To think the 2 tier GCSE system is wrong

[countingdaysuntilretirement]

My dd is in year 11 and will be doing her GCSEs in June. There has been some discussion on whether she would be sitting the higher levels or not - she's borderline on most. I have only just realised that you can't get lower than a grade 4 if you take the higher paper - if you do badly you don't get a grade 1,2 or 3 but are simply ungraded. But if she takes the foundation level she can't access the higher grades.

This means children are having to take a gamble with their papers. I would have thought the higher level would just add an additional paper or layer - not that you risked losing a GCSE altogether if you had a bad day.

Can anyone rationalise this for me?

Maybe you are looking at it the wrong way. You have to pass maths and English gcse and if you don't it can really limit your ability to move on. If your child doesn't aim to do stem at Alevel or university then surely its far better for them to study at a lower level and have more time to consolidate knowledge and get a 4 then be annoyed that they can't get an 8. Apart from post-16 education or training choice does anyone look back at gcse results! Also I'm not sure how a U is better than a 1,2 or 3. Same outcome of having to retake surely?

As a teacher, I hate it too. The official advice from the board is only put candidates who you are confident of getting 6 or above in for higher. But (in my subject) you need practically full marks on Foundation to get a 5, so with your 4/5 candidates, you agonise over whether they are more likely to get a low mark 4/5 on Higher or a really high mark 4/5 on Foundation. It is gamble really. I wish it was just 1 paper or they all sat Foundation and the best did a shorter Higher paper as well.

It’s been like this for years. Under the old grade system there used to also be a middle paper before they scrapped that.

I remember the logic at the time was if you were a solid C grade, you sat the higher paper because there were fewer marks required to achieve the C(approx 50%+), vs on the lower paper you’d need to score (80/5%)+ to get a C. (Old grade system).

DD teacher should really be guiding her based on her set, what they’re learning in class, and her ability.

But that's the point though - there's no way someone who is entered for the higher paper should be getting a 1 or a 2. That's more than a bad day, that's order's of magnitude different. If your daughter's performance is so variable- one minute a 7 or 8 and the next a 2 or 3 then you need to get more involved with the school and find our what's going on with her learning.

Was like this in the 80's for maths! I scraped a c in the higher paper, I was borderline to take foundation but was given the choice, made no difference in the end. Teachers are generally more than aware of who is capable of 6+

I had this situation with my DD for maths. She was doing well in all other subjects and without a 5 wouldn’t be able to do A-levels. She was allowed to choose and at one point was quite down and thought she would not get a 5 and so should do the foundation. I persuaded her to attempt higher as a 4 or lower would not enable her to do what she wanted and yes it was a gamble which does seem very tough. Luckily she did get the 5. My rationale was that in her situation she would have to retake either way. If the child is planning to go on to a course that requires a 4 then it might be wiser to go with the foundation.

This is really worrying me now. My ds got a 4 in his mocks (higher paper), I’ve got him a private tutor now one hour a week, but I’m wondering if he should be sitting the foundation paper in the summer. He doesn’t need higher than a 5.

They could have everyone take the foundation paper and then the ones who want could also do the higher. Would an extra exam (very easy for many) be that big a deal given they have so many anyway?

As others have said:

Under the old system it would say whether it was o level or cse

Now the results only say the GCSE grade not whether it is higher or foundation

They have moved recently to making as many GCSEs as possible a single paper so this issue doesn't arise.

It's still a problem in maths and science.
I'm a maths teacher.

The vast majority of kids it is very clear which paper they should be doing. Anyone routinely getting gcse grades 1-3 on foundation for end of y10 exams and y11 mocks does foundation.

Equally anyone getting 6 or above for end of year 10 exams and y11 mocks does higher.

In my school out of a year of 210 this gives about 40 students who are "borderline". From year 11 these are split into three groups - so they get very intense teaching - intending higher, intending foundation and unsure.

In y11 mocks we let them sit both papers so they get a sense of how hard the higher is. The decision is then made with the student and parents.

If they are not planning to go on to a levels (few at this level are) then foundation is usually better as it's material they are confident with and so they can get a passing grade and move onto their next course.

The danger with higher is that they can only answer a few questions and they might "drop off" and get a U.

Interesting that even the teacher on here doesn’t like it!
it def feels unfair on those middle of the road candidates

that all said I do wonder if any 16+ exam system in the world is able to a. assess all students with the same scoring mechanism and b. appear fair to all kids sitting them

@countingdaysuntilretirement can they not just sit both exams then?

International GCSEs with Pearson have one paper for each science for double science and then two papers per science for separate (triple) science. Paper two is much shorter than paper one. It works so much better than the foundation/higher paper split that you get with UK GCSEs

My son goes to a grammar school and in year 11 he apparently wasn't doing as well as they hoped so gave him the choice to do foundation spanish and combined rather than triple science - which we took. He ended up getting all 9s and 8s including a 99 for combined science. Except Spanish the highest he could get was a 5. But who cares! Reducing his work load meant he could concentrate more on subjects where getting a higher grade means more. It really depends what subjects you are talking about and if she needs them for next steps.

Triple Science covers 1/3 more content. That’s a lot to learn.

Higher maths is to differentiate between the more capable students. The pass mark is lower because it’s a harder paper. Imagine sitting a paper and not being able to answer a good proportion of the questions. That will knock your confidence, not just for that exam but others in the future too.

Our eldest had lost all confidence in maths after having a teacher who he just didn’t click with. We moved him from being in set 2 and due to sit the higher papers to set 3 who were taking the intermediate level. The new teacher was fabulous and he passed with a B (we’re in Wales) which was the highest he could achieve.

He didn’t have much interest in Science either so we asked for him to take double rather than triple Science (again meant moving down a set) but he passed with 2 As. I’m pretty sure that if he’d they the triple science course his grades would have been lower due to there being so much extra content. School said that our requests were unusual but we were happy with them, as was DS most importantly.

GCSEs are just a stepping stone to the next thing. Of course it’s right to aim high, but it has to be the right bar for each individual child.

Our school does the foundation paper (for Maths anyway) at the end of the year...so the GCSE students who are sitting their exams in May/June sat it in November.

Are you in Wales? This isn’t allowed in England, the November sitting is meant to be for resits only!

The difference in ability between an 8/9 student and a 1/2 is vast. In maths, the first few questions on the higher paper (the easy ones) are the last few from the Foundation paper (the easy ones). You need two papers.

I didn't even know that the foundation option existed until one of DSs science teachers mentioned it as he's currently on a 5 in mocks and suggested it could be an option. Issue is teachers are basing this on his current grades which are based on about an hour's revision per exam as he's not bothered revising, and getting 5-6s so making a decision for a foundation course instead wouldn't be appropriate because it's not his true potential level of achievement. I would prefer one exam for all students using a scaffolding approach in the questions so earlier sections were simpler and then tested high learning as they continued.

when i did GCSEs in 2006-2007 our school put all students on the intermediate maths exam for year 10. Those that got the highest mark of a B then went on to do the higher exam. Those that didn’t took the exam again in year 11 in the hopes of increasing their previous grade.
we also did English language in year 10 then literature in year 11. So at the end of year 10 most students already had 2 GCSEs. Is this not something that could be done in the new system of foundation/higher?

It’s terrible and if you investigate the benchmarks for grading, you will find that if you sit the lower paper, you have to answer more questions correctly to get the highest lower paper grade than you do to get the highest, higher paper grade. It’s shambolic.

The U.K. government effectively banned this some time ago.

What was happening was that some schools were putting students in for GCSEs repeatedly - so for example in the worst cases they might put the whole year in for foundation maths at the end of year 10, then at the November of year 11 anyone who failed did foundation again and anyone who passed sat higher, same again in the summer.

It meant you had nearly two years of just sitting exams and there wasn't as much teaching going on.

It was known as "early entry".

Schools can technically still do it but it no longer counts towards progress 8 or the league tables which is mostly what it was being done for.

I think it's actually a slightly bad thing, as my school used to enter everyone early at the end of year 10 for RS gcse. It meant they had actual exam experience before year 11 and anxiety was lower.

That's fallen out of favour now because the EBacc and progress-8 calculations used to generate statistics on school performance only could exams that are taken in Year 11. GCSEs taken in year 10 are valid for the student but detrimental to the school's ratings.

This is pretty much what happens - except it is printed in booklets already combined.
The hardest questions on the foundation paper (in science anyway) are the first questions on the higher papers.
So, in your terms, foundation is paper 1& 2, and higher is papers 2&3.

Wouldn't it be better if borderline students were allowed to sit the papers for both levels. That way they wouldn't need to choose. I did O Levels but back then, a borderline student could sit both the O Level and the CSE so if they failed the O Level they would have a CSE in the subject.

If she isn't sure she will get a grade on the higher paper then perhaps the foundation paper is better for her. Otherwise it will just add another layer of stress to the exam period, as she will need maths for whatever else she plans to do that and if she doesn't get a grade it will impact her results day. She can always resit if she chooses to do so - you will have to pay if she has passed, but it's not that much for one exam.