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

I would absolutely support the idea of 2 Maths qualifications. In primary, tests are divided into 'Arithmetic' and 'Reasoning'. IME, even lower ability pupils do pretty well in the Arithmetic, and where they lose marks is in the Reasoning.

Extending the idea towards GCSE - fluency in the basics of calculation and 'real life maths' vs higher level problem solving - would be a really good plan and would perhaps more clearly show 'what a pupil CAN do' rather than 'what they can't'.

(I have Further Maths A-level at a high level, but I still found it, as a career changer, useful to do the numeracy test because its focus was not the same as the focus in the 'school maths' I did)

I remember when i did the numeracy test that it is very much 'maths for teachers' not 'maths for teaching maths', if that makes sense?

So at primary level, passing it / failing it is not an indication of whether you understand 'curriculum maths' well enough to teach it well, more whether you can do enough maths to do the work of a teacher (especially if you work in a small primary where things like data analysis and quite a lot of budgeting tend to fall to teachers themselves in a way they wouldn't in a big secondary).

It may have changed, though.

I have often thought that those with A Level maths/ English should be exempted from the relevant parts of the test. It seems a waste of time and admin.

Funnily enough, I am good at data but find (at least in my school) that mathematicians (sorry noble!) and scientists take it all on and shove anyone else into a corner as if somehow they wouldn't understand it. I am , in fact, one of the few members of staff who (inconveniently) queries data , and I dodn't think that makes me popular!

the numeracy test is actually really hard in places - not the content, but the timing. I'm working with a severely dyslexic adult who is struggling to get the mental maths part of it. She's not strong in maths generally, but is OK and certainly works hard, and she isn't intending to teach it; she can do maths at the needed level for admin etc., but so far is finding the mental maths impossible. And some of the questions really are a lot for someone to do in a short amount of time, and require a lot of listening and processing at the same time. I feel for her, as it's a real barrier to entry. She does actually have a GCSE grade C, but that's not enough.

I do think a good numeracy exam that everyone took would be an excellent idea, but as well as, rather than instead of, another maths GCSE that could be taken by higher achievers. I don't think you can have a single qualification to show employers the basics, and then not let anyone do anything beyond that at age 16, because for many students, GCSE maths is quite easy - some of them do just 'get it', and they also shouldn't be stopped from having the option to be stretched by the higher material.

Many teachers wanted two separate GCSEs like this in the recent reforms. Or the option to have three tiers, and students to be entered for one or more of them. All are decent ways of covering both basic content needed for employment, and more difficult stuff.

I think that numeracy test is likely to be what employers think the GCSE maths is all about.

What is the pass mark Noble?

I think they are a reasomable refresher. As a career changer it was a while since I did my GCSE maths and I certainly was a bit rusty. The tests gave me a quick incentive to brush up. I think they are basic skills that all teachers should have.
I know some on my course argued 'but you don't need maths if you're teaching art' but given the amount of data staff work with and trips etc, basic numeracy isn't asking much.
There was also someone on my English course and a former trainee at one of my schools who struggled to pass the literacy test. Quite worrying really.

I'd liek to see the stats on the people who fail these tests : I do certainly know of English teachers who have struggled with the numeracy one(not with very much good grace, as you can imagine!). But I do wonder whether the people who struggle most ahve come throuhg less traditional routes : perhaps late starters who did GCSEs/O Levels aeons ago, for example , or people who have done an access course.

I won't mention my English teaching colleague who failed the literacy test....

Sorry, I wasn't to trying to say that missing out on a grade 4 in science doesn't matter - I meant that it isn't as drastic as missing out in maths and English. You still have options if you don't achieve the 4 in science and you also don't get trapped in to an endless cycle of resits. Obviously the better your grades the more options you have, but missing out in maths / English really does seem to have a much bigger impact on employment opportunities than other subject.

Yes noble : someone with A Level art might well want to go in to primary?

I did find some PGCE type course that wanted 'C grades' for maths, English and science.

I am not sure how much this is highlighted to young people post GCSE results. There must be other jobs/ courses with this requirement.

Maisy is an English teacher. I’m sure most music teachers would be aware.
Thanks for the common sense.
user1471450935
Thank you.
It wasn't about teacher hating, just more frustration at the never ending suggestions at times on MN in general that staff must by nice posh middle class people in nice posh schools who only like top universities, only care about bright children, don't care about the lower achieving children etc.

The other conspiracy that comes up is the other one I mentioned about how if a child refuses a basic rule and then argues they shouldn't be sanctioned. If we sanction it then we are the ones who are holding up the lesson because we shouldn't have challenged their DC.

Not claims of teacher hating (save that for silly moments where posters track teachers on other unrelated threads and go 'OMG and you're meant to be a teacher.' ) , more amusement at some of the peculiar ideas about teachers.

We're perfectly capable of having our own feelings about higher education and still caring and supporting the students to achieve.
E.g. i'd never tell a child to turn down an unconditional offer if it was best for them (regardless of my feelings about how the system uses them), but might have a chat and encourage some reflection if a student known to seek easy routes was considering am unconditional over a course that may suit their aspirations more. Then whatever they choose they have my support

I also gather that the policy is for children to have at least five good GCSEs. And the 5 GCSE's being tracked in statistics are EBAC. Just saying.

Just as a caveat, as someone on another thread has discovered you do need a 4 in science to enter teaching , so that A Level art student would need to be aware of that if they aimed to teach down the line.

I am not sure if this is true for post grad teaching courses but it did seem to hold true for all BEds.

GCSE in combined sciences isn't a certificate in failure by any stretch of the imagination.

Indeed, it isn't because it is called GCSE .

Perhaps a similar system is needed in maths and English - where "single maths" would largely be functional skills actually suited to what students are going to need in real life whereas "double maths" would include the extras (factorising quadratics and circle theorems for example).

This would be a very neat solution, RedBall. However the detail of the execution could be crucial. "Functional skills" already has an established reputation for being a fall back option for failing GCSEs. It wouldn't be perceived to have the same value as GCSE, so its important that the name Functional skills is not smuggled into the qualification.

Where to draw the line between the "single maths" and "extra" is also important. Factorising quadratics and circle theorems really looks like more specialist extra. If the "single maths" would be pitched too low, it's perceived value might be compromised from the start. If it is too high, it will be too hard to pass. A careful balancing act.

Maisy
I personally believe nearly all teachers care deeply about their students. We have been blessed with truly inspiring teachers in our family's 16 year state education trip.
Ds1 wouldn't be going to university without them encouaging him. Mrs Perkins, Miss Townsend and Miss Fellows in primary.
Mr Beecroft, Mr Connelly, Mr Briggs and Mrs Gale in secondary.
Plus another 40 or so.
They deserve medals and get our total support.
So dont tar me with the hating teachers lark
I still remember Mrs Shuttleworth for giving me a love of maths. Not good at it, but can do mental maths and ever day maths because see spent 3 years pain stakingly explaining it to 25 dim kids. All can do funcitonal maths today.
God bless her

I need to go to sleep now. I’m not even going to pretend I understand that last post.

Would appear not in our school.
But never mind. Because when the family was here in early August for my wife's birthday. We gave them a copy of your schools revision guide and strategies for both core and non core subjects. They seemed very impressed with music and drama sections. Plus send home with a maths and science reversion book, we had managed to buy 2 off and Ds1 old iGCSE english reversion books, as they thought he maybe doing it.
All for free, because they are paying fees.
We have also swapped guides with friends who attend a state comp in Whitby.
We all try and get the best for each others kids.

Maisy is an English teacher. I’m sure most music teachers would be aware.