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

We always got marked ABC on assignments in the old world, noone thought that was precisely aligned to a GCSE standard. Indeed as most school tests were taken well before GCSE time, chances are A standard on the test was a lot lower than A a standard on a GCSE. So not sure why a 1-9 grade would need to be any more precise.

Looking at the Ofqual example in more detail it's interesting at the top end how the 7, 8 and 9 match. The perception has been 7 = A, 8 = A and 9 = A, but actually the 8 is a reasonable amount lower than an A. I wonder how that will affect schools who have previously asked for an A* for Further maths. Accepting an 8 will actually lower their entry requirements.

catkind goodbye thinks that her DD's test scores of 8s and 9s are aligned to the new GCSE grades. She said so upthread.

It is less differentiating for the level 8s. Crazy!

So you call the very top end of what you'd previously have graded an A* or A+ a 9. There's no such thing as an exam grade on a test. Unless you start specifying exactly what hit rate of 9s on assignments would correspond to a 9 on exam, you haven't made any meaningful claim by saying it's "aligned". It's not going to be uncorrelated.

Have to admit I haven't checked exactly what goodbye did say - I searched her username and there were over 100 hits on the thread!

There's no such thing as an exam grade on a test.

We are in agreement! My department avoids giving grades for tests for this reason.

There were bedding down issues when GCSEs were introduced in 1988 - albeit more minor ones than with the current transition. The grades obtained in 1988/1989 are not quite comparable to grades obtained in the early 90s, and certainly not comparable to grades obtained 10 or 20 years later. It really doesn't matter for most purposes.

Just this. When every child gets A's and A's it becomes meaningless. I still maintain my run of A's back in 1989 is much better than a full house of straight A's now ;)

Maybe it's a good thing that it's a totally new graded system. The top grade should reflect only the brightest of the bright - or else how are those children going to stand out?

catkind She said something like 'my Dd is getting 8s and 9s in tests so it makes sense to predict her a 9' and that they were aligned with GCSE grades in her school, not just to give students an idea of the standard of the work and get them used to numbers.

She said that the teachers were able to do this because they were good teachers, some of them were exam markers and because they were all-round better than me. And the exam boards. And Ofqual.

Star HFPA linked to a Times article today that said that only 0.5% of students currently get a full set of A*s. (I think it was 4000 kids).

Now the full set will be zero, possible 2 kids. Do we really need something that differentiates that much more than the old grades?

Here's the article HPFA linked to. Worth a read.

Thanks for copying this. Interesting article!

Now the full set will be zero, possible 2 kids. Do we really need something that differentiates that much more than the old grades?

Yes because shiny GCSE results don't have to be atomic 'full sets' of 12 x GCSE grade 9.

If DD gets 9s for maths and physics but say 8s for English and Art, then she ought to get more priority for some desirable upstream maths/physics place than a child with results the other way around.

noble why do you keep referring to science as the only tests being graded numerically in our school? All subjects are grading internal tests numerically.

Incidentally, I can't be arsed to correct all your misrepresentations of what I've said, I'll just chip in here and there :)

Why should any reasonable person give more credit to an over emotional part time maths teacher on the internet than a whole raft of teachers with excellent credentials who are known personally and who don't exhibit hysterical tendencies about the new specs and grading.

I'm glad what I said earlier about the very small number of DC getting straight A* has been 'linked to'. It puts this whole thing into perspective.

What are these desirable maths/physics sixth form places that can't already adequately differentiate between top candidates, Pique ? I understand the specialist maths schools set their own entry tests. What else did you have in mind?

goodbye - you are just being plain rude.

catkind noble is thoroughly misrepresenting what I've said, presumably because the correct representation doesn't suit her as well. Your posts represent what I've said far better.

OYBBK well I'd have a very good defence of justification in law and at least I don't say fucking this and fucking that (on MN), as some posters on this thread do. What I said in my last post is utterly fair, if you read the thread, so absolutely no apologies are due.

but from what she says she's scoring 8s and 9s in her tests so it doesn't seem to wild and wacky to predict her 9s to aim for, even if she ends up with less.

I do have faith in the school's ability to predict, based on the fact that they've been remarkably accurate with my seven older DC who offer quite a good tester group in all sorts of respects

A lot of teachers are exam markers. That helps.

happen to prefer the approach of the teachers I know in real life who I've known for a while because they've mostly taught all my DC. Simply because noble is a teacher doesn't mean noble is a better or more able teacher than the ones I know. I really don't need anything explained nor is my understanding wanting.

At our school getting a 9 in a test is related to the new GCSE. But other school evidently differ, which is fine.

Anyhow, it's very different from the advice apparently given to a poster's DD upthread who said the numerical system is being used extremely loosely 'just to get pupils used to the idea' of numbers. If that really is what's being done then the school is being very patronizing to its teen age pupils, which is usually a mistake.

So apparently the numerical grading system being used in internal tests in the school is not being used 'loosely', is related to the new GCSE grades and this is fine even though no one knows what the new grades look like because goodbye has faith in the teachers.

Why should any reasonable person give more credit to an over emotional part time maths teacher on the internet

I don't expect people to, that's why I often provide links to support my arguments. Through the tears, of course.

What I find interesting is that there has been a lack of English teachers who have come on to this thread and joined this perseveration in the inability to predict exact top grades for the new GCSEs this first year (as they cannot rely on grade boundaries from old style GCSE papers anymore and are unable to make a stab at predictions for 7/8/9s from class work). Are maths teachers perhaps not seeing the wood of their pupils for the trees of time spent calculating exact grade boundaries for predictions .
I wonder if English teachers are more philosophical since they have always been used to uncertainty from variable marking in English exams or that they just have a better idea of the ability of their pupils from classwork. Or perhaps they are in silent agreement.

English is more subjective and by definition less predictable.

Also, I think some parents get very over excited about having a child that's good at maths- because for many of us it's a bit like having a child that can do magic. It's like having a special brain. Being good at English is just like being good at something we can all (all us Mumsnet middle class parent, I mean) do too. We can have intelligent conversations with them about it and we have read the books too.

Being good at reading is something we only get overexcited about in Reception and year 1!

You very rarely get threads worrying about stress and challenge and selective schools and boredom and early exams and accessing the A level curriculum because a child is good at English or History. It's always maths.

Exactly, Bertrand. I've been shaking my head again this 'season' about the lack of English threads.

But, yes, English teachers are basically despairing more than maths teachers. They can't go "oh, this student got 70%, they must be a 7, or an 8" or whatever. It's more like "we think this student will get 55% or 60% but we really have no idea, let alone what those percentages will mean..."

I just want to say thanks to noble too - as a parent of a Y11 DD who is more 4/5/6 than 8/9 I've found your posts really helpful and reassuring over many threads.

Incidentally before this year DD was scoring mainly A and A* is maths tests but now getting 5/ borderline 6 (according to her school of course) - this has really knocked her confidence and a lot of her friends - many of them who planned on doing A Level maths are now not.

I'm not sure why you troubled to quote those various things I said noble, since they don't seem to relate especially to your conclusion about 'looseness'. The grades DC at our schoolget for internal tests won't be any more exact than old A*s/ A/ Bs were and I haven't anywhere claimed that they are - but no-one - pupils, parents or teachers - seems to be getting any more wound up about it than in the old days. I've tried to see what the issue is that's making life so difficult for you but I really, really don't get it. I take the very simple approach that everyone is in the same boat and that the sky is unlikely to fall in, either this year or next. Perhaps it will, and you'll be proved right.

DD says that English, History etc all seem to be very clued up at school, all teaching to the new spec and in the new style, and marking and predicting in new money quite cheerfully.

Perhaps the secret is rural living, or at least not living in Kent.

The grades DC at our schoolget for internal tests won't be any more exact than old A*s/ A/ Bs were

And in fact will be even less 'exact' than an old system that was, as you say, already inaccurate. The obvious solution is to not give inaccurate grades for internal tests, at least until more is known about the new grades, but preferably forever.

I don't live in Kent, by the way.