League Tables using Grade 5 as a "pass" for GCSE?

Yes, well often you need to meet a general entry requirement, plus subject specific requirements.

Some 6th Forms only offer A Levels. Asking for maths and English at a certain level sounds reasonable as both skills are needed in life and many subjects will use both skills even if not in an obvious manner. Asking for perhaps 5 or more subjects above a certain level also sounds reasonable as a general requirement, because for A Level studies you want students who have achieved at a good level across the curriculum, not just in one or 2 subjects.

If colleges or schools also offer Btech or vocational courses their requirements might be different, but for L3 post GCSE courses, I'd still expect English and Maths to be a requirement, in the same way it is for most jobs. Some Btech courses might give you admittance if you had other higher grades are we're re-sitting maths or English. An A Level calibre student would usually have both English and Maths and has been said,usually with far in excess of a 4 or 5. I think they are both basic,nc ore skills which impact on other subjects and requiring them both is reasonable.

Not a 4 in that subject, no. But we were talking about English and maths. Students at my school can enter sixth form with those grades. Quite afew - but not all- A Levels will be closed off to them. My school gets very good A Level results.

Statistically, in some subjects like Maths, with less than an A at GCSE (old measures - easier specification) the majority of candidates got an E or U.

If you think that's worth going for, worth funding etc, then you think differently to me. What I'd say is that people need to be aware of the likely outcomes from different starting points.

In other subjects an A or 7 won't be needed, but a 6 often is. These students will usually get C-E grades and usually at the lower end. As mentioned,there are university courses for them. I really think that someone being allowed onto an A Level in a subject where they got a 4 at GCSE is extremely negligent. The reality is that their chances of passing the A Level are very low.

Can anyone give examples of subjects where the kids are admitted into A Level with a 4 in that subject? The only reason I can see that happening is colleges or schools desperate for funding and more interested in that than the students having a decent chance of success.

A Levels are as their name suggests advanced study. A Level 4 has not been called a 'good pass' and while is meets a certain standard is not the standard suitable for A Level study in that subject.

I can see there is a difficulty for students with all 4s and 5s about next steps. However, I think appropriate courses and steps after those courses are needed and A Levels and university degrees are often not the appropriate steps. Again, simply wanting to do it, doesn't make someone suitable. It also does have to mean they are 'written off' - but other good options need to be available. And if they aren't, that still doesn't mean A Levels and uni are the right options or where they are likely to be successful.

I would say to people in the position of a child with 4s and 5s wanting to do A Levels, ask the teachers at the school/college to give you the results of students with similar GCSEs over the last few years. That can be eye opening. And if the requirements strike you as high and excluding your child, ask why, and they will explain the outcomes for those with lower grades. It might not be hat you want to hear, but it's worth hearing the reality. In our day, someone with 4xC at GCSE was pretty normal for A Levels and whilst probably not leading to stellar A Levels and Universities got some a series of Us and others 3 lowish grades which then got them to a lower level uni. With grade inflation etc, more is needed these days to access the A levels and do well. League tables mean schools don't want lots of Us, but they do want the funding students bring and there is always a tension there.

I mean A* - C. In my experience students doing English Lit A level with a B or below struggle to access the higher grades. A levels aren’t for everyone and I think we try to push too many students through them.

Musmerian Sat 26-Jan-19 18:24:35
I would disagree. To get a decent grade at A level you need a 7. Otherwise you’d struggle.

Not necessarily. Infact some students start subjects at A Level for the first time without learning them prior to the September.

The entry for the sixth forms locally, including two high achieving independents as well as some high achieving state schools simply say 5 GCSEs are a grade 4 (or 5 in a couple) and above. Some ask for a 5 in maths (such as computing) and some ask for a 5 in english (eg drama, sociology, psychology). For science and maths there is usually a requirement of a 6 at the higher attaining local schools. The colleges locally have lower entry requirements but they focus on qualifications other than A level.

Children mature at different levels and learning capabilities are not always linear. For some the different type of learning involved in A levels can just click into place better, especially when they aren't having their time stretched to other subjects they may have no interest in but still need to study and revise for.

Someone can mess up GCSEs and do well at A levels, and vice versa. Other factors come into play.

Besides - not all courses and future study/employment needs the child to get a A/B at A Level. There are many courses out there for students who have lower A level grades which are still a pass.

Depends rather on what you mean by 'decent'.

The new GCSEs are significantly harder/ there’s no coursework and tougher concepts and a lot more content. Just making things harder doesn’t raise standards and the fallout for teachers and students is huge.

I would disagree. To get a decent grade at A level you need a 7. Otherwise you’d struggle.

btw, my DS has Cs/ 5s in most of his subjects (with a couple higher and one lower) and is in sixth form , and applying to university. He has 5/5 offers for uni places.

Soem of those Cs would be 4s in new money. Admittedly, his English is a 5 , and his maths a 6.

Please don't write students like him off!

You must live in an area where there are plentiful post 16 options! In my area, it is sixth form to staudy A Levels; a limited smattering of BTec options or a small scattering of apprenticeships in very specific fields.

Students with 4s or 5s and above in subjects are more than capable of passing of most A Levels.

wombat there are some sixth forms who won't let students in without 6+s in everything, regardless of subject choice.

The reason the colleges want a 5 or usually a 6 in Englsih and Maths and certainly the subjects to be studied at A Level, is because they know from experience that those with a 4 are not successful at A Level. They want successful candidates for their League Tables, but also, is it fair to take students onto courses they cannot succeed in? Wanting to take a course (and many want to do A Levels because their mates are or because they don't really know about alternatives) is not a good enough reason for people to be funded onto their courses.

But the requirement of a 6 is for a specific A level subject. A 4 simply wouldn't be adequate for A Level study of that subject and a university wouldn't be admitting someone who had a GCSE L4 in the subject they wish to study at degree level.

The school isn't setting a higher standard than the university - the university is asking for a basic level of rounded education (very basic with just a 4 in Maths and English required) as a GENERAL entry requirement, but will then have specific course requirements related to A a levels or Btechs or whatever have been taken.

I think the point about those with 4s and 5s in this case, is simply that they aren't going to be going onto university. I wouldn't have thought that was a surprise really. Degree level study isn't something which is meant to be available for everyone and the grade requirements reflect this. Someone who has a 4 at GCSE in a specific subject does not go onto get a high level at A Level if they take it and is most statistically likely to get a U or not complete the course - which is why there is an entry requirement. It isn't the universities job to make degree courses available for all regardless of their ability or qualification level.

Maths is an extreme example, but most places will require a 7 or even an 8 for A Level study. Why? Because evidence suggests that those taking it with less are likely to get an E or below. Would it be right for schools or colleges to accept students into courses who have almost no chance of success? Already, some take students who have little chance of success in that A Alevel with perhaps a 5, because they want bums on seats and the funding. But do the students and their parents know the statistical likelihood of different outcomes from tht starting point?

So a 4 in Eng and Maths might be set as a basic minimum requirement for the sign of overall pre-16 education to a bare minimum (and both basic maths and English are needed by most jobs and courses) but no one is saying that then gets you onto particular courses. If by chance someone only had Maths and English at L4 and nothing else, they couldn't be admitted to either Maths or English A Level nor any other A Level. There might be other courses they could be admitted to. And someone with perhaps 5 L4s at GCSE including Maths and English and no grades above this L4 wouldn't be suitable for A Alevel because although they have 5 passes, they wouldn't be if a sufficient standard in any individual subject. Again there will be other courses.

The problem often lies in people thinking a pass at GCSE (call it a 4 or 5) means they are suitable for A Level in that subject. They may well be qualified for some kind of L3 study, but A Levels need more than a 4 and really more than a 5 too. The idea that anyone with a clutch of 4s is then ready for A Levels and University is the next logical and appropriate step are simply not quite aware of the reality. But this is what many people seem to think, especially parents. And many are so sure that A Levels must be the next step and then Uni must be the next step, for children whose academic profile just isn't suited to that.

This doesn't mean the education system has failed. Success isn't that everyone goes to university and does a degree. However, if appropriate options or accurate information about what is available and requirements, then it has failed.

... and that is exactly what I mean! Why on earth should a school be setting higher entry standards than a university!? What are students with 4s and (in this case) 5s meant to do??

My DD did the new style GCSEs last year and most of her college courses for A level wanted a minimum of a 6 (B) for English and maths.
So Ignore the 4. Aim for at least 5!

wombat, I mean there are no rules so every sixth form set its own standard,arbitrarily.

I think if one had a 4 in maths, but wanted to study, for the sake of argument, Fine Art at university,a 4 would be fine. In fact, if one wanted to study English , I can't see why it would matter whether you had a 4 or 5 in maths!

When revising with level 4/5 children last year they were completely demotivated when opening the sample papers and they couldn't answer many questions. The sheer difficulty of the papers caused the shutters to come down and say they couldn't do it. Low grade boundaries don't help them at the time.

To a large extent this was the stated goal of Gove's policy. He wanted state schools to teach the way independent schools do. He felt the fact that many good state schools had closed the achievement gap with very exclusive schools by focusing on skills teaching represented a lowering of standards. The exams have moved towards much more recall of facts and less skills testing (varying a lot by subject) to achieve this.

Piggy, with reference to Colleges being the 'wild west' in terms of requirements, are you saying you think all should set a requirement of a 4 for all post-GCSE courses, or that different requirements should be set for different courses? Do you think all places should have to have the same requirements too?

And the thing about a 4 is maths and English for Unis - I guess they are saying this standard is the bare minimum acceptable for university study, recognising most going to Uni have far in excess of that - but do you actually think that those with only a 4 in those subjects are suitable for Uni - do you think it's an acceptable standard for higher education, which is obviously beyond the level of further education? Does the fact that that's what Unis are listing as their minimum requirement make it the right level?

I suppose a lot of this will be ironed out over time but it's hard for those kids caught up in the first few years.

Such a mess. Confusing.

I agree that low grade boundaries don't really help anyone.

In my school we had far more 9s than expected. The students found the exams really hard and the timing difficult and the amount of content difficult. They were demoralised when preparing, but they got 9s due to low boundaries, not because they answered all the Qs to a high standard - you can see it in their scripts.

So now the Yr 11s do mocks using the papers from last year and we mark using mark schemes and use the boundaries given. Their mock grades (levels) are higher than last year's because we used higher boundaries last year, not knowing they would be so low. On one hand, they are encouraged by their decent mock results and some are a little complacent thinking quality answers/high scoring answers aren't required for top levels. We do warn them that the boundaries will rise this year as teachers become more familiar with the exam, so they know they still have to aim for the very best answers.

As a teacher it is galling to think that the content and marks schemes are not set at the right level and the 'right' amount of each grade will be issued just by adjusting the boundaries, because the top levels within each question simply can't be consistently achieved by bright candidates because there was too much content or the markscheme a require too much. How then do you teach it? Do you just aim for less than the top levels within the markscheme, knowing that they won't be needed to get the L8/9 or do you still keep pushing towards those even when they are v v difficult to achieve in the time and that is demoralising. And the whole argument works down through the Levels - so for someone hoping for a L4 do you just cover a tiny part of the content or all of it at a low level, knowing the boundaries will get a L4 for not much, whilst trying to explain to the students that they will have to see a paper with lots of stuff on it that they can't do?

It's not right that students should have to see and sit exams with stuff which isn't achieveablenin the time or covers an amount of content which isn't covetable, even if they know theoretically that they can still get the grade they are aiming for. Asking them to look at the paper and make judgements about if to leave bits out/what standard will 'do' for the question they are answering, is adding another hoop to jump through and one which only has its standard set after everyone has sat the exam anyway.

chocolate 4s in maths and English is all that is required for any university in the UK . Obviously, in practice, the majority will have more. Don't get me started on sixth form entry requirements : that's the Wild West!

Some very good points chocolate

The new exams are geared to have harder questions and lower scores for passes, but research shows that this is demotivational and gets poorer outcomes.

This is also very true. When revising with level 4/5 children last year they were completely demotivated when opening the sample papers and they couldn't answer many questions. The sheer difficulty of the papers caused the shutters to come down and say they couldn't do it. Low grade boundaries don't help them at the time.

That's true but using a 5 does show which schools are getting more to that higher level and which aren't. It might not be the right standard to measure schools against and it might not raise standards in itself, but it does provide factual information for parents. Looking at both the L4 and L5 and looking at those levels against prior attainment shows something about how successfully schools are moving students with those prior attainment levels on. It's still a blunt measure as these things always will be, but part of the purpose is information provision and there is increasingly more info provision.

For most people, rankings etc don't mean much because in reality they don't have much if any choice. Many will be able to choose between 1 or 2 secondaries. Bin my view, the more information available, the better, although I know people don't always access it or struggle to understand it.

I agree that if colleges etc are accepting 4s for the next level of study (surely not for A Levels though??) then that is a key measure....and to be fair, it is included in all the government tables. And okay 'fail' for half the population might not be helpful, but isn't any different to it was for the last 25 years with GCSEs when for practical purposes a D was a called a fail, even though all grades of G and above were officially passes.

Isn't it okay to say a 'standard pass' is good enough for progress to certain next levels of study and a 'good pass' is needed for others. Of course lots of places specify requirements above a 5 for some courses, which also must be okay surely? It can't be that anyone can progress to any course just because they choose. They do have to be suitable and have a decent chance of success at it or it's a waste of everyone's time and money. And those levels set for progress to the next level will also be a bit if a blunt instrument, but something is needed, so it seems reasonable to say a 4 or certain number of 4s gets you onto X courses, 5s are needed for y courses and 7s or above needed for Z courses. There also need to be courses for those with below 4s and they will have requirements too.

And I agree that simply saying a higher standard is now required doesn't magically make it happen. I can see that setting the standard first and then trying to make it happen is used because without the measure there might not be a strong enough incentive to really push towards that higher level, because the lower level will still be acceptable. Of course, before and as you set the higher standard, more resources are needed to achieve it....land isn't this where it's all wrong, becaue those resources simply are dwindling not increasing, so it is an impossible ask. Although it might not help the students achieving lower grades and their discouraged teachers, perhaps these consequences of underfunding in terms of performance need to be highlighted in tables etc - not to berate the schools, but so people see the failures of government to resource the education and standards they are requiring?

I agree with donq that they can say whatever grade they want to raise standards.
It doesn't mean it's actually going to happen in reality. They need to improve the standard of teaching for that to happen, not just arbitrarily picking any old grade number in the hope it will magically raise standards.