The DfE needs to stop the farce of compulsory Maths and English GCSE resits

Isentthesignal
I agree.
I just think there is a difference between not knowing something in a discussion and being corrected (happens to us all) and coming up with fairly damning criticism without the knowledge to actually have an informed opinion.

But lets, the 11+ is for grammar school entry.

A C has never been the lowest pass! Grades A* - G were all passes. Grades 1- 9 are all GCSEs. 4 is a standard pass, whatever that means and 5 is a strong pass. I have battled against the idea that a D is a fila for years...

This attitude perpetutates into A Level where a D is also regarded as a fail by many.

A C has never been the lowest pass! Grades A* - G were all passes. Grades 1- 9 are all GCSEs. 4 is a standard pass, whatever that means and 5 is a strong pass. I have battled against the idea that a D is a fila for years...

This attitude perpetutates into A Level where a D is also regarded as a fail by many.

Honestly, I think it's just too easy for people with little recent or relevant knowledge of a topic to weigh in without giving much thought to what the reality of a situation might be. Surely it’s just a good opportunity to correct posters who are a bit clueless - isn’t that what free speech is all about? Say something that doesn’t make sense and other people wade in to inform and correct?

People need to stop calling them 'fails' as they really aren't. I thought a level 4 was a pass and a level 5 was a good pass - what has changed? They are the equivalent of a C aren’t they?

People need to stop calling them 'fails' as they really aren't. They are basic passes. Someone who gets a 3 or a 2 in English is not great but they are functionally literate.

This is below the standard required to pass the 11+ , not great when considering pupils are over 16 !

To be fair, if they did have GCSE arithmetic it would probably still have a bell curve, so there would still be plenty of 1s, 2s and 3

I agree

Those would be the children who would retake til 18, in the hope that they could get a higher grade later

And im talking basic maths here so hopefully it would be easier to get a pass

To be fair, if they did have GCSE arithmetic it would probably still have a bell curve, so there would still be plenty of 1s, 2s and 3s. In my mind, it's about attaching value to thos grades of soem kkind. People need to stop calling them 'fails' as they really aren't. They are basic passes. Somoen who gets a 3 or a 2 in English is not great but they are functionally literate.

Oh that's interesting piggy

I thought they did similar in America as well

apparently 18% was a 4 in maths last year

Bit i think that grade 4 child must have been incredibly strssed while revising and doing the exam thinking they were failing

Surely giving sme children confidence that they are actually pretty good at everyday maths would be much more beneficial

I liked spoken language, too. I did the Big Bother Diary room. I loved that transcription stuff!

rufus there is in Scotland, so it has always surprised me that Gove did not suggest it. Possibly because he will have been the academic elite at his private school and probably sneered at O grade arithmetic. It was regarded as easy so the bottom sets did only arithmetic; more able did maths and arithmetic. I am still scarred and bewildered by the fact that I did better in maths than arithmetic!

Piggywaspushed
Honestly, I think it's just too easy for people with little recent or relevant knowledge of a topic to weigh in without giving much thought to what the reality of a situation might be.
It's like cakes refusal to understand that there is a difference between numeracy for life and GCSE maths / literacy for life and GCSE English Language. It's much easier to just rant about how schools are limiting children and teachers should be penalised if anyone doesn't get a 4.

Personally i think that there should be two types of maths gcse

The one they take at the moment for some students

And one that covers living maths...percentages, fractions, adding division etc and basic bookkeeping, budgeting etc that everyone has to take and pass until they are 18... business maths really

In theory the basic one could be taken in year 10 with more academic children moving to further GCSE maths in year 11 and anyone who failed being able to retake in year 11

There is probably a really good reason why this wouldnt work but I'll not be swayed

It is interesting on this thread how several posters have cited Shakespeare and learning poetry as barriers to success in English Language GCSE. Both of these are Lit GCSE. The difference is much more delineated nowadays.

Piggywaspushed
We used to do Of Mice and Men as our language text for controlled assessment (did the Shakespeare for literature).

I'm still upset they got rid of the spoken language study controlled assessment. It was the best bit of the old course and worked really well for a level preparation. Plus the speakers were usually good. We had Malala and Obama some years.

I'm not sure you know maisy. I think the new GCSE is more Language than it used to be (when Shakepseare was on it, for example...) and is more teachable. It profits hoop jumpers. That said, it is utterly unsuitable for any child with slow reading speed or lower litearcy (but then that's what the lower grades are there for in the latter case) because the extracts are so bloody long and really rather archaic in the case of paper 1. I quite like paper 2 (saddo!) of AQA.

I do agree that soem students can resit maths and English ad nauseam and never get a 4. Grades 1-3 need to be seen as valid for something surely?? We have got ourselves into a position now where college apprenticeships for - say- hairdressing or butchery (two examples of mine) are asking for grade 4 English GCSE. Why??

Oh no! Now we've hit learning styles.
Zombie idea alert. Learning styles don't exist.

I think cake should get themselves into teaching. They seem to know it all (whilst equally having zero clue about the difference between numeracy/literacy for life and the contnet of the new GCSE specifications).

People seem to be repeatedly confusing levels of literacy/numeracy with 'getting a certain grade on a GCSE Paper'.

E.g. Being literate and having the ability to critically appraise texts, see bias etc is not automatically the same as GCSE English Language where you are given an 8 mark question on 'how does the writer structure this extract to engage the reader?'

1. The board aren't terribly clear what they mean by 'structure'
2. It's a question that was poorly done across the county because or lack of clarity
3. Some of what they want is more the writer uses this simile in the middle because... (so not actually structural analysis like you do in any higher study if language)
4. The extracts are usually a random piece of literature and many don't actually have interesting structural features
5. 'To engage the reader' well I'm a 15 year old student who thinks this text is boring so how am I meant to talk about how engaging and exciting it is when I don't think it is?

Is being able to get 6/8 on that question the benchmark of literacy and hitting an appropriate standard? I would say not.

If you do well on the GCSE Paper then you are probably readonably literate, but I wouldn't say someone was illiterate because they require longer than 45 minutes to write a short story or a newspaper article on a random topic.

Surely there has to be a floor level regarding the requirements of attainment for pupils between 16-18 above 75-80 IQ.

Pupils that cannot attain a certain standard (we can argue what that standard should be and what requirements are valid for everyday life ) . However, a requirement to advance in English/Maths attainment for such 16-18 year old should be embraced, not lambasted .

As stated earlier regarding later study for those over 18, the lack of GCSEs/ A levels should not be a barrier to Higher Education or employment opportunities. I know of people with Degrees/ Masters level Qualifications in their 30s,40s and 50s forced to study Maths/English GCSEs for job opportunities.

However, if we are talking about a coordinated system surrounding pupils today, a floor level of 'achievement' is required.

If you made this floor level say @grade 3 in English/Maths, this presumably would just be lowering requirements to a low level.

To think that after 12 years of compulsory education it would be acceptable for children. Those within the normal correlation of intelligence quotient to attain at a level below the 11+ is unacceptable

Those days are gone. It was based on the class society where those 35% were supposed to be manual labour. Universities were for the rich and manual jobs were plentiful and reasonably paid.
It was also the time where people with disabilities and SEN were outcasts in asylums

What I am trying to get over is those that didn’t get O Level Maths/English didn’t necessarily get consigned to learning a trade or doing manual labour.
A lot went to university got professional qualifications and went on to be MDs or directors of National and International companies. It was passing the 11+ that made the difference.

I know someone who has an IQ of 140. Is a member of Mensa and failed English Language and English Literature with a U.

With Maths and logic their IQ is through the roof but ask them to do a piece of GCSE comprehension and they are stumped.

They know what the piece is about just not able to convey it to other people yet they are brilliant and have no issue reading and understanding legal and financial reports or writing about them.

Ds did a test a few days ago.

He scored 100% on use of vocabulary but 0 on comprehension. He couldn’t answer one question it totally stumped him.

What we are getting now is mediocre

Those that are brilliant mathematicians or wordsmiths but are crap at the other are never going to find out how far they could go because the barrier is put up at reception.

Maisy is right. Also - lots of student don't care and see it as our job to get them to pass, they see themselves as passive in the process.

The problem with Functional Skills is that some kids are being dragged through the assessment upwards of 3 times, it's awful and certainly doesn't set them up to face their GCSE with confidence

Studying English and maths up to GCSE 4 is a condition of funding for vocational courses.

Besides, everyone can learn high school maths and English. It is not complicated, it just needs to be taught properly and respect the learning style.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is all.

The modern economy, especially one looking to the future of AI, will require more people in human professions like teachers, more nurses, more Psychotherapists, more SEN specialists at all levels to really help to develop those SEN children. It will also need more technicians with good judgement, ethics, skills and adaptability to operate all this technology. What is the point of running children into dead ends at 16 in the 21 century?

Besides, everyone can learn high school maths and English. It is not complicated, it just needs to be taught properly and respect the learning style. Some very intelligent people are visual-spatial and introverted learners .

Noble, I would expect you to be familiar with Daniel Willigham's views on learning styles and that that everyone can learn maths?
www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html

Is it true that some people just can't learn maths?