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

But the former is what they will be facing at university

That's a poor argument for extremely difficult GCSEs which are supposed to be the stepping-stone to A-level, not university. It's pointless in worrying about university if they don't even take A-level.

And the point here is a poorly-thought out and rushed through exam change denting the confidence of potential A-level candidates due to the lack of preparation and information about grade boundaries. Even if you were to argue that GCSEs need to be more difficult to prepare for failure at university (!) that still doesn't justify this first year being a mess.

Hey, thanks thread-lurkers! :) I always kind of assume that only the people posting are reading my posts!

Children who are good across the whole spectrum have the full range of A Level options.

This also tends to be true more for girls than boys, as they outperform boys on every other subject.

I wonder how much this is down to how particular schools and their leadership teams are handling it?

I have friends with children in year 9, 10 and 11 at both private and state schools. Two pals are school governors, so definitely care and pay attention. No one seems all that worked up. There is a wait and see approach, we are all in the same boat sort of attitude. What matters is how their children do in relative to the national cohort and they understand that and so do their children it would seem.

So while change is a pain, my local schools seem to be confident or at least less exercised by it all than some posters here. So I just wonder if different heads and senior teachers are making the difference.

less exercised by it all than some posters here.

Incidentally, my teacher-face and my MN-face are very different. And school governors are going to have a more remote view than someone at the chalk-face in front of the kids it's affecting.

By the way, if everything is fine and there isn't in fact a complete balls-up going on, why was the announcement about the pass grade for the new GCSEs being lowered to a 4 made in the evening of Article 50 being triggered, thus burying the news, instead of a few weeks earlier when it was already known about and planned for?

Actually if the parents at your school are really clued up and willing and/or able to understand the challenges and complexities of the new marking scheme that's fantastic. I am absolutely sure that the vast majority of parents at our school aren't.

I'm so glad that you have such content parents Goodbye, don't extrapolate that to what is actually happening inside the schools because I know no maths teachers who are content and settled with what is happening this year. Perhaps your school are very good at not passing that very real and justified anxiety onto parents.

tiggy 9s are not required for A level entry, even for the most selective of sixth forms.

Choice of A levels has always been influenced by teacher feedback and enthusiasm for a student's ability. If a teacher says I am only predicting a 7 but you are as good as the top end from previous years who did very well in their A level maths then the student will be as encouraged as they can be.
BTW other subjects are also worthwhile so if a student is drawn to History rather than maths this year so be it.

Noble the A levels are also a step up for some pupils.
A/ A* through exam question drilling rather than understanding and knowledge produces unrealistic expectations at A level for some and may lead to feelings of inadequacy.

Any exam system that creates incentives for teachers to devote a lot of time to exam question drilling and pay close attention to mark schemes and grade boundaries is a travesty of education and sets children up for failure and disappointment further along the line.

send you don't need to tell me that the current GCSE is inadequate for A-level prep, but that's why many schools turned to Further or Additional Maths to bridge the gap.

If lots of students are drawn to History rather than maths because of this, then that will be a huge issue!

Agree with Bobo

Noble you are rather hyperbolic are n't you. History is a good subject, so is maths. Let the students choose and encourage the same type of pupils to do maths as you would have done previously.

I agree Bobo.

Goodhart's Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”

svpow.com/2017/03/17/every-attempt-to-manage-academia-makes-it-worse/

History is a good subject, so is maths.

I'm not being hyperbolic. There is not a critical shortage of historians and a lack of people qualified in history is not causing issues for the economy. However there is a severe shortage of STEM graduates, a critical shortage of engineers, a desperate shortage of maths and physics teachers, I could go on... Fact is, there is a national interest in increasing the number of students taking maths post-16 and many initiatives to do this. There are real concerns that the new GCSE could affect A-level take-up, and that A-level being linear could affect take-up. If A-level take-up plummets as it did post curriculum 2000, then changes will have to be made, as they were in 2005 when maths A-level was made significantly easier.

The Smith review into making maths compulsory post-16 was supposed to be published in December but this keeps being put back and the thinking is now that it has been kicked into the long grass.

I don't think there are any reviews into making history compulsory post-16.

My point as before is that the able mathematicians should continue to be encouraged to take up the subject by their teachers who are better situated to assess their potential rather than by over emphasis on exam boundaries and performance.

If students don't have the ability, just because they have been pushed through to get an old style A at GCSE or even A* does n't mean that they will be suited to STEM degrees.

Experienced teachers may be able to assess potential based on their knowledge of years of previous students performance.
Sadly there aren't many experienced maths teachers around, and so lots are reliant on exam performance to tell them. An exam performance that appears low doesn't inspire confidence, especially as the new A-level is unknown and there is no longer the option of saying 'you can always drop it at AS if it's not for you'.

Which provides further evidence for what I have been trying to say since yesterday and Bobo summarised.
If maths teachers have no idea from class work which pupils can solve more difficult maths problems, the old system was not fit for purpose for training teachers. I am not sure how pupils were selected appropriately for further maths etc GCSE.

I don't know if you've seen the research, but teacher assessment is notoriously unreliable.

I agree with the poster who said this is an omnishambles. I am lurking, agog, as a parent in Wales where my DS (Yr10 currently) will still be getting alphabetical grades, so that should confuse things even more at a later stage when children are applying to universities cross the English/Welsh borders! Plus they are doing the double award in maths, as top set he will be taking numeracy this year and pure maths next year. Similar to Eng Lit/Lang split. (Although they have also beefed up the exams here, he sits 40% of his final science GCSE grades in about 6 weeks and is doing material that was previously on the A level syllabus, they aren't making any friends in the education system in Wales either.)

Also thank you for all your advice in the past noble, when I look at DS1 in his sixth form uniform a lot of your generous sharing of knowledge got him there.

Obviously teachers can pick out the really bright kids, but it isn't just the really bright kids who should be taking maths A-level.

OYBBK yes indeed perhaps our school is better at not passing on anxiety and that should transmit to the students too, which can only be good. Bert, it's up to your SLT to deliver the message without rattling parents and students but your lot have decidedly the thin end of the wedge, for the reasons I cite frequently. A much tougher job.

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

Nope, about 50% left without taking any external exams.

Another vote of thanks from a long-time lurker, Noble. I've really valued your contributions, particularly this year with a Year 11 DS.

Goodbye I have to say that I find your comments incredibly patronising. Your DD is going to sail through GCSEs, and is not a worrier, therefore everyone else's concerns about the shameful mess that surrounds the introduction of the English & Maths GCSEs for 2017 examination must be hysteria??