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

'Some of those on a low 4 wouldn't have got a C in old GCSE.'

The new GCSE English Language is far more challenging than the old GCSE.

That's what we use at our school because we also do Functional skills, level 1/2 BTECs and Entry level English, Maths and Science. So Entry Level (below GCSE), Level 1 (GCSE 1-3) and Level 2 (GCSE 4-9). It works really well with our kids. Very clear, very motivating, easy to discuss in terms of progression.

We have found some adults (including education people) really resistant to that though. Apparently having numbered grades and Level 1/2 is just too complex

I think Level 1 pass for grades 1-3 and Level 2 pass for grades 4-9 is fine, and it makes the progression to college courses clearer.

I hate this terminology. A grade 1 is a pass! A grade 4 is now a "good pass". A grade 5 a "strong pass". We should reserve the word "pass" for achieving a grade, and thereafter just refer to the grades themselves. I get furious for kids who work their socks off for a grade 3, only to be told it's a fail.

OP - well done on fighting around the Ebacc rubbish. It is so much more important to focus on the interests and abilities of the child. We refuse to consider schools where Ebacc is compulsory, likewise GCSE RS. The grading switch is causing headaches for us in terms of a bar for sixth form entry which has moved a lot and is less favourable to our son.

To be honest, the standard to get one is low. Some of those on a low 4 wouldn't have got a C in old GCSE.

Nope. It's linked to the standard of the old C now. Half of all kids will get less than a 4, so I'm not sure 'low' is an accurate description- 'average' seems more helpful to me.

While I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, does all this have a nasty whiff of Gove about it?

Not a whiff or a conspiracy theory, this was the last step of his grand plan. He's probably had more effect on education than any secretary of state in 40-50 years, despite his limited time in the role.

As far as I am concerned , 4 and 5 were always 'C' grades ( we really do need to stop talking in old money). The disdain which the governemnt were prepared to treat the 4 grade was appalling : I had a class full of students on the 3 -4 boundary at the time, for whom a 4 was life changing. I was glad when they announced a 4 was all that was needed. However, many employers and sixth form colleges have not stepped into line (but universities have!). It is so disingenuous for the government to continue to measure schools against grade 5s and is part of their ' pushing up standards ' agenda, which continues to make students think a 4 is not enough, as (some) schools now bully them to within an inch of their lives to get (generally unneeded) 5s. However much the measure is not as important as Progress 8, the GCSE measure is much better understood by parents selecting schools : my school has a decent % of grade 5+ at GCSE , for example (second highest in the authority) , but has the second lowest P8.

It is also not true in the two subjects I teach that a 4 is easy to achieve. In English, students who would once have perhaps scraped Cs are routinely coming out with 3s and even 2s.

Wombat, in my subject ( science) I totally disagree with you. The increased volume of content, degree of difficulty and the longer papers mean that anyone getting a 4 now would easily have been at least a C under the old regime, never mind going back a couple of years more where the kids sat the exams in about six tiny bits, all resittable.

Noble, thanks & thanks for the original thread, which I nearly remembered correctly.

Not quite, Frendo, it was announced on the evening of 28th March 2017, the day before the Article 50 notification. I had an annoyed thread about it www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/2889484-Y11-PARENTS-GCSE-pass-grade-lowered-to-a-4

IIRC, the gubmint initially stated that a 5 would be the new pass grade. Then they changed it to 4 being considered a pass for a transition period after which you needed to get a 5 for a pass.

Then, they decreed that a 4 should always be considered a pass.

Few remember this last change, as would you believe, it was announced on the day of the Brexit poll result.

Job done, news hidden.

As far as I am aware employers, colleges and universities can use what grades they see fit as a minimum requirements.

Some of those on a low 4 wouldn't have got a C in old GCSE.

Are you sure? I know that at any borderline in any exam, on a different paper on a different day, a proportion of those above that borderline would have fallen below it, and vice versa.

However i thought that the proportion getting 4 and above was pegged (at least for the first year after conversion) to the proportion getting C or above, so those getting 4s are not getting 'lower than a C', they are getting 'equivalent to a low C', though of course the exact individuals above / below the borderline will be slightly different due to the edge effect mentioned above.

The 5 is a stick to flog schools with. It was claimed by the governemnt that this was to stop schools coasting and make them aspirational. As you can imagine, it's not the easiest message to sell to kids that , yes, 4 is perfectly good enough but we really really want you to get a5. Because league tables.

The new number system was introduced partly to deal with grade inflation (huge numbers getting A and A* and no way to differentiate between those that were really good and jus reasonable) and also as part of the raising standards across the school curriculum.

If you remember, SATs at KS2 have also changed and the curriculum made harder.

So a 5 which was a high C was what was considered to now be a pass - as part of raising standards, what would have been a scraped C now wouldn't be good enough for the new, slightly higher expected standard. That's what it was all about and not about establishing a new system with exact parity to the old one and not with a 'pass' being at the same level as the old system but slightly higher.

Why has a 4 been accepted by many colleges and used in some league tables - because although the government wanted to raise standards and the specifications became harder, not enough kids achieve the 5, as can be seen in those results tables. Standards have not been raised enough and to give all those who are not a 5 standard a 5 would generate grade inflation through the system.

So most schools report on both 4 as a pass and 5 and you can then see the difference. What you then see is that some schools have an awful lot getting 4s, rather than many getting higher grades - and people should be able to see that.

What about a 4? To be honest, the standard to get one is low. Some of those on a low 4 wouldn't have got a C in old GCSE. Colleges might take it because they want bums on seats for income reasons and it might be suitable for some lower level courses but couldn't be considered acceptable for A Level or equivalent. And as for Universities, they are running academic courses (even of varying difficulty/standard) so a 4 really isn't a useful grade for that level study.

What does a 4 show? It shows a certain level of competence, but not quite that to be considered what you'd hope students to achieve - so it isn't in those league tables. And yes, that does make lots of schools look likes poor performers, but if they aren't getting higher proportions to 5 and above, they are poorer performers, isn't it simply a fact. There might be all kinds of reasons why that is, in terms of catchment and starting point etc and value added measures like Progress 8 should show that, but in terms of raw attainment, some schools deliver less than others and yes, lots don't deliver well in absolute terms. Making the tables reflect 4+ won't change that but just hide some of the issues and how will that help anyone?

I appreciate not everyone can get a 5 (or a 4) but the tables aren't to make schools or local areas all feel good about themselves but to reflect actual attainment and give accurate information. Look on school websites to see the nos getting 4+ if you want to know about that measure. It's useful for anyone compared to the 5+ one.

A 5 isn't a B anywhere I've seen, a 6 is a B.

If you look on all the tables sent out via Ofqual last year a 6 is a solid B. A 5 is between a C and a B - so high C/low B.

It's crap making RE compulsory, because it doesn't count as an humanity for EBacc. Why don't they make history compulsory am smarting about this currently as we've just found out it's compulsory at DD's school too, and we and she are hacked off!

5 is a strong pass, 4 is a "standard" pass. I think 4 was introduced purely to avoid a 20-30% drop in the 'pass' rates...
A 5 isn't a B anywhere I've seen, a 6 is a B.

This was what ds’s school gave us last year. I found it helpful to get a understanding of old vs new.

I still don't trust them not to make a 5 the pass in a few years when the new curriculum has bedded in a bit.

RE is compulsory at her school
I think it is compulsory at a lot of schools because they have to teach it anyway so they feel they might as well get a qualification in it. It probably doesn't take up space for another subject as they would be doing those lessons anyway (mind you, I don't know why it doesn't count as a humanity).

Schools are judged on a 5. Kids were supposed to be getting 5s and a forced resit in maths/English if they didn’t but the government bottled it 5 weeks before the first cohort sat the new GCSEs and said 4 would be good enough not to resit now and forever. So there’s now a mismatch as they still want schools to aim for a 5.

It should be a 4 as that it what was agreed to be a 'pass' before the results were released. It's what schools, colleges and universities are using too. It's daft for the league tables to not be consistent with that.

The main issue is there are more grades than there use to be so few anchor points.

The guides sent out last year and the year before all said:

4 - grade c
7 - grade a

The rest slot in around them.

So most took that as a:

4 - low to mid c
5 - high c / low b
6 - b
7 - a
8 - a*
9 - the top few percent (approx 2-4%) in that subject

Basically the whole thing is a fudge.

When they wanted the grades to match international standards they set the pass as a 5. They knew many would not meet this standard so they said a 4 would count for a while then it would be a 5 but people objected saying that if a 4 was a pass it should stay a pass or it wouldn't be fair on the first students.

The compromise was that a 4 was a pass for students but the schools were expected to aim for 5 as a pass for their league tables. How the grades will be viewed in future by universities and employers remains to be seen.