DfE Data Cruncher predicts number of students who will get straight 9s

[noblegiraffe]

His guess is.... 2

Not 2%,

2 kids in the whole country will get all 9s in their GCSEs.

So that's the new challenge for the MN boaster.

Ofqual reckon 0 kids will manage it. They clearly haven't met any MNetters' kids.

twitter.com/timleunig/status/845699774754017280

And those figures that lotta links to are successful attempts. There are many attempts that aren't successful, through luck, or simply being a cry for help.

Thanks lottachocca.

I don't really want to argue the toss on this one noble because every single young person's suicide is a tragedy in the proper sense of the word. But for that reason one shouldn't make out that it's an even reasonably frequent occurrence; it's far too sensitive a subject.

I do think that the new grades will be a better differentiator than the old system. It was a bit ridiculous that so many children were getting A* and A that the grades were becoming meaningless.

My understanding is that under the old O-level system pre-1975, only the top 25% of pupils sat O-levels, the pass grades of which were graded from 1 to 6 (with 1 being the highest. I think the top 2% of each cohort got grade 1,or something like that figure)

The remaining 75% of pupils sat CSEs and the expected attainment for a child of average intelligence was CSE grade 4.

A CSE grade 1 was considered equivalent to an O-level pass. So grades 2 and 3 were above average, but not up to the standard of a grade 6 at O-level.

So, A* and A at GCSE were roughly equivalent to grades 1 to 6 in the old O-level. Grade B in GCSE would be roughly a CSE grade 2 or 3. Grade C at GCSE would be roughly equivalent to a grade 4 CSE.

I think it's great that there will be 9 grades now, as this is much more realistic system and will give youngsters a more honest and clear assessment of how good they are in a subject and whether or not it would be do-able for them at A-level.

"Perhaps it's my age with big inter-generational gaps and influential parents and grand-parents who got to experience worlds-wars on the front-line, but the perspectives and sensitivity of this generation definitely suggests western civilisation is stuffed."

Oh dear those pathetic sucidal anxious teenagers, let's just whip them to give them back a stiff upper lip.

If your parents fought in the Second World War then it's impressive that you have a child sitting GCSEs this year. Maybe your child is so perfect as not to experience anxiety but perhaps a little sympathy wouldn't go amiss.

My cousin's cry for help was unfortunately successful. I never underestimate the effect that exam pressure can have on kids, self harm, anorexia and depression were not unusual among the high achieving kids at our Grammar School.

goodbye I'm talking from experience about students attempting suicide. My experience is that it is not uncommon. I'm refraining from giving exact details/figures because it would not be appropriate.

Seconded. I can't begin to comprehend how a parent deals with a child's suicide. It's on a level beyond everything else.

lotta. I'm so sorry.

I was seconding tiggytape.

No-one wants details noble.

Indeed goodbye but you appear to be criticising me for saying it was reasonably frequent as if I'm making it up.

Sadly suicide attempts among teenagers are fairly common. Teenagers having suicidal thoughts even more common.

No it wasn't a criticism.

tiggytape the thing is that departments will work individually so if they think a student is capable of a 9 they'll predict a 9. They aren't conferring to see who else is predicting a 9.

They aren't conferring to see who else is predicting a 9.

Really they should. Because if the expectation is only 2 kids in the country will get all 9s (and I'm assuming that prediction is actually data-based) then either someone should have an overview of all grades for each student to make sure that they are realistic and downgrade where necessary or departments shouldn't be predicting 9s at all.

Well obviously there's an overview for each student but if each department thinks a student is capable of a 9 then downgrading randomly because a geezer in the DfE says only two kids will get all 9sthat's even sillier isn't it?

How can we have just talked about teenage mental health and for you to still think it would be silly to downgrade an unrealistic prediction?

noble I think we need to get off the subject of teenage mental health. I don't think it appropriate to use it as a prop for your argument about predictions of 9s.

I teach these kids. This is not some abstract argument but a real concern that you think should be brushed off as 'silly'.

Also, since I have no idea how many DC at DD's school are predicted strings of 9s, I'm not able to say what's unrealistic and what isn't. It could just about be realistic for DD (just about) because she's a good all rounder, but neither she nor I are bothered if she doesn't get 9s, and hopefully there are lots of other families like us. You can't assume that each child predicted 9s will develop mental health issues, nor that those who would like to be predicted 9s but aren't will or won't develop problems as a result. Mental health among young people is far, far more complicated than 9s or not 9s - so many things are in play.

Cross post. I'm well acquainted with the issues which is why I believe they should be treated with the respect and understanding they deserve, not used as fodder in an argument.

Selective schools in the state sector don't set their entry bars especially high for the sixth form, so the grades required shouldn't be a particular problem.

The one I know of has a low entry bar BUT it only offers that low entry bar to those with the highest predictions.

So it ranks all external applicants by predicted grades, then only offers places (with, I agree, a relatively low entry bar) to the highest 20 [or whatever]. Where there s no uniform approach to predictions, that top 20 could be entirely randowm.

I also ask again; I know that your DD's school SAYS that when they give a 9 for a test, they THINK it will be correlated to a 9 at GCSE - but how do they know? Do they have a statistically significant number of pupils such that they can predict the grade boundaries based on the % that the government have released? Or are they going on 'gut feel and approximate linkages to old grades' - ie they might previously have predicted a high A on the old curriculum for such a pupil, so they will say it is a 9, or they would have predicted a low A so it is an 8?

I agree that such an approach can give a 'range' of results: 'This is definitely more 8ish than 5ish', but to say 'Yes, this is definitely a 9, despite changes in curriculum, assessment and grade boundaries' is something i suspect they are MUCH less confident about than you are.

I think they are saying exactly that: that this is 9ish, 8ish whatever. Believe me, I'm not in any way relying on DD getting a whole load of 9s ! I'm well aware of the caveats because the school is dishing out caveats. Quite right too. I'm certainly no more confident than the teachers - I take my lead from them.

I believe they should be treated with the respect

Oh, but you think concerns about giving teenagers unrealistic and unachievable targets are 'silly'.

And you can fuck off with your suggestion that any concerns are simply argument fodder. I teach these kids.