades available for the higher ability, fewer for the lower ability

The students who are not A* are being told they crap and the added kick in the teeth is that they have to resit...

user1495025590 · 14/06/2017 18:19

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

what is the point of an exam everyone can pass???

The old foundation papers were absurdly easy.

tiggytape · 14/06/2017 18:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.