What are GCSE Grade 9s for...?

But lots of schools put their most able mathematicians through further or additional maths so it’s not like they were sat twiddling their thumbs in previous years.

Now we have a higher paper where you only need 50-odd percent to get an A equivalent and could lose 1 in 5 marks and still get a 9. How is that a positive change? It hasn’t supported the leap to A-level, and it did a good job of putting able mathematicians off taking A-level at all because they perceived they were crap at maths. You don’t feel good enough for A-level if you can’t do half the GCSE paper.

Many student need the harder content, though. I've had lots of maths students who've really enjoyed the new material, and haven't found it too stressful - they've just risen to the challenge, and it's been good for them to have to do that.

If you didn't have a separate grade for it, you'd have a massive category at the top of A (or whatever new equivalent) that covered a huge range of ability/scores. Or you'd have people capable of rising to the challenge but couldn't be bothered becasue they didn't need to if they could get an A much more easily (which obviously says other things about their personality etc, but would probably happen). Or you'd get calls to get rid of the new, harder content, because it wasn't needed to get the A, etc.

Much more helpful would be to keep the hard content, keep the higher grade, and work on the amount of pressure and stress that's put on pupils. Not everyone has to get a grade 9. Lower grades are an excellent achievement and could be rewarded as such. Perhaps the grade 9s could be made even more rare.

Equally, make the bottom level of the papers more accessible rather than pushing everyone to do the harder material. Make that a qualification worth having too, showing real mastery of the basics and functional maths.

I don't know as much about other subjects, but I expect there are similarities. It's the culture of 'you need all top grades' that has to change, not what the top grade is nor how hard they are. There is a group of students for whom the top grade is now a much better challenge and they need to be catered for as well.

I think people were surprised last year that the grade boundary for a grade 9 in maths was 79%. The perception was that the ‘most able’ in maths would be pulling in 90-odd percent.

lljkk comparable outcomes has been used to maintain outcomes and stop grade inflation since 2010, but grade boundaries were always set after the exam using student performance to decide how hard or easy a particular paper was.

Interesting blog here about the switch from mainly examiner judgement about standards to prioritising comparable outcomes (at GCSE and A-level) here: <a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110718114012/www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/2011-05-16-maintaining-standards-gcses-and-alevels-summer-2011.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110718114012/www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/2011-05-16-maintaining-standards-gcses-and-alevels-summer-2011.pdf

At some schools almost 40% of pupils last year (2017) got grade 9 in English language, English Literature and Maths.

Whereas in previous years it would have been a much higher percentage getting the old top grade, A star.

So the new grade 9 does seem to differentiate between the very able/hardworking, in that less are getting the top grade.

Sorry having an issue with writing A*/star!!

I work in a school where a significant proportion of the year used to get all A** stars which meant it was impossible to differentiate between them. Hopefully the new system will help although the boards have gone back on what they had originally said about how rare a grade 9 would be judging by the first exams last year. I suspect we will still get a few kids with a string of 9s but hopefully not as many as with A stars.

I wonder how many years before we see a 10 being introduced....

"They wait to see what marks people get and then set grade boundaries, otherwise grade boundaries would be fixed and the same every year."

Isn't that a description of new system not old one, Can a teacher comment?

I always read that under 1980s-2010s GCSE system, the approach was fixed threshold: the thresholds were supposed to be pretty much identical each year (even if numbers changed slightly to reflect differently written exams) so that a 1985 GCSE grade C meant the same minimum ability level as a 2015 grade C. Whereas under new GCSEs, the thresholds are purposefully moving goalposts; the 2018 grade 5 will only tell you relative to the cohort that the person was a Grade 5. If the class of 2020 turned out to be exceptionally thick, their Grade 5 could be lower average standard than 2018.

Any teachers able to tell us whether Grade 9s really do pick out the most able...or simply the most conscientious

That’s a very good question. There’s a huge amount more knowledge which students are required to learn at gcse now. Probably about a third more than in the old gcse in my subject. Therefore the most conscientious should score well - but in order to retrieve that much information they have to be pretty able! But you also need to have demonstrate some flair or be able to use your knowledge well in order to gain high grades too.

In Maths for example (not my subject) questions in the old style gcse tended to be based in one topic area. They are now mixed, so it requires more mathematical ability. But at the same time they have to learn by heart the formulae they will need.

I have one student that I teach that if she doesn’t get a 9 I genuinely don’t know what a 9 will look like. Well I do actually because in my subject (languages) funnily enough the native speakers tend to get the highest grades.

DumbledoresApprentice I was shocked how much broader the history curriculum was compared to two years ago!

Don’t forget Gove gave all schools the bible too...

Ask Michael Gove. I think he just wanted to be remembered and didn’t care what for( or how many teachers died in the process).

Less differentiation at the lower end.

Grades aren't getting devalued. There will simply be more differentiation between grades.

I hate the fact the new system devalues results for many other students. An A was great. Now a 7, which is apparently equivalent, doesn't look special. Why not have a 7, a 7 with merit and a 7 with distinction?

We won’t know that until Thursday. My hunch is that the new spec in my subject will reward the most conscientious more than the brightest. The amount of content went up hugely and the exam papers were narrower with fewer question choices. Very able pupils with gaps in their revision will be penalised far more than in the old history spec where it was easier to avoid questions on topics you hadn’t revised as well. I suspect that the really consistent ones and those who were lucky enough to have their favourite topics come up will be the ones to nab the top grades in history this year.

He is aiming for 9s and hopefully be will get them if what you say is true. He is the sort of student that should achieve the top grades.

I get what you are saying Dumbledor but I suppose without knowing if the exams are getting harder or not it is difficult to extrapolate. None of us know. My child will get his results on Thursday and I am obviously hoping for the highest grades.

Just because they're not useful to universities doesn't mean they're not useful for anything!
I think if I were a youngster, I would love the chance to aim for the top ( I'm so old, I did O levels and there wasn't even A*).
My DS1 gets his results on Thursday. He didn't work, so I'm not expecting anything higher than a 4 but there are clever, hard working kids out there who deserve the opportunity to demonstrate their ability.

I don’t have a link as the UMS used to mask the increases because overall qualification grade boundaries were all in UMS but if you take as an example history paper 2a on Edexcel Spec B (chosen at random just because it was my favourite to teach) in June 2010, the first year I taught the spec an A was 37/50 (74%) an A was 32 (64%) and a C was 22 (44%) last year for the same paper an A was 42/54 (78%) an A was 38 (70%) and a C was 30 (56%). The grade boundaries were going up and they were also getting closer together.

All this angst about the attainment of a tiny percentage of pupils getting highest grades whilst we have so many underachieving and getting below 4s and 5s. You’d never think that was the greatest problem reading mumsnet.

DD got 9s in the Englishs. I think it was about 3% nationally for English Literature and slightly less for Language. She got a high 8 in Maths which she was convinced she'd failed (but beforehand I had told her that mumsnet had said the pass marks was really low for every mark as they will make a difference - thanks noble - some of the top sets were not used to such papers and gave up). No one in her 250 intake good comp got 999 but there were lots of 99s. English Language seemed to be the most difficult one to get 9. Knowing what the examiners were going to give you points for was critical more than natural ability.

Do you have a link to prove that grade boundaries have been going up?

Grade boundaries have gradually gone up year on year, only dropping with new qualifications (its called the sawtooth effect, I think). The number of top grades increasing has happened as grade boundaries also went up. They weren’t going up because the grade boundaries were going down.

lljkk but the proportion of people getting the top grades has increased year on year. They set results based on proportions, not raw marks, so what you are saying doesn't add up. They wait to see what marks people get and then set grade boundaries, otherwise grade boundaries would be fixed and the same every year.

I agree that teaching is getting better. There is a lot more teaching to the test. When I sat my exams I don't think I even did any past papers. We definitely didn't discuss mark schemes! Teachers are more savvy and we have the Internet to help. But it is still about grade boundaries. And there is no denying that they have been more generous over the years.