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?

The pupils who should be taking the higher paper would find the questions on the foundation paper insultingly easy. A pupil who can get a grade 6 or more in y11 would have mastered everything in the foundation paper by year 8.

Here's a link to a sample foundation maths paper https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/sample-papers-and-mark-schemes/2018/june/AQA-83001F-QP-JUN18.PDF

It's quite clearly got some very easy questions where pupils who are realistically at grade 1/2/3 can pick up some marks to show they have basic understanding of number and simple mathematical operations amd then some extended questions that those who are at grade 4/5 can demonstrate that ability but which would be boringly easy to a grade 8/9 candidate.

Obviously some pupils struggle with maths and find it hard and will find this level of paper a challenge and that is ok - that's what the foundation paper is for, but it's not usually a problem to work out whether any particular individual's maths ability is such that a paper like this is challenging.

The higher paper starts off with a few questions that will allow a level 4/5 candidate to demonstrate that ability, some intermediate questions that allow for differentiation between grade 6/7 candidates and a couple of very challenging questions that only those who are heading for grade 8/9 are likely to be able to do.

Anyone whose ability is hovering at the lower end such that a grade 3 is even a conceivable outcome should not be tackling the higher paper so it's quite right that a grade 3 isn't an option as an outcome. The appropriate tool for working out whether a pupil has attained the standard of grade 3 vs grade 4 is the foundation paper.

Our Welsh medium comp still does that.

In year 10 they do English lit, Welsh lit, all of their science practicals and one each of the science papers and the tops sets do half of maths (numeracy I think) which they finish off in November of year 11. Those who got A/ A* in maths then use the remaining time to cover the additional maths curriculum which they sit at the end of year 11. Those who got lower grades can resit to try to get a higher grade.

Our schools don’t get measured in the same way as English schools as Education is a devolved matter.

My DS sat the foundation paper and got a high 5. If he had got a 6 it would give him more options for uni courses, he’s doing his A levels now. He may have been able to get a 6 on the higher paper but it was a gamble.

When I did my GCSEs in the 90s I did the intermediate paper which went from D - B. I got a C but at least I had the chance to get a B so I was happy with that. I think there should be 3 papers: 1-5, 4-7, 5-9.

There are two differences.

1. you could sit both a CSE and an O Level in the same subject, it was known as 'double entry' and no one sniggered.

2. The other is that only the top 20% did O Levels and then the next 30% took CSEs. 50% of children left school with no qualifications, now we expect all children to sit GCSEs.

We also expect them to take them all at the same age. Which is crazy.

Back in the days of O Levels it wasn't uncommon for students to take O levels early or in some schools they actually had a fast stream where O Levels were done at the end of what is now year 10 with three years spent in VI form.

Back in my day (1980s), there was an “upper 5th” form where failed O levels could be retaken, I definitely remember my sister doing that.

Because they need 90 or 120 minutes to cover material aimed at grades 5+. If they haven't answered any questions (as there are none on the paper) aimed at grades 4 and below, they can't give them those grades. If they can't answer questions aimed at grade 5+ they do not get a grade.

I don't understand this as two of my DC were not in top set but sat the higher paper, and got high grades. Even though others in their set probably sat the lower paper.

But how would that make any difference to his life? Apart from having to sit the more difficult paper.

TBH I didn't even know there were foundation papers

I find it very strange that she is in year 11 and the school haven’t decided, as they ought to be directing the teaching towards the exam she is sitting.

If she doesnt want to do maths-related A levels I would veer towards the lower paper. If she gets a 5 she could always try the higher paper later.

I sat them in 1996 and there was an intermediate tier for core subjects. Science intermediate could go up to an A, rather than the A* of the higher.

This post nails it.

If it is a 'realistic possibility' that your daughter could put in a level 1 or level 2 performance on a bad day then she should absolutely be nowhere near the higher paper. The higher paper should really only be taken by students who are consistently getting a level 6 or higher. Scoring that low would not even be in the realms of a 'likely possibility' for someone doing higher. The higher paper has an overlap to account for poor performance on the day (it goes down to a level 4 as a buffer if students have a bad day). If you're worried about the possibility that your daughter may score lower than a 4 on the higher paper, she should absolutely be doing foundation. A level 2 or 3 grade like the quoted PP said is not just a bad day, that's a huge mismatch on ability vs tier. Nobody who thinks that on their absolute worst day they would get lower than a 4 should be even considering the higher tier.

Just like a professional runner wouldn't be qualifying/running in certain 100m Olympic qualifiers if on their worst day, 20 seconds was a possibility.

I would normally expect the teacher to make the decision rather than the child/parent.

It can depend on the content covered in the classes. If the PP DS class hadn’t covered the higher content then him sitting the higher paper would have disadvantaged him. In your DC classes they had covered the higher content and saw that your DC were able to sit the higher paper.

Channel Islands

Hey @countingdaysuntilretirement I agree with lots of posts on here but wanted to add my own PoV. Mainly tho, what is it that you are so worried about? Why do you think the tiering is unfair? You say it will limit her options, but it really will not. If she is looking at A level then she should be working at grade 6/7 anyway. If she just needs a pass in maths to move forward, the F tier is fine, if that is right for her.

Here’s the thing – F and H tiers are a good thing. The overlap is grades 4 and 5. If a student is a 5 at best, they should take F. It’s a lot easier and more accessible (my subject is MFL but it’s the same for maths and science) so they are actually more likely to feel confident which will boost their exam ability for sure (imagine an exam where you can only do a quarter of the questions).

If a student is a pretty solid grade 6 then they should do H. If they drop a grade then they will still get a 5. If they have a mare and drop two grades then they still get a 4. If a student is not likely to get a 4, in other words if they might do badly enough to get a grade 1 or 2, they should emphatically be doing the F paper if available (unfortunately on most exams it is not).

Teachers will know btw what grade a student is working at, even if the student is unsure.

If a student is a good 5/6 on their best day then IMHO it should be up to them. They should try past papers at both tiers (easy to do) and see what they think. Would they rather have an easier ride to a safe 5 (I have known plenty of pragmatic students take this option, esp in MFL, and why not?) or do they really have hopes of a 6 and want to take H? I’m for playing it safe tbh as I cannot see any massive benefit of a 6 over a 5. Grade 6 in maths and MFL (esp if a “maybe” 6) is not good enough for A level, and a grade 5 on your list of GCSEs (instead of a 6) is going to make zero difference going forward. Pretty much anyway – I know some unis ask for a 6 in maths as a general entry requirement, so I guess that’s worth considering.

And yy the GCSE certificate just states the grade, not which tier you took.

As others say, only maths, science and MFL exams are tiered; actually I think this is a massive issue for English (no tiers), where the paper is almost inaccessible for some weaker candidates, rather than the tiers in maths and MFL being an issue.

It is possible to get a grade 2 or 3 of course; but not on the higher tier paper. That's only for maths, science and MFL tho - and in those subjects you can gain a1/2/3/4/5 on the F paper.

Edit: apologies I think the grade 3 is possible on maths and science H tier - not sure if that was a Covid thing tho or if it still stands.

It was the same when i was at school but there were 3 tiers in maths. This was good for me as i would have found the foundation tier would have been too easy. I would have frozen if i had taken the higher tier.

No because they are on the same day. And there is a certain amount of overlap.

Those who say "add an extra H paper" – I mean I do see what you mean but tbh I agree with those who say it’s a bit much to expect someone who is working at 8/9 in maths to tackle the very simple (to them) questions on the F maths paper – they risk making silly mistakes, getting fed up with it and generally not doing their best. We know they can manage those questions – let's challenge them with these harder ones. But these students for whom maths is a challenge - let’s support them with a more accessible exam.

It is interesting that some teachers on here are against the tiering – but some (inc me! and others tho) are in favour of it.

The November series for Maths and English Language is for any child aged 16 or over on 31st August of that year, it's not just for resits.

I did the intermediate tier in 2006 and i got a b. The foundation paper went up to a d and the higher paper covered the a grades if i have remembered correctly.

I don't really understand what your problem is. Has she not done any mocks or anything yet? You just say she's 'borderline' which suggests she can reliably get a 3/4 but if pushed could get higher?

I mean, when I did my GCSEs I did the lower maths paper which had a max score of B. I consistently aced those papers and failed the highers. She will have had the same unless your school are just not doing practice papers?

What does she want to do after GCSEs? A Levels? How competitive is the school? Or college? If she doesn't want to do any core subjects (as I understand it, it's only maths, science and English that offer the tiered subjects) then does it matter if she gets an easy 4 instead of scraping a 4?

What have her teachers advised? Surely you've had at least a couple of conversations about GCSEs? We had our second parents evening yesterday - my boys got 1s and 2s across the board, with 3-3 for science, so their teachers are working really hard to get them into the 3-4 bracket for most. Could they get a 4-4 in science? Possibly. Would I push them into doing the higher paper? Absolutely not.

I did intermediate maths in 1996 and got a B, I think @MargaretThursday is misremembering. I'm sure it was Higher A-C, Intermediate B-D (?), don't remember Foundation. I just recall I could easily get the B but failed the Higher paper consistently.

And I promise, I do have a B grade Maths GCSE!

Yes, so if you want to sit the November 2025 sitting, you need to have turned 16 by August 2025 which means that you can't sit it in Y11 unless you have been kept down a year.

This was to attempt to restrict it to resits.

I don't think it's unfair I think it's just the range of ability that makes it hard and they need to have a deadline somewhere.

My 2 DC are completely different when it comes to maths.

Ds just gets it (loves it in fact) and is also doing further maths so is absolutely doing the higher paper. Predicted a 9.

I was looking at his work the other day and thought there is just no way in a million years that can foresee dd doing the maths ds is, so I anticipate for her she will do the foundation paper. Which will give her the opportunity to show her ability across a range of areas.

If there was just one level it would need to be very very long to enable children at both ends to shows their abilities to differentiate their grades

I've always disagreed with it.