Early entry for GCSE = worse results, statistics show.

[noblegiraffe]

I know quite a few posters here have expressed concerns about their DC's schools entering students early for GCSE exams, and it turns out rightly so. Students entered early for Maths or English GCSEs do worse than those entered at the end of Y11 even when you take resits into account.

(note: early entry is not the same as taking modules in Y10, it is completing the entire GCSE before the end of Y11)

The DFE has just published a report analysing the statistics and found 'The statistical evidence so far indicates that for lower achieving pupils, there is little discernable benefit in early entry other than increasing opportunities to retake before the end of KS4 which still does not improve the overall comparative result. For pupils who achieve level 4 or above at KS2 (and would therefore be expected to achieve grade A*-C at GCSE) the average final grade is lower for early entrants. Higher attaining pupils are therefore being disadvantaged by entering early and not achieving their full potential.'

Are these kids doing something interesting with the extra time they have after completing their GCSE's? My son completed a maths a-level in year 11, (having done an early GCSE), and he thoroughly enjoyed it!

I mean, GCSE's can get pretty tiresome, so if kids can finish one or two and move on maybe they will rekindle some of their joy in learning.

It's only those level 5 or above who would expect A* - C. Two levels per Key stage means Level 5 leads to Grade C.
Otherwise, I agree and I'm not surprised.

What seems to have been happening is that (for example) students have been taking their maths GCSE in Y10, banking a C, then not doing any more maths and concentrating on other subjects. This, despite the possibility that a year's further study could have got them a B or maybe even an A.

This is absolutely appalling, and tbh I didn't really believe it when people on here were saying it happens because it sounded so bloody stupid. I know a student in Y13 who is now having to resit maths GCSE because he has now discovered he needs a B to do what he wants to do. I expect he would have been very annoyed if he could have got that B in Y11 but school denied him the opportunity to try.

I'm also appalled that students who could have got an A* in Y11 weren't given the opportunity because they got an A in Y10, thus reducing the likelihood that they would take Maths A-level. This country is short enough of mathematicians as it is!

cardibach, are you confusing level 5 KS2 with level 5 KS3? Level 4 at KS2 can certainly go on to get C at GCSE.

I've been going round secondary schools this term looking for next year and grilled them all about their policy on this - I don't think it's acceptable to sit early unless the child is pretty sure of an A* (or if it's RE and you just want to get it over with). Even the best schools were a bit slacker than I'd have liked, and some were terribly cavalier.

My school stopes doing maths early 30 years ago for just this reason.
They stopped top set doing maths o' level a year early and entered them for an extra paper as well. Another years maturity and practice = better grades.

That said stopped! I wish auto correct would stop changing things!

Pupils are expected to make 3 levels of progress from KS2 to KS3 therefore anyone coming into secondary on a 3a/4c/4b should get a C at GCSE. Anyone coming in above that should be getting B/A/A*.

Hidden within those statistics are a bunch of students it is really useful for. Those who are borderline C/D students. A Maths higher paper is a very different kettle of fish. Low pass % required but students faced with high content they have never even seen before. Or do they sit foundation - useful Maths, accessible Maths, but needing a good degree of accuracy to nail the C. Teachers make their best choice for these borderline students but those allocated foundation never get a chance of a B.

So, bring on (slightly) early entry. Allow them to show what they are capable of under exam conditions, and it they nail a C, give them a June chance at a higher paper. Or, concentrate on another subject they are weak at.

They, together with those ready to nail an A star, are the only students I feel ought to take early entry. The others should carry on to nail the best grade they can in the paper they are known to be suited for - higher or foundation.

Kez, I think the C/D borderline students were better served by the modular system where they could sit the individual modules at different levels. At my school they would be entered for the higher tier for their first module and then depending on how they did they could do the next module at higher or foundation. Unfortunately with modules probably being scrapped, this sort of fine-tuning is going to be out the window. When we did a linear course, we used the mocks in the Christmas of Y11 to decide on final entry level.

You have missed a group who benefit from early entry - the disaffected who are actually going to go downhill in Y11 rather than step up to the plate. They might get a better grade in Nov Y11 than they would in June.

I can see a benefit when getting an extra subject out if the way early (say a language for multiple-lingual students).

The majority of entrants certainly do not seem to be benefitting from early sittings.
As mentioned, one or two groups may benefit - but that will mean schools having to look at individual cases rather than having blanket arrangements across the whole year group.

It's all very well the schools saying it allows for retakes, but many ifthe Universities don't like this. How long will it be before other doors get closed for those having retaken? The A or B required for A level, the C required for a college course? I can certainly see that happening as sixth firm places become more competitive.

The entrants need to be given the best possible chance to get their best possible grade first time around.

It drives me mad. My dd will have to sit her RE paper aged 13 (end of YR9). The "d" and "e" questions are really hard for her, whereas another 2 years would make a world of difference both to her maturity and the amount of practise. It also means I have to drill her to death to try and make up the loss of that two years of study. Grrrrrr.

At ds's comprehensive school the Head made a point of saying at the new parents' evening that the school is absolutely against the taking of GCSEs early - and their results bear this out.

I was in half a mind to send ds to a neighbouring school which streams the children, but was put off because they take exams early, and as ds is an end of August birthday I felt this was wrong for him.

I agree that if a child is incredibly advanced at a subject, bilingual say, then there is no harm in taking a GCSE early. But otherwise I don't see the point - waste of time and resources.

I think it makes a difference to the overall grade when modules and controlled assessments are sat in year 10.
My DD has A targets for everything [not sure how but that is another story!] but I will be surprised if she gets any A to be honest.

She did a controlled English Lit assessment in the Oct of year 10 worth 25% of the mark when she had never even written an eng lit essay, let alone had one marked! Apparently she was on the A/B borderline so that has scuppered any chance of an A* and they are not allowed to resit it.

Her English teacher said they chose that to do first, despite it being difficult, as the school puts more emphasis on eng lang passes. She was 1 mark off an A* on the paper taken summer of year 10. I think if she had done all her eng lit exams at the end of year 11 she would have improved enough to get the grade she deserves.

My friends children in independent schools don't take any exams early which says it all really!

mycatunderstandsme - same here with my DS. That CA in October 2010 was a huge test with very slim preparation. As far as I know this was a new exam syllabus and I believe the teachers were wrong to start with that.
The upshot is that the vast majority are having to resit that test.
I suspect DS will end up scraping an A when he could have got an A* with two full years teaching and an exam at the end of Y11.

Having said all that.......he got A in his Maths in Y10 and is predicted A in Statistics in Y11.

It's like the schools are trialling and erring with how to arrange things and fill time with the end of the ks3 Sats. and our current yr9/10s are getting the brunt of it. Syllabus changes and moving from modular back to linear adding to the chaos.

At DDs School the whole of yr9 last year took first module if core science. She was still 13 at the time, expected a B, but did well enough to get an A.
BUT we have now been told that OCR board are no longer awarding a 4th science GCSE to those taking the three separates. So they are now not taking the remaining core modules. What a waste of time, resources and pressure that was!

Mycatundrstansme - you've got me really worried now. DD is currently working on controlled assessments for English Language. Apparently they are all taking Lang in yr10 and Lit in yr11. Idea being to allow Lang resits as more important. DD is a very immature writer, target B grade (which is the minimum she realistically needs). Her confidence of getting this so early is not great.

circular - that's exactly what our school are doing. Those who did well in the Y10 tests go on to do Eng Lang and Lit and the rest do a combined English GCSE.
The Controlled Assessments are just relentless. There is one every few weeks. DS normally thrives on exams and even he has felt under pressure.

Those frigging controlled assessments. DS (yr10) is sitting his second in English, he would do much better sitting them at the end of yr 11. Ridiculous. Grrr. And so little prep time.

Yes noble, I'm sure you are right re modules. You are experienced, whereas I have only one experience - my daughter.

In the absence of modular I do feel borderlines should have two options. So many are lined up for foundation but some decent revision and they really could have attempted higher (except they have not been taught the content so can't).

Back in my time, these children could double enter, which can't be done now unless you split the entries by 6 months.

Very interesting paper.
Thanks for the link.

I really hope that the government steps in and stops schools from doing this before DD gets to year 9, or she will end up doing 3 GCSEs a year, each year from year 9. How anybody can think it is sensible to cover the whole of GCSE French in year 9 is beyond me.