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 Foundation Tier Science papers are piss-easy and so are the Maths ones from what I've seen. Severe SEND excluded, anyone can pass those papers with a grade 3 with minimum effort and a 4 with some revision. The same goes for the bottom end of Higher Tier papers; you have to really not try in order to get low enough marks for a U and a 6 is usually around 50% of the marks, just to put that in context. Given you will always have a number of disinterested students, even the percentage-based grading doesn't have much effect on that. For Physics the Foundation paper allows students to pass by simply bunging a few numbers into a calculator - and they are being given the formula sheets.

There is also overlap between the two papers, so a high-end Foundation question is usually also on the low end of the Higher paper.

The Tier system is important because of reading and comprehension levels, and also because if you had a full paper with appropriate levels for all grades you'd have a number of students just looking at the questions and not attempting any of them because they're being put off. It also means less content to learn for Foundation Tier students to start with; Higher Tier students have a good 15% extra content and Triple students even more.

@ThrallsWife

You're so rude

They not 'piss' easy for some students

A lot really struggle with maths and science

All I hear are PP saying it's always been like that

Are you reading the same thread? All you are hearing is the echos of your own bias because there's a whole lot of explanation and justification being offered (you don't have to agree with it but it's there).

Not quite sure what it's got to do with your child's dual/triple science choices either. One of mine sat dual science, did science and maths at A level and is now at uni doing science. It's not lesser.

A decent exam writer could create an exam that would test pupils of all abilities and give a fair and accurate grade at the end.

Well yes, but in maths that exam would be 6 hours long

I've not heard of schools setting an assessment to decide if a student takes triple science. Best practice is to have it as a GCSE option so that there is enough time for the increased content. There are Foundation papers available in Triple Science; it's not intended to only be for those with high targets.

Some Children have to deal with crappy home lives and bullying by other DC and teachers all of which can affect their capability at school

There are many factors that can affect DC at school along with MH issues, anxiety all sorts

Let's not forget that

I think the 2 tier system is very much the right way to go

I don't see it as an issue. The school and the student and the parent will together decide what's best, so I don't see it as a problem.

double or triple science has nothing to do with tiered exams tho. You can do F or H tier for both double science and single sciences (so for example you could do F tier physics but H tier biology). If the school presents as brighter DC do triple then thats on them. I'm sorry that is has been done in that way. It sounds as tho it has not been handled well.

"they are being taught the same syllabus in the same classes. "

Are they though? Which subjects are you referring to. All? In most schools this would be unusual in say maths. Set 1 and 2 would not be taught the same syllabus and speed as set 4 and 5, for maths.

In our school the difference between set 1 and 5 for maths is huge. The difference between a top set for science, and the lowest set for combined science is huge.

My son's school wanted him to sit the Foundation papers in Combined Science and Maths as his mocks weren't great. They said best he would do was a 5 and easier to get that in Foundation than Higher.

However, he was confident he could do better and so I insisted he sat the Higher in both (I would have been prepared to have paid for his entry if it had come to it but it didn't).

He worked hard between Xmas and the exams.

He got an 8-7 in Combined Science (and achieved 9s on two of the papers!)

He got a 6 in Maths.

So if you / your child believe that they can do better and are prepared to put in the work then I would argue for the Higher paper.

Given I've had students pass Science papers on a grade 1 by not writing a single word other than their name, ignoring all questions bar the multiple choice (and not getting all of those right, either), yes, those papers are piss easy to pass.

In OCR 15 out of 70 marks minimum are multiple choice (so around 20%); in reality it's around 20-25 marks if we take into account gap texts with a choice of answers.

That may not be grade 5 worthy stuff, but to avoid a U it's definitely possible to not do very much at all.

20% of the papers are typically maths-based, including plotting a graph for up to 4 marks, putting numbers into a calculator for which equations are provided (even often in the question itself in the case of Biology and Chemistry) or describing the shape of a graph. No Science needed whatsoever.

So take that and the multiple choice questions (with an average 25% of getting it right by ticking a random box) and you're suddenly looking at a grade 2-3 without any revision.

That's the thing. I don't think the school has told them it's for the brighter students, but that's how the kids perceive it. And from what some parents tell me, it's not just these two. Let's be honest, what other reasoning is there for this division? Of course it has to do with setting. How else are they supposed to read it?

In one of these two schools they have extra English lessons instead of Science. This child is pretty good at English, and cannot understand why he's made to do extra English when, if anything, it's extra science he may benefit from. Neither can I.

My wider point is, in this age of crap MH in children, the wider setting/double tier system is not helping.

They're not bumped up if they underperform in the higher tier. They get a U, so that's something the school has to consider. I agree though, tiers of entry have gone in English and it takes the risk out.

Whereas a child that struggles with maths or science sitting a paper that they can only answer 20% of is such a boost to self esteem. As is forcing the more able to spend years going over content they'd already mastered.

Someone has a chip on their shoulder.

What does a crappy home life have to do with tiering?

Schools aren't making those decisions lightly. In a typical school, a child will have sat 3 mock exams before a final decision is made on what a suitable tier is. 3 chances to revise and apply their knowledge, in addition to end of topic tests every 4 or so weeks. We're still moving students between Higher and Foundation sets now based on the evidence we've collected and final decisions are made in March, after which extra fees have to be paid to move students. Frankly, if a student hasn't shown that they can sit a Higher paper by March, they are either not capable or have fully ignored the numerous conversations that take place before this.

I have mentored a number of borderline 4/5 students and there was a marked difference between the ones that put the work in and the ones that didn't. I have marked numerous mock papers that students have left mostly blank, not even attempting the questions, despite all the exam techniques taught. Not even tried. Teachers put on unpaid lunchtime revision for students who can't make it after school because they have to pick up siblings. They put on morning and after-school revision, providing food to entice students. They put on holiday revision sessions, often also for free (I now refuse to do the latter). You should see the protests from some students that they are being kept in school to revise for remaining exams during lesson time rather than being allowed "study leave" where they openly tell you they play on their PS all day. It's a sight to behold what happens in Y11 before and during exam time.

All the help and guidance is there and schools break their backs to help students achieve as well as they possibly can, including, I might add, a personal taxi service on the day of exams, where pastoral staff and the Head drive to their houses and personally ferry those students into school if they haven't got up in time for their exams.

So no need for excuses. Unless severe SEND is involved, those papers are piss-easy at Foundation level and the lower end of Higher Tier.

As people have said most GCSEs don't have tiers anymore.

However I don't think most people realise (or would even believe) the difference in maths ability between top and bottom sets.

In our school set 5 Y11 (lowest group) are no where near as good at maths as Y7 set 1, and it's not because they don't try - plenty of the kids in set 5 work really hard every lesson, complete every homework, but just find maths really hard.

There is simply no way of having a sensible exam that caters for both these groups of students - in fact I would say ever with two tiers the foundation is too hard for the lowest set and the higher tier is not hard enough for the very brightest to show what they can do (other then the last 2/3 questions.)

I don’t think it’s that much of a gamble really. It’s extremely unlikely that a child sitting a higher paper would have SUCH a bad day that they come out ungraded.

Apologies for not slogging through all 8 pages of this thread, but I remember there being three levels in core subjects - foundation, intermediate and higher. Is that not the case anymore?

Unless she NEEDS that grade 6 Maths for her A level choices, it's better IMO to ace the foundation paper.

As PP have said, the higher paper is aimed at 7/8/9 students so most of it will be out of reach for a target 6 student. And that's an awful feeling to come away from an exam with.

The foundation paper will be "easy" for her for about 2/3 of the paper so she should smash a 5.

It's natural to want the grade 6, but if she's borderline, better to go for a safe 5 and come out of the exam with a "I've definitely done ok on that" feeling. And once she's at college, no-one will give two hoots about a 5 vs a 6 at GCSE.

My DD was in the same position. It's a shame the intermediate papers have been scrapped, as that would serve the grade 5/6 students better.

I do think the triple/double science thing is a separate issue. There is no reason why a less able child cannot take triple science – especially as a) you can take F tier and b) you may be strong in one and weaker in another, and so you coudl get (say) 4 in bio and 8 in chem. That's not possible with double (tho it is tiered, but then you get 4-4 or 5-5 if you sit F tier).

What you describe is the way it is done in a lot of schools, but increasingly (from anecdata only!) triple is being offered as an option, so allocated the same time as doing double; the issue with this (see another thread on this board) is that this can then limit other choices.

It sounds as tho in the case you reference, some intervention by a parent might have helped. But in general, students are put in sets and that is a good thing; some exams are tiered and IMHO and that of a lot of ppl on here inc teachers, that is also a good thing. A student who will gain a 4 in German will have a useful and worthwhile qualification; but that student will find the F tier much more accessible which will boost their confidence and give them a much more positive feeling. That's a boost to their MH if ever I heard of one.

It's only P8 that's been paused for 2025 and 2026, there will still be Attainment 8 data released. It'll be interesting to see the differences once A8 comes out, as there won't be any way to deflect scrutiny where a huge number of the cohort would have been excluded from P8 calculations - some places that have a large number of students who weren't even in the UK at age 11 might see considerable increases, some might see a decrease. It certainly makes the needs of the entire cohort paramount.

And, of course, schools still need to monitor progress internally for these cohorts (it'll be calculated against school baseline assessments like CAT4s instead). I think that it'll be a bit of a shock if there's anybody left who believes that there will be no analysis applied to the 2025 and 2026 cohort outcomes - Data Managers are like Nature; both abhor a vacuum.

For others who don't know, though, there is no benefit to schools to have kids artificially limited to a lower grade - other than when it's actually making it easier for them to get the maximum grade they are realistically capable of.

Every point counts - an bald example would be that the one grade over expected in a single subject for 30 kids would just about balance out the results of the kid who had lifesaving surgery for a brain injury in year 8 and did amazingly well to get 3s in English and Maths instead of the 8s their baseline attainment indicated at age 11 (even with a DfE adjustment for extremely low attainment, the negative progress for somebody in that situation is significant).

An argument in favour of tiered papers is seen every single year - there are always a couple of kids who decide to go straight to the back of the paper, see the highest tariff questions and completely freak out. The only hope is that they do that (ignore all the things they've been taught about exam technique) at mock rather than decide for the first time to try it in the actual exams. With a single paper for everybody from a solid 8/9 to a 2/3 at best, that would be more likely to happen for a greater number of students - particularly in the subjects that require both the ability to decipher the meaning of a question and to hold specific knowledge and methods, such as in Mathematics, Science and languages.

Nope, just F and H tier.

I very much agree with you tho, a child who is going to drop from a strong 5/possible 6 (which is the lowest level ability that should be sitting H tier) to a 2 has got other problems tbh. In fact I have never come across such a student.

This is pretty poor on the school’s part if you are sure that it is the case.

Not all subjects have higher & foundation - pretty sure it's just maths, science & MFL.

It would be the teacher & Head of Department who decide & not really the parent. It would be based on mocks & usually those who get 6 or above in mocks would do higher.

To do maths, science or MFL at A level they would really need to be grade 7 or above as they would find it too hard otherwise. I think some schools allow a grade 6 for some subjects.

You used to be able to mix foundation & higher for MFL & could get a grade B with that. But they got rid of that which is a shame as some students are good at reading but find the speaking harder for example.

Hmm it’s tricky, but I do think if there’s a risk of someone not being able to obtain a 4, they really shouldn’t be taking the higher paper.