GCSE: is it true they're graded so that ca 1/3 must fail? How are boundaries decided?

I know it was designed to stop that, I was just pointing out the November GCSE series isn’t only for those resitting.

Technically yes, but the age restriction was designed to make it for resitters because a lot of schools were entering Y11 early in November rather than waiting till June and they wanted to stop that.

The November GCSE series is available for candidates who are at least 16 on the previous 31st August. It isn’t resits only. Someone 16+ could take it for the first time in the November series.

Yeah that’s what I meant, there are two gcse maths sittings
November - resits only
June - Y11 and resits

Different question papers for November to the ones for June. Same difficulty though.

@noblegiraffe didn’t say the November paper and the summer paper have the same questions. They don’t. She said Y11 students can’t sit GCSEs in the November series. That is correct. She also said in the summer series resits students sit the same paper as the 16 year olds. There isn’t a separate paper for resit candidates.

For English, there isn’t a foundation and higher paper for English. If they had 2 tiers, it would help, IMO.

No that's not what @noblegiraffe meant!
She meant same difficulty!

No, it’s a new exam paper, not the exact same one people sat earlier in the year. It’s equivalent, but not literally the same exact set of questions - I think that’s what noblegiraffe meant?
And of course there wouldn’t be a 100% pass rate - they didn’t do that well last time they took it, it’s really hard to do better this time unless they’re really dedicating themselves to it. I would guess this resit lets those who are basically much more capable but who screwed up in the June tests recover the grade. It would be a lot harder for those who really struggle with maths.

Is it?

There should be a 100% pass rate then because you know all the questions and have model answers.

I don't think you are right on this. I know I'm ancient but I actually did one O Level (English Lang) early and that was a November sitting.

The kids who sit it at 17 and 18 have an extra sitting just for them in November, and sit the same paper as the 16 year olds in June. That’s already well established.

One obvious improvement would be for the 3s, currently stuck in and endless retake loop, to be allowed to move to functional skills (which may be seen as more relevant and thus get better engagement) after eg 1 resit of standard GCSE.

Or to move to a criterion-referenced qualification that says what a student CAN do (and thus has no overall ‘pass/fail’, just ‘can do arithmetic, can’t do algebra’that can be considered by future employers .

Anyone retaking who is on any kind of 16 - 18 pathway (vocational courses, apprenticeships etc) must be enrolled in retake English and / or Maths alongside their other courses. Those getting 2 or below can be enrolled on Functional Skills GCSE; those with 3s must continue to study for and retake the standard GCSE.

There will be lessons in each student’s timetables for English / Maths, though colleges do find engagement harder in these lessons than in the student’s main course in plumbing / carpentry / fitness / catering or whatever.

There are a large number of colleges that allow maths and english resits alongside their level 3 studies (or level 2 if thats more appropriate). Its a condition of funding for those courses.

They shouldnt be just abandoned. They should be getting lessons. I dont thinknadmin costs come into it. The students are resitting in great numbers because they have to. Its just only something like 17% of resitters nationally get that 4 or above.

They oecd report suggests that a different maths qualification should be developed to replace resits as they clearly arent that successful. That said a college local to me gets 40% through thier resits.

They also get a chance to sit functional skills instead if certain conditions apply. Level 2 is equivalent to a 4.

What, exactly, happens to those who fail to get a 4 in English and Maths? I understand they must retake the exams, but are there dedicated courses / colleges for them? Or are they basically abandoned and asked to study alone at home?

If you don't get the 4 in y11 then when you go to college you do resits alongside your main college course. There is around 3rs of lessons weekly for maths and the same for English as needed.

However pass rates for resits are low, for various reasons:
. you didn't pass last time with all the help from school, so less likely to pass anyway
. more focus on the main college course
. disenchantment / feeling a failure / lack of confidence
. may change exam board, which can impact for Eng Lang as question styles are different
. teachers won't chase for extra / home work, it is up to the student

I think it is sad that a lot of kids are just set up to fail, not every child is ready to sit GCSE at 16, some would get better grades if they simply didn't take the exams at 16, just waiting a year or two longer would mean they would get higher grades. My nephew is severely autistic & has taken maths & English twice now & not got a grade 4, but is being forced to take them again next summer. Our education system is too rigid, forcing square pegs into round holes, some kids would benefit with longer in primary school & starting secondary school maybe a year or two later instead of being forced to take exams at 16 & failing them, if kids are supposed to be in education or training up to 18, let them use the extra two years to have some flexibility & learn at their own place.

I have a friend who is a maths teacher in Vancouver, his students sit provincial exams, or at least they did, they have something different now but a similar idea.

i wrote provincial exams in quebec one for each hs subject in 73-74.
my trio wrote provincial exams in bc years 2000-2001-2003 again in grade 12 one for each high school subject
nephews in alberta.
so old old history, looks like bc changed the exams in 2016.
can't imagine why to me it seemed like a good system.

Maybe we are from different provinces because no one I know wrote a provincial exam including myself or anyone I grew up with or knew.

@Hiptothisjive there were, when my trio attended when i attended and when nephews attended (various provinces) there were provincial exams. sat by everyone with everyone achieving a grade. at the time broadly set by the canadian governenment with some provincial leeway. things have changed as pointed out.

Agreed. Not sure what the poster is trying to say here.

We aren’t worse than similar countries. Our PISA scores are good, are education system is rigorous.
What I have learnt from this thread is to respect all effort and achievement and avoid any language around „failure“. It doesn’t help that the press continues to use words of KS2 standards not met/GCSE resit failure. I think the system we have works well overall just the language around the standards needs changing.

but merely to point out that having poor numeracy skills is likely to be an obstacle in life

This isn't a controversial statement. Of course it's an obstacle. Otoh there's no magic wand of understanding we can wave over people. Some people will always find things hard. GCSE grading is a reflection of that.

Agreed. What’s to disagree with? Yes, having poor numeracy skills is likely to be an obstacle in life, make life harder, potentially underpin some unwise choices. There’s not going to be a perfect correlation between those who get 1, 2, 3, 4 etc at gcse, and those who will encounter difficulties. But there’ll be some match. Yes it’s a problem.

to point out that having poor numeracy skills is likely to be an obstacle in life,

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this really.