New research: number to get straight 9s could be as low as 200

I should probably confess that I have one DC doing a thesis on returns to education and a friend’s DC doing a thesis on returns to entry level grad jobs. The 9-1 data is the stuff of their dreams!

To cos Lear it was only the Cambridge board saying this. Larger exam boards say it’s inaccurate.

Latin isn’t a useful subject to track. English, Maths, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, History - yes.

My daughter has been told she can reasonably Target 9s in a number of subjects and she has sensibly refused to accept or believe it.

She's clever enough to know that her teachers don't know, can't possibly predict and have nothing but their pie in the sky assumptions to go on. She may do better than others in her class - but that still doesn't equal a 9.

However we do expect mostly 8s, maybe a 9 or two and a couple of 7s.

She keeps reminding herself that these represent A grades and are excellent.

stupid question, but how is a 7+ identified as such?
I have only seen the straight numbers i.e 9-1, so what identifies the +

noble - the new GCSE will allow far more fine tuned tracking of pupils performance. This might interest all sorts of selection processes (not just universities). Lifetime tracking is a huge growth area for economic research.

It would be interesting to see how many they predict will get an 8+ - and if this is more or less than got an A last time. Ditto for a 7+ vs those that got an A or A previously...

Isn't the effective abolition of AS levels main reason that GCSEs are so important for Uni selection, now?

Judging by the number of threads about G&T kids on the G&T board

Mostly parents of little kids post there, if you notice, preschoolers esp.

Is RE also being graded as 1-9?
Do I get to boast loudly if DD is one of the 200 with straight 9s?
DD won't be one of them... won't get a 9 in RE. I asked & She did a flappy thing with her hand, saying a 7 would be fine.

Parents, teachers and pupils are still adjusting to the very idea of a GCSE culture where only a tiny percentage of candidates will get a full hand of top grades. It’s a massive culture change, but it’s a good one as it will restore meaning to GCSE grades as a selection tool for universities.

Perception is interesting here. One poster said 25% got all A/A but in fact only 2000 got 8 As. (I would have been interested to know how many got 8 xA* in the EBacc subjects, not hand picked similar ones such as several maths GCSEs for example.)
There’s a huge difference in 25% and 2000 and clearly an A is not A* and certainly not a 9. It tends to show that, for the vast majority, the 9 didn’t matter. The truth is, few children are talented enough to get 8 x grade 9. Great that it marks them out as being super intelligent all rounders but I think the best universities worked that out anyway! Only a handful should be predicted 9s in my view.

dds school refused to predict anyone a '9' for any subject, as it is all new.
A* equivalent is an 8. That is still pretty impressive.
The very point of the 9s is to show those few children who really excel. I wouldn't expect many to be thinking they would get all 9s across the board. Some 9s maybe, but if more than a tiny fraction got 'straight 9s' then, IMO, the change to the new spec hasn't done it's job.

Thank you for posting this. I have realised DS predicted grades must be around 6 and 7s and was thinking I was way off how 'clever' I perceive him to be. Actually getting Bs and As would be fecking marvellous and I will take a chill pill.

Surely the correct way of predicting is for individual teachers to predict on the basis of their individual subject rather than 'as a whole' .

I agree with noble that a better way of approaching things this year would have been an 8/9 or 8+, in retrospect. And I'm very glad that DD, with each of her 10 GCSEs predicted a 9, takes exactly noble's view despite that - a 9 in anything will be a bonus. She's adjusted downwards herself.

I like the massive margin for error: 200 - 900!

Only 2000 got straight A? Judging by the number of threads about G&T kids on the G&T board, I thought every other kid will have straight A.

200 pupils to have straight 9 is quite high actually. For new specs, not many teachers will be able to teach pupils all the subtle skills they need to get grade 9 yet so it will be very unpredictable in the first few years.

My DD’s school doesn’t issue predictions/targets for exactly that reason Noble.

I can't believe we are having this conversation at all! It's the first year of full 9-1. The teachers have no basis to give predicted grades accurately, the grade boundaries have not been decided and will be adjusted accordingly when the results are in. There are no practise papers, new GCSEs syllabuses have been rushed in, it's a mess and my DS will be a guinea pig. And now they're trying to make a grade 9 desirable by making it elusive. Why don't we concentrate on the kids that are going to struggle to get 4's. I hate this

noble Do you think schools should be predicting 9s at all? I'm kind of surprised that this year especially anyone would do it for any subject other than maths.

I guess there is an issue in that teachers predict individually, and if for one child they all think 'on a good day this child will get a 9' or 'they have a strong chance of a 9' then that leads to straight 9 predictions, even though it is still probably that at least one 9 will be missed?

It should be 'a straightforward assessment', but when 25% of kids were beginning to get A/A*, 'top grade' became meaningless. Grade inflation madness brought this 1-9 system about.

It's all such twaddle. A was brought in to reflect excellent above and beyond the very high achievement of A grades. Now 9's come in to top As. Why? Constant fiddling with what should be very straightforward assessments.