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.'

DD has SN, is in lowest set, and has already started her RE GCSE. To be sat in Y10. What the actual fuck is the point - she will get an E/F if she's LUCKY. Given another year, she could have got a D. Which for her would be so much better than an E/F. I have given up on this subject TBH. I'm just glad it's the only one the school sits early (I think!).

cat64 - DS thought that about French. He has a photographic memory so thought he had A in the bag, all his CAs so far were A.
He hadn't bargained for the reading test at which he got a D

Hully I would be interested which exam board your daughters is sitting for RE as I know at least one exam board has warned that they get poor and rather superficial answers from candidates entered early.

It's OCR, is it that one..?

Yes that exact one.

oh good

The section e answers in particular require a sophisticated level of response.

Many schools abandoned OCR because if the section e question and because results have dropped do significantly. We have not seen our results drop to a significant degree and I wonder if that is because ours sit their exams at the end of year 11 rather than one at the end of ten and then eleven or even worse year nine and ten.

If I can do anything to help pm me.

Sorry for the spelling errors, am on iPad

thanks, I expect your idea is the right one. Pore ol August child DD.

Grateful for any suggestions...

hully
Students tend to do badly on section d because schools are over teaching section e because it is worth half the paper.

Is she just studying Christianity? If so in those section d questions she needs where possible to give two different Christian responses with evidence. Usually a bible passage or church teaching. To get the higher grades she also needs to explain how Christian beliefs are driven by certain beliefs about God and humanity rather than simply blindly following bible passages. For example Christians believe in helping the poor because they believe humanity was created in the image of God and therefore all human life needs respecting and if necessary protecting. To put in a modern context the life of what MN would call the underclass is equal with a banker and a nurse because they were all created in he image of God.

Section e questions are testing their ability to construct an argument and evaluate the views of others. With some of my mid to lower ability students I say to start with their own view , as hopefully they know that! It also gets them thinking . Then explain two different Christian views with evidence etc. they then respond to those two different views and say which hey agree with any why. Again using evidence to support their view. They then need to look at the flaws in their own argument both given at the start and when they said which Christian view is closest to their own. In their conclusion they need to respond to that criticism , basically despite what others might say I am right because. ...

If they are aiming for a high grade they also need to show why the issue being discussed is an important one , how it impacts on every day life.
A structure for the above might be

I think this is a significant issue because...
My view on the statement is...
my evidence is...

A Christian response might be ...
Their evidence would be...

An alternative christian response would be...
Their evidence would be.....

My feeling on these Christian responses is
My view could be criticised ...
I think my view is correct because

If she needs less structure she could simply follow this structure

A Christian view is ....
Their evidence is ...
This could be criticised by...
I think....

And keep doing this...

I worry of the latter structure encourages mid to lower ability students to compare different Christian views.

I know some students encourage then to answer the longer questions first as the timing is difficult. I think this is a mistake for two reasons . The paper builds in difficulty and therefore the earlier questions give then confidence and can also prompt ideas to use in he harder questions. Secondly it is much easier to pick up marks in part a b and c whereas it may take longer to get the marks in section e.

The exam board website is worth looking at for past papers, you can see what kind of question she might face. Mark schemes you can see what they are looking for. . Examiner reports, you can see what previous candidates have done well so you can do it and what others have done wrong so you can avoid it .

She will need to learn bible passages. Depending on the units she is doing she may find that some passages can be used for a number of topics therefore cutting down the revision. A word of warning though they will penalise you of you use the same material again and again .

Thanks v much! Will keep and refer.

Anything else you think of, do let me konw.

Someone was saying that the Christian stuff is much harder than the Jewish (which they do too)

I have never taught the Jewish Spec although we do teach two world religions. I sometimes think the expectations are higher for the Christianity questions. Our students claim they find studying another religion harder as it is new to them however they tend to do equally well, I suspect they spend less time revising Christianity because they think they know it.

THere is hypocrisy in this SATs business.

When your children take them at 11 you are assured that it's 'only for the school's benefit'.

This appears to be untrue, as many comprehensives seem to predict what GSCE grade your child will then get. This is absurd. I have had two friends tell me that their children have only been predicted Cs because they got this or that at eleven! How can the teachers think that this is logical? Children develop a lot between 11 and GCSE. If my children (removed from the state system now) were predicted GCSE results on the back of tests they did in year six I would be furious.

Yes, but if you're told your child is 'only' going to be a C, wouldn't you, as my friend is, be worried that they mightn't be pressing her bright boy to get an A? He didn't perform as well at 11 as he does now.

This is really interesting and confirms my reservations about early entry.

Ds1 is in Y9 and is sitting his geography gcse after only one year of study. He is predicted to get a C. He is a really bright boy capable of a higher grade which I'm sure he'd get if a) he was more mature b) the syllabus hadn't been squashed into one year c) he appreciated the importance of gcses.

I've emailed his head of year to discuss it this week. Quotes from the link will really help.

I'm cross because the school will benefit from him getting a C grade but he won't. I'm considering saying he won't be sitting the exam as he'd be better off with less gcses at a higher grade.

Lots of schools use key stage 2 data or SATS results to set targets and to set children in year 7. I agree this needs to be made clearer to pupils, as a teacher I am aware that if my dd is going to go into top sets she needs level 5s across the board in her SATS. My discussions at parents evening revolve around her ability to do this.

Now that many schools have dropped SATS in year 6 there has now been talk of using key stage one data!

Many schools will adapt the targets from FFT in line with their knowledge of the pupil.

Our school used FFT D and KS 2 to predict grades at start of year 10. However, she has just received her first interim report for year 11 and they have all been changed - they look as if they've been changed to teachers assessment given what they know about modules and controlled assessments actually scored so far. They are much much more realistic.

It is these which we will use to make the 6th form applications which we do just after Christmas, so it is these that we didnt want to be too far off ability wise (because last years were pretty awful predictions and didn't bear any resemblance to the child I knew).

That has not been my experience cat64 but I have only worked in a handful of schools. My first school did that, another school did not set at all in year 7. Another school created a top set using SATS data and the rest were mixed ability and others set from day one using SATS.

Most schools review setting after half a term which will refer to their own internal assessment and CATS tests.

There is a difference though between a target grade and an estimated grade. I have a student in my bottom set who has been given a target of an E. I have taught this girl previously and they target felt about right so I did not change it. However she is currently achieving a C grade and therefore if I was to give her an estimated grade it would be around that C. That woudl be the grade that would go on her sixth form application.

DD1 took her Maths GCSE in year 10' and she was only just 15. She got an A.

mumeeee are you saying she would have been better doing it in year 11 and perhaps getting an A* (thus agreeing with the thread) or suggesting that one child doing well when they are younger disproves the statistics? I can't tell from your post if you are in favour of early entry GCSEs or not.

I think blanket early entry policies are not usually in the best interests of everyone and are only rarely a good idea (say where the whole top set is more or less guaranteed an A* and there is a sensible post GCSE course for them to follow afterwards). In some individual cases there may be a good case for early entry too.

It was a few years ago she is now 24. She was in the top set and her school only put the top set in early. She got A's and B's in her GCSE's in year 11. I'm saying for brighter pupils early entry may not be a bad thing. But it isn't for all children.