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

What frustrates me the most (20+ years secondary teaching) is when the govt says they want to increase pass rates. But then set that rates of 4+ are norm referenced. Before this, rates did steadily increase but then there were annual complaints about grade inflation.

To think that 30 to 40% of our country's kids fail that is shocking.

Not really. These days all children sit GCSEs when they are 15/16. There is bound to be a difference in achievement.

No allowance is made for whether you only arrived in the country last year or that you have been in hospital for a month or 100 other reasons you might underperform.

IMHO some children should not be put in for GCSEs or should sit a smaller number of subjects with more teaching.

But I don't make the policy.

@ParentOfOne - I am not being nasty or aggressive. I am just pointing out that you are a hypocrite. Ranting on one thread about church schools and tangentially about grammar schools, and on another thread, admitting that you are putting your own DC forward for the Wandsworth Test which is an 11 plus test.
People on MN tend to panic about the education system when they are going through the 11 plus, KS2 SATS, GCSEs, A level and clearing. But quite often it is people who have high achieving kids who are going to be fine one way or another. So the whole thing comes across as disingenuous.

This thread has explained clearly that a 3 is not a “fail” and the history surrounding O levels. Leave it at that.

And in real life I have plenty of friends who are extremely high achieving academically including in Maths, who have failed to do proper and savvy financial long term planning. So I am not convinced top grades go hand in hand with being financially savvy or investment savvy whatsoever.

I supposed I would have hoped that, since kids mature and develop at different paces, maybe it's less surprising for some kids to do less well when they are 10-11 than when they are 15-16

Some kids do better than expected at GCSE based on their KS2 SATS but others don’t follow their expected trajectory because adolescence and life stuff.

20% would get you a mid grade 1 currently. So not that far off what you are expecting.

Agree that maths GCSE is not fit for purpose at the lower end, but suggesting that anything below a grade 4 is a fail is ignoring how the GCSE actually works. It's not a fail, it's a level 1 pass. It replaces CSE maths. Grade 4 and above replaces O-level maths.

If you want those who get below a grade 4 to sit a different exam instead, then we're back to O-levels and CSEs.

Your O levels were 3hrs? Mine weren't. Anyway O levels were aimed at the top 20% or so. GCSEs are meant to be suitable for all.

My degree maths papers were 3hrs each. (4 papers over 2 consecutive days.)

@noblegiraffe ,

I have not looked at where the grade boundaries come in in Maths recently. But under 20% say should probably be a U.

The reality is that we should have a Maths competency certificate where people are taught life skills, and those neither good or interested in mathematics take that. There is no point in teaching or examining trigonometry or algebraic equations to those struggling with basic arithmetic and logic.

It is cruel to the pupils. I have taught physics to students who just try to learn the words. Neither of us get anything out of the experience!

The issue with saying someine is bad at maths, and I agree it probably isn't someone's strong point, is we need exams to demonstrate what people can do. They are used as a gateway to next steps and employment.

Pupils who are not at a level of a 4, can generally still do some useful maths and they need to demonstrate this.

I have one son who has SEN and he sat Level 1 functional skills. Its still employment worthy maths. He can add, follow a recipe and adjust it etc.

@Newbutoldfather so your preference would be that anything below a 4 simply got awarded a U?

@TeenToTwenties ,

I am afraid it really does!

Exams have reduced in length dramatically over the years. My O levels were 3 hours. Also, special needs now get access arrangements, so someone lacking stamina would get rest breaks.

If you get a 3, you are bad at Maths (or English). I could say that you have attained badly but might have great potential, but I would be lying! That might explain a 5 or a 6, but a 3, no.

(Of course, there are rare exceptions to what I have written, but they really are vanishingly rare)

Not everyone can be good at every everything and obfuscation doesn’t change this. Sometimes it is better to admit that something isn’t for you and find something that is.

@ParentOfOne Ofqual have a statutory role (lots of info on their website)

Following concerns that grade rises in the UK from 1980s to 2000s was a result of inflation rather than improvement in standards, some analysis was done which showed that literacy rates hadn’t improved in line with increased grades.

The conservative government’s education reforms from 2010 onwards introduced a more rigorous role for Ofqual in ensuring that the benchmarks and expectations for UK secondary education were in line with the best overseas education systems, and that there was consistency of standards year on year. There are tests given to Y11 students independently of GSCEs to check whether standards are improving or not and which help set grade boundaries to ensure consistency between cohorts in different year groups.

It is not the case that a quarter must fail, or any particular criterion like that. If you look at any comprehensive cohort, the progress 8 score demonstrates that it’s certainly not the case that a particular proportion will fail - it’s down to the teaching as well as the ability and motivation of the child.

@Newbutoldfather If someone gets a 3 it doesn't mean they are 'really bad' at maths or English.
It can just mean for example they don't have the stamina for the exams or confidence to have a go or linguistics to interpret.

I think people will always know where a pass and fail is, however you dress it up.

If someone gets a 3 or under in maths, they are really bad at maths! And if you change the nomenclature or grading system, people will still know what is good and what is bad.

Some competition and stress is a healthy thing and there do have to be winners and losers. In the animal kingdom the consequences of failing at running or fighting can be death or banishments. I think we can live with a low grade on a certificate.

The main positive change in education in the last 50 years is the recognition of process over outcome and the praise for effort and improvement.

But we will never (and nor should we) not recognise success of outcome and that comes with the corollary of failure.

Before GCSEs we had O-levels and CSEs. O-levels represent the 'level 2 pass' grades, and CSEs the 'level 1 pass' grades.

No one, in the olden days, said that passing a CSE was 'failing an O-level'.

Which is why it is entirely correct to say that a level 1 pass is a pass. It's not a 'level 2 fail'.

The point of a level 1 pass, is in some circumstances it can let you progress to a level 2 course.

So with maths and English you are going to continue your studies anyway as we decided everyone needs a level 2 pass to function in society (although thsts clearly not true, plenty of people work having failed to achieve level 2)

But a lot of level 2 courses at sixth form colleges will set and entry requirement of 4 level 1 qualifications.

Yes a 1 is a very low grade, and obviously means a lot of the content is misunderstood as would the skills needed to write the essays or show working for a question etc. Many people if they score below a 4 for, for Maths and English will resit the exam. Obviously even for some part-time jobs etc they still want a number of grades at 4 or 5, so it can be a barrier to that, but can allow for them to get onto a Level 2 college course.

It is sort of built into every exam system, that some people won't have the knowledge or skill to meet x grade. A grade 4 has certain requirements across the board, and it makes sense that not everyone each year will meet that barrier. The levels you could say are too high as this year the amount that passed both Maths and English dropped a little more but it's around 67% I think, so you could say that having around 30% of people is too many but again as someone else mentioned it aligns with KS2 results.

Your language is incorrect.

Grades 1-3 are a level 1 pass. This is not a fail!
Grades 4-9 are a level 2 pass.
Alevels (some Btecs, T- levels etc) are level 3
HNC - level 4
HNC - level 5
Honours degree - level 6
Masters degree - level 7
PhD - level 8

Not all students at 16 reach the standard for a level 2 qualification. There are then options to support them gain level 2s via different routes, BTECs, resits, apprentiships, which can suit some more than sitting in a classroom. It is not uncommon for them to go on and gain higher level qualifications after that.

Please stop saying a level 1 qualification is a fail.

Only 62% passed all elements of KS2 SATs. So hardly a surprise that of the remaining 38% plenty won’t pass both Maths and English language GCSEs.
Not sure why the GCSE statistics would come as a surprise? Do you have a problem with the KS2 statistics too and how it is done there?

On the other thread you said your DC is academic and higher attaining. Should your DC achieve Greater Depth at KS2 across all subjects, the secondary they end up at - their own trajectory will be fine! Perhaps focus on the link between KS2 and GCSE and stop panicking about the entire education and political system.

Schools aren't fit for purpose. We are putting children into exams we know a percentage will fail.
However, that %is decided isn't really relevant..every year a % fail. I can't see a situation where they all pass because IF that happened the bar would be raised.
It's a system to scare some of the population to revise that bit harder so they aren't one of the failures.
It's a system that if every one got As and decided to be accountants then society won't work we need people to do every type of job. What we should be doing in valuing the variety of skill and aptitudes. Understand that all people are important and not dismiss some work as less than others. But currently we do. Who heard in school if you don't work hard your have to work in a shop or pick up rubbish? And yet where would society be without people doing this work?

But most importantly if the powers of be actually wanted to get the best skills and knowledge and development out of young people they would make sure education worked for all. They wouldn't be forcing those of whom exams don't work to sit exams they know they will fail. They would teach them in a way that they can learn.

We have so many children with SEN not even having a appropriate environment. So many unable to even attend school. And these won't even show up on the data as they aren't doing exams.
Capable of learning if only they had the chance

A star grade*

Previious post bolded it instead of adding the star

I don’t know the answer to this and I taught for years!

I know it isn’t keeping the percentages at each grade the same. Many many years ago (when I sat my O levels!) this was the case. But then they lifted this requirement in order to take ‘progress in teaching’ into account and the great grade inflation started.

The most egregious example of this is uni grades where a 2/1 means nothing these days but fully 20% of grades used to be thirds in the 1980s.

The other thing to remember is that examination boards are competitive profit making organisations and compete with one another to get students to sit the paper. One example I know of is that when the new A A level grade was introduced, boards were told to make it ‘rare’. In Physics, most boards kept this at 5-6%. AQA shamelessly went for a full 12% being awarded A, and consequently many schools shifted to AQA. I think the boards have gradually equalised this now.

So, it is an amorphous process which the boards will claim is in some way objective, but I doubt really is. They need to maintain credibility with the unis at the same time as pushing themselves as best for the pupils.

And now they are under pressure from the government to keep GCSEs more rigorous and not award too many top grades.