A pass is a pass? GCSE

[Rumplestiltz]

At GCSE, a 4 is a pass. When employers/apprenticeships/further and higher education institutes ask for a pass in maths and English, it’s a 4.

So why the fuss about “strong” passes, which is a 5? Why does the Government organise its data on the proportion who get “strong” passes in English and Maths? Bridget Phillipson saying it’s a travesty that white, working class boys aren’t getting “strong” passes in English and Maths and their life chances are affected as a result. It kind of undermines those who work very hard to get to that pass line of a 4 (teachers and students) to be told it’s not good enough.

I am sure I will be told it’s very easy to get a 4 etc etc, but for some kids in these subjects, it isn’t.

So my AIBU is - a pass is a pass.

4 in Math and English is enough for many NVQ courses - in fact I know a woman working as an assistant A&E nurse with no Maths GCSE (she will need it to progress) but the correct NVQs. She only has English at a 4. My son has Maths and English only but is a qualified Fitness Instructor and PT. If either wanted to get into higher education they could take an access course or the Open University has no entry requirements. But why would they? There’s plenty of jobs out there that do not need a degree and people work their way up.

GCSEs were/are intended to be inclusive qualifications that are suitable for most children and cover level one and level two, they replaced a two tier education system. However much people may want to return to that system we have had comprehensive education in most of the UK for several generations now. I am extremely proud to be a comprehensive school teacher. What is depressing is for people to see the level one section of the GCSE as a fail, for people to even see the bottom end of level 2 as not good enough. It’s this narrative of ‘good’ pass, or failure at below a 4/5 that is depressing and ableist.

I completely accept that qualifications are also designed to direct students onto different paths, there are many routes at FE and HE and that’s great, the kid aiming for Cambridge needs are different to the kid who wants to work in trade. But comprehensive secondary schools are there for all but the most disabled kids. We need to get rid of the narrative that a level one pass is a ‘fail’ it’s just not, and to say that is, to say a 4 is a minimum, to say there’s no jobs for anyone with qualifications below that level, that’s what’s irritating me on this thread and honestly I do see that as ableist.

This ofqual blog shows the official mapping between the old GCSE letter grades and newer number grades (in England). https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2018/03/02/gcse-9-to-1-grades-a-brief-guide-for-parents/

I wonder whether there is a need for a criteria-referenced (not norm referenced) functional literacy and functional numeracy test , to reflect the fact that ‘level 4 GCSE’ is such a poor proxy for ‘has good enough Maths and English skills to function well as an employed adult’?

Through criteria referencing, it would mean that everyone would know exactly what someone with that qualification had been able to do, and there would be no political cap on the pass rate. It would only need to be pass / fail, and could be taken ‘when ready’ at any age.

@wonderstuff What is the career pathway for Level 1 - 3 passes? Genuine question.

I think people are not aware and this is why the majority believe that Level 4 is the required level to pass a GCSE.

At my school we offer functional skills English and Maths to some students at risk of not achieving a level 2 pass, this means they do have a criteria referenced qualification, they may pass that at level 2 and then not have to continue studying or pass at level one and be able to progress to level 2 at post 16.

We are able to do this because we are a very large school with very high SEN, so can afford to staff and fund it. Results won’t be included in our performance data, and even in our position we have to offer it alongside GCSEs (because that’s our performance measure) and we can only fund it for a fairly small number of students. Narrowing of KS4 curriculum in the name of ‘rigour’ has been a disaster for children with learning difficulties.

Honestly, today of all days and grown adults, most of whom are parents, are pissing on the chips of children - some of who will have really struggled, and for whom a 4 is a brilliant result - a pass at Level 2, which enables them to go onto the next stage of their life.

Exactly this! What kind of person must be you to get a kick out of sneering at children of lower ability.

Functional skills qualifications do exist but for a variety of reasons can be hard to access: they don't count in league tables (I don't think) and there are peverse govt rules such as that if you get 3 you must retake the GCSE whereas if you get 2 you can take functional skills.

It's really difficult to access functional skill ,s in my area

I meant it should be universal, for everyone.

Buried in my very highly-educated family member’s qualifications is an Arithmetic exam, taken as well as O/CSE levels, by every child in the year group, to prove that, well, they could all do sums. Equally, another family member is currently doing a course leading to a language competency assessment in a foreign language, to prove that they can function in that language.

In reality a 4 is equivalent to a low C in 'old money'
The higher the grade the more options and opportunities are available to young people. Obviously everyone has certain innate ability, but all should be facilitated to flourish and achieve the very best for their ability. Aspiration to fulfill individual potential should be strongly encouraged for all. Working class white boys have been slipping under the radar for far too long...certainly as long as I have been teaching. Experience indicates to me that there are multiple reasons for this and these may be difficult to overcome. Much work is needed but surely high aspirations for every group of students should be the start? It's not a race to the bottom and encouraging those who are able to go for the high grades they are capable of doesn't take anything away from someone who has worked very hard to fulfil their own personal best of a 4. Surely you must understand that?

Currently we are using ‘level 4 in GCSE’ as a proxy - but it’s frankly a pretty useless one. Like using the driving theory test as a way of assessing whether someone can drive.

A level one pass will allow FE study on level 2 courses (so equivalent to a higher gcse pass) these courses are typically more vocational and run by technical colleges. Art, animal care, hospitality, health and social care, introduction to trades, public services and early years education are options. Near us there is also an agricultural college that offers courses at all levels from foundation to degree.

Some students will be better suited to level one or foundation courses, these again will be more vocational and may include employability skills or for students needing more support may include life/independent living skills. There are FE courses out there for all students regardless of their GCSE performance.

DS missed a 5 by 1 mark and has been accepted to do Economics at A Level as well as 2 other subjects. He got all 6's and 7's in everything else though
He is having a remark but he has still got in with his 4

From the same website as I linked to for proof that some successful institutions offer a number of A levels for those with 4s, a suggestion of the range of other courses available:

https://www.scg.ac.uk/our-courses/qualifications-entry-requirements

I have a SEN child, although his difficulties are primarily physical and aided by typing exams and extra time.

I don't know why they changed it into this stupid 1-9 system in the first place with it's ridiculous 'is it a pass or is it not a pass, high pass/low pass' dilemma. When you had C and D there was no confusion. We still have the old system at A-level so why did we need this nonsense at GCSE?

Agreed. Out of interest, does anyone know why they changed it from the lettered system to the numbers level system? What was wrong with letters that they had to change it?

It was Michael Gove's idea and from what I can tell it was purely done because he is a twat of the highest order.

I miss ABCD
Luckily we still have them for ccea gcse in NI

An awful lot of people on here are talking a load of bollocks about stuff they clearly know very little about.

At the time of the changes, the government argued that, external the new scale "recognises more clearly the achievements of high-attaining students, as the additional grades allow for greater differentiation".
It also said that the move from letters to numbers would make it clear - for example to an employer - "whether a student has taken a new, more challenging GCSE, or an old reformed GCSE".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrynxzvjneo

As Wales and N.I kept the different style of GCSE - and most in general public have no idea about differences between those and English ones bar letters vs numbers not sure it did the aim - and most in England on older generations seem confused what the numbers mean.

Also at top end most are going onto A-levels so why did they need more differentiation between top GCSE grades in England.

It was a perception that too many people were getting the top marks and devaluing them. Originally A*s were brought in, and then the move to 7/8/9.

You replied to one of my posts. My DS also did Economics at A level with a 4 in English and it was a scrape 4 not missing a 5 by one mark), it doesn’t make what I said untrue.

Not according to the D of E's own chart