Why is there such a big difference between English GCSE results and all other subjects

It's anecdotal, and I can see other people have suggested similar. DD is year 11 now and very strong academically. Her written English took a massive dip over Covid - from reports saying achievement was extremely high in Year 4 (or was Covid Year 5?), to actually failing a Year 7 entrance exam because English was so bad by middle of Year 6. Reading and oral English were not impacted, it was purely the ability to communicate in writing that nosedived. I don't think it's coincidental that it's the one subject that we just didn't know where to start on teaching it ourselves. She does have ADHD, which probably made it harder.

We've got her there now, and she's predicted 9s for GCSE but this is because we brought in a tutor to specifically focus on how to express thoughts in writing as soon as we realized (so towards the end of year 6) and it took until the end of year 9 for her to be getting reports saying she was predicted above a 6. If she hadn't sat that specific entrance exam where they actually required her to put pen to paper and write something, we wouldn't have realized it was as bad as it was, because we simply didn't know what level to expect. She passed other entrance exams easily because they were CAT4 style so required high level of understanding of English but didn't actually require writing.

The secondary school she goes to isn't very academic but the 7 Head of English insisted that there was no need to tutor and her profile was normal and not reflective of an issue, and her actual English teacher just told us that she needed to 'read more' (she had maxed out on reading age tests at the time - reading ability was not the issue) and we had a literal Ed Psych report to show what her actual profile was.

That might not be what's happening here, but this is a cohort who would have had Covid impact them during year 6 and year 7. If it's a cohort with strong reading ability, and a not great English department, it's completely possible that they realized too late that there was a real need to focus on written English. Often highly academic schools just don't know what to do with kids who won't get at least a 6 without any effort. Younger kids, who had the Covid impact right at the beginning of primary school, and who come from socioeconomic groups where there is a highly supportive and academically focused home environment, won't have been impacted in the same way. We wouldn't have had an issue if what was needed was phonics, Jack and Jill books, spelling and letter formation.

Or it could just be second language English speakers, but I think that it's likely to be more than that. I'd also suggest that the parent group may very single mindedly focused on STEM and see English as a backburner subject as long as the kid hits a 7, meaning they realized too late and didn't bring on the English tutor in the way they would have brought on tutors for science or maths in a second in the same situation.

@Ubertomusic “Sorry, my day off is over and I've wasted all
of it :(“
You did not waste it! You are passionate, it is important to keep caring, even if others disagree.

Totally off topic, but my 11 year old loved this over breakfast this morning. https://www.classicfm.com/composers/chopin/competition-contestant-cries-raindrop-prelude/
He is enjoying both Eastern European literature (we are trying to branch out of pure Russian) and the Chopin competition.

And to make it vaguely relevant, English as a subject is always infused with cultural capital. Not sure how you could possibly get away from that, even in English language. And Covid will have set countless kids from more deprived backgrounds right back on the experiences front. Teachers know this. There is so much context missing for so many children to pass.

It must depend on the teaching at that school. My DD got her highest grade in English, despite Maths being her favourite subject. The school results overall were way below the ones shown.

A 6 is fine though as even the most elite unis seem ok with that. It’s a 5 and below that is the problem as many selective Sixth Forms won’t allow you to stay with a 5 in English language. And sometimes a student gets a 6 and it looks wrong against predictions, but as it is the benchmark to stay on and costly to review, both the student and parents may be too risk averse to ask for a review of marking.

I know someone who got a 6 in English this year -was predicted a 9. Had one of her English papers remarked and she went up 30 points and was remarked as an 8! Had she had her other English paper remarked as well she may have got her 9. It's farcical though- to go up 30 marks on a remark- makes you not trust the marking system!

Yeah right, BBC Bitesize, the very basic of the basics https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z44thcw#z9ctp4j

No one has ever heard of them and they are totally esoteric! 😂

Sorry, my day off is over and I've wasted all
of it :(

Latin can't really be compared. Back in my '80s school days, it was only ever offered to the top set, and it is probably even more restrictive these days, and in most state schools, not available at all - whereas everyone has to do English and Maths. If they were as selective as Latin, they'd probably show a similar distribution.

"Some" and "mainly" and on the second question, not all of them, you could gain marks elsewhere.
Anyway, you think the paper is inaccessible, I think it's basic, let's agree to disagree.

So you cannot explain your terms "limited ability" or "lower ability". OK. Well, the human brain is generally wired to have almost unlimited ability to learn and absorb knowledge, including abstract concepts like letters, numbers and their infinite combinations. This is human nature.

If someone displays "limited ability" in your terms, there are usually one or more causes to it:

a) they have a cognitive dysfunction or developmental disorder meaning their brain functions in an unusual way. ASD, dyslexia, sensory-related conditions. Then we're talking about SEN.

b) they have a somatic illness or physiological dysfunction or affective medical condition not directly related to the brain and nervous system but affecting cognitive functioning. Prolonged illness or adhd that may be a) or b) or depression etc. Then we're talking about SEN and/or often medication.

c) they have a genetic disorder directly affecting cognition. Down's syndrome etc. Then we're talking about SEN.

d) they have never been taught properly and haven't developed foundational skills and as a result cannot develop more complex and advanced skills. Then we are talking about the failure of educational system.

This is a crude picture but just to give an idea.

So what exactly are you talking about when you say "limited ability"? SEN or educational failure? Or are you just saying "they're lower ability" as in "they're born stupid"?

No, I'm not a teacher, that's probably why I don't brand anyone as being "limited ability".

So I just checked the MS and to score half marks on the second question about use of language, one AO is “Makes some use of subject terminology, mainly appropriately” – so yes, a student does need to use the correct terms, or some of them.

The cause of the limited ability? I mean just a lower ability student, who is struggling to grasp the hidden meaning in a text. Are you a teacher?

You don't have to use the terms to score 50-60% on that paper. We're not talking about grade 9 and the highest standard of answers.

What exactly do you mean by "limited ability to understand nuance and decode possible meaning in a text"? What is the cause of this "limited ability"?

@Ubertomusic I have two DC with SEN but I wouldn't describe either of them as unhealthy tbh. It's an unusual word in the context is all I was saying.

You say I didn't explain how the past paper you posted (it's actually a sample of the new spec 2026 paper) is inaccessible to a 16yo without SEND. I tried to. A child who has limited ability to understand nuance and decode possible meaning in a text may find the questions, apart from the first, fact-based one, challenging. That was the point I was making.

You need to use terms like simile and metaphor, and other elements of expressive language, when answering the questions in the GCSE Eng lang. So my point was very relevant. I infer you didn’t know that; maybe the paper is not so easy after all if the things you need to know are not obvious.

I am able to see the question of grades and context in three ways. Firstly myself Autistic, Dyspraxic and Dyslexic who's mother was the deputy head of the 'non selective' Grammar school. My mother who put the fear of god into me about Kent Secondary Moderns some thirty eight years ago coached me to with an inch of my life for the 11+ ! To the amazement of the Primary school Head who suggested I was working around the level of a 7 year old I passed. Could i have passed a modern interpretation of the 11+ with the numbers of pupils taking it an limited Grammar spaces, I don't know.

Anyway, I managed to scrape a GCSE C in Math's B in both English Exams B's in History and Geography and somehow crept in to the sixth form due to sympathy from the Head of Sixth Form and no doubt my mum's position.

The choices for A levels being a very unusual combination of History, Geography and Politics which the school deemed not going to unduly affect their Oxbridge and Russell group girls statistics. I have been interested and absorbed by politics in since about being 7. This being my 'special' subject somehow I got a C in Geography, B in History and unbelievable an A in Politics . Therefore, I went off to Keele University to study Politics.

I say this because my three children are different academically, DD'1 who is in year 11 at a 'selective' Grammar (in that it requires 52 points from 8 subjects) is likely to achieve 9 or the full house of 10 grade 9's. DD 2 year 9 at the same Grammar may have to work hard to achieve the 52 points criteria.

However, the interesting and relevant child is my adopted DS who is in year 10 at a mainstream High/Upper school. My DS has an EHCP due to his limited academic ability we are planning around grade 2/3 for Math's/English for GCSE . The point being if you heard him speak orally on some subjects, you would not consider him to be significantly academically unable or behind his sisters.

The very upsetting thing is despite having inherent ability to explain and engage adults in complex subjects, my DS will be stuck with no 'appropriate' academic way forward. The consequence of this grade 4 English/Math's requirement is that the only job DS will ever get is working for his father.

I therefore do not consider children who attain less than a grade 5 or even grades 3/4 at GCSE as illiterate, just a system that is so rigid it does not allow some children to shine though!

Same for my autistic DS who liked RS and learnt languages as "structures", not as conversational material.

The exams are not designed for SEND anyway and do not reflect their abilities, strengths or weaknesses.

I mean the experts decide on the definition of a "minimally competent" candidate first of all, before starting to evaluate questions in terms of probability of the said candidate answering them correctly, and for high stakes subjects the requirements for "minimal competency" will be stricter. No one will die if you translate Ovid incorrectly, but if your calculations for building a bridge are incorrect there will be grave consequences.

It looks like literacy and numeracy are "high stakes" skills in expert opinion and the "minimally competent" examinee must be able to do more than in Latin or even in sciences.

They might have to reconsider their idea of "minimally competent candidate" in the future if covid generations do not recover from the massive loss of skills. Then we will have stellar exam results whilst nobody is able to read at all 😁

Any one more time – I agree for sure that students at a selective school should be expected to gain 5+ in Eng lang. But while this thread was started about a selective school, your comments that anyone who [has no SEN] should get a 5 and anyone not getting a 5 is illiterate and a 5 grade is very basic don't (cannot) refer to selective schools really.
I'm not personally offended by your attitude 9I was a teacher so I am pretty thick-skinned) but I think you should amend your thinking tbh.
__

You still didn't explain how the past paper I posted is inaccessible to 16yo without SEND. You just said your pupil struggled with similes and metaphors - fair enough, you could not explain to them that "as" and "like" mean simile, but the paper didn't ask for any of them anyway and your comment was irrelevant to my question 🤷‍♀️

As for mending my ways etc - thank you for your advice, perhaps you could address it to the Parliament and MSM like the Guardian that use the word "illiterate" and count them in millions in the UK?

I'll be kind and not take offence at your playing on the words "healthy/unhealthy" on behalf of my disabled DC who is very much not healthy though probably not "unhealthy". I'm not that ridiculously PC anyway.

You said they "assign more value to", well they can't. They can't assign anything to anything. Examiners mark to the mark scheme, people in Angoff decide grade boundaries and have nothing to do with the literacy or numeracy levels in a paper.

My daughter did RS gcse & A level. She is autistic and learns in a particular way. RS was easy for her as it was formulaic. She could pretty much kearn the mark scheme at GCSE.

Hmm but I didn't say anything about mark schemes or grade boundaries.

No that's not how it works at all. Angoff doesn't change mark schemes etc

No because that's organisational sensitive material so can't be shared. Rest assured all boundaries are reviewed and compared by Ofqual prior to results release and after. There is a lot of scrutiny and high stakes for an AO getting it wrong.

I looked at your biology graph again – yes most students got a 4 or above; studnets taking biology (ie a single science) are either as i say chosen for it by the school (so more able, or more able at science - this is what my DCs'school did) or they have chosen it as an option (ie to take triple not double) which suggests some ability or at least some interest. Everyone has to take maths and English.

Yes for sure the GBs are different for different subjects.

I don't understand why you are surprised @Ubertomusic (or maybe you aren't) that Latin GCSE has a high attainment rate. It’s probably offered mostly in selective or private schools and chosen rather than everyone having to do it.

Any one more time – I agree for sure that students at a selective school should be expected to gain 5+ in Eng lang. But while this thread was started about a selective school, your comments that anyone who [has no SEN] should get a 5 and anyone not getting a 5 is illiterate and a 5 grade is very basic don't (cannot) refer to selective schools really.

I'm not personally offended by your attitude 9I was a teacher so I am pretty thick-skinned) but I think you should amend your thinking tbh.

And yes 30% don't gain a 5 or even a 4; and no they do not all have SEN, as the figure for that is below 20% and many of those will achieve highly (dyslexic mate of DD's got all 8s and 9s).

For maths btw more pass it at 16 but fewer than English on retakes. Apart from the difference between numbers of 3s and 4s I don;t think your maths and english graphs are that different. Biology is single science so many of those taking it are higher ability so your not comparing like with like.

As Angoff is expert based, I presume they may assign more value to literacy and numeracy so the "minimally competent" threshold is higher than e.g. sciences. Hard to tell without details.