Or have GCSEs become more confusing for everyone

[boddtm]

My 14 year Old’s report has just come through. What the actual funch are all these flippin’ numbers? What do they equate to? I’m a reasonable person, but I’m not getting this system at all. And I know I’m not he only one! And if employers don’t get it, how will they now who to hire etc? Head is pickled with this, I can’t even tell whether she’s doing well or not!

YABU.
The changes have been well advertised.

A quick search comes up with loads of links, of which this is one

Grades 1 - 9. Grade 1 is lowest passing grade, equivalent to an E. Grade 4 is equivalent of a C. Grade 8 is equivalent of an A*. Grade 9 is a new grade showing top 5% in country.

It’s a crap system, but not because it’s confusing. It’s perfectly clear what is what.

They need to get 4s to pass, 7s are the equivalent of the old As, and really you need to be looking at 6s or higher for subjects to continue to A level. Sorted.

If you have particular questions, go on to the Secondary Education board as people there will be happy to help.

They're confusing for me because my year 8 child is having to choose their options this year and sit half their exams in year 10!! How does that work?

1 is not equivalent to an E.
I'm a secondary teacher, the new system is slightly more confusing but the real issue is how poorly it has been implemented.

Bumpowder that sounds crap. Shouldn’t be happen8ng in my opinion (secondary teacher) because GCSEs are designed for 16yr olds on 15 and because some universities prefer exams taken at one sitting.

This is also useful.
Obviously we don't know what reporting method your DS's school are using for KS3 but I'm sure they would be happy to explain it to you.

Its really crap and causing a lot of stress to my child

I think most schools are doing whatever they can to try and help the kids cope with the huge increase in content. It's crap for everyone really. (Well, everyone except the top % who will get 9s).

Sorry yes grade 1 is equivalent to a G.

I should read what I type before I post!

New, random, pointless, useless changes.

Who are the educationalist moronsin charge? Zero respect for them.

Horrible number system, 1-9, like robots.

Soon we'll all be robots.

It is confusing as evidenced by the poor advice being given on this thread. There is not a direct equivalency for the old C B A grades - they are split between 5 6 7 8. Clear as mud.

There was no necessity for this change. No explanation has ever been given. If they wanted to return the A-E grade system to its original worth, thats something they could have done regardless.

But really, these "educationalists" have made such a mockery of our education system, they deserve nothing but contempt. First of all downgrading the value of top grades of GCSEs. Did they think we wouldn't notice? So a C in 1980 is worth an A in 2013. People get an A in GCSE French but according to reports on MN can barely manage to speak one word.

And with the downgrading of the whole degree system, education has become a bad joke. And the "educationalists" paid handsome salaries by government and exam boards are wholly to blame.

Honestly, the new grades are not a problem, they'll just take a bit of time for people to get used to.

The rate of implementation is a problem, as teachers have had little time to get used to new specs, and example exams were issued late. This has to some extent lead to teachers having far less confidence over predicted grades than the old system which they knew well.

On the other hand, removal of controlled assessments is in a lot of ways a good thing. The oversight/implementation of these was open to abuse, with some schools being very 'hands on' with help (crossing over the border of what was within the rules) where as other schools where more hands off. And that's before you get on to people with private tutors.

Also the texts for English have been 'Gove-ified', which is not good for the less able. But that's nothing really to do with the new grading.

other schools were more hands off.

And just to confuse matters, the Scottish system used numbers for its standard grades for some years - and their scale is opposite, 1 being excellent and 7 being a fail. So all my standard grades on my CV now look completely bonkers!!

I'm glad for removal of controlled assessments. So one positive. But the "numbers" 1-9 thing - I hate it. It really does represent something on how we view human educational activity that it has been reduced to this, and I believe it is no accident. Robots in charge I suspect.

Instinctively I would have said "1" was excellent, so can understand where you're coming from Lazy. The fact they have not taken this into account - how numbers can be misunderstood or interpreted/misinterpreted is yet more proof of complete idiocy.

As far as I can see, the point of the numbers is:
a) to demark between the change of systems
b) so that if necessary a grade 10 can be added above the 9 in future

We used to have numbers for CSEs before they were combined with O levels and a single GCSE grade was used since 1988. O levels were numbered for at least some boards prior to 1975.

but CSEs were considered inferior to "O" levels. I still think the number appraoch represents a disrespectful downgrading, educationally. Though of course universities have 1st, 2:1s 2:2s etc it could be said. But in GCSEs a 1 is the lowest level (well thought out, obviously ).

but CSEs were considered inferior to "O" levels. I still think the number appraoch represents a disrespectful downgrading, educationally. Though of course universities have 1st, 2:1s 2:2s etc it could be said. But in GCSEs a 1 is the lowest level (well thought out, obviously ).

YABU- it not hard to understand, the higher the number, the better they have done. What is not to get?

This isn't "educationalists". It's Gove.