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

many of them who planned on doing A Level maths are now not.

If it's any consolation, I've seen quite a few posts from parents saying that their DC would have got an A but is now getting lower than a 7. This can't be true for all DC, as the proportion of 7/As will stay the same.

I hope some will reconsider maths A-level on results day!

Discussing the issue of "accurate" grades in the old style GCSE where some of the syllabi were almost meaningless is a bit pointless...

We had a letter home a few days back saying that Dd had a piece of English work marked 'using a gcse mark scheme and it was given a grade 7 '

I knew they were using new system for predicted grades but not for individual pieces.
When I have previously brought up dd's grades and that I thought it must be hard to predict with all the change, the 2 teachers I spoke to (English and languages) seemed very laid back and confident of their abilities to predict using new system. So much so that I was a little embarrassed at having brought it up.
Even so, I couldn't decide if they really were confident .. or perhaps just converting old NC levels (or taking a wild stab in the dark!)
My gut feeling is that they are just converting old NC levels at her school. They know where she would have been but this is not where she is now
Dd is not yr 11.. I feel really sorry for kids who are having to make post 16 decisions this year

"Discussing the issue of "accurate" grades in the old style GCSE where some of the syllabi were almost meaningless is a bit pointless..."

What does this mean, please?

We had a letter home a few days back saying that Dd had a piece of English work marked 'using a gcse mark scheme and it was given a grade 7

English marking even more mad at DD's school. They are given a target band (7-9 in her case) and then each piece of work is given a W(Working Towards) an E(Expected progress) or a B (Better than EP) which is supposed to reflect whether she's making the right progress towards that grade. Her last two grades have been Bs so logically that would imply she's heading for a Grade 10 which doesn't even exist (yet)!!

Honestly at this stage I think we need to take it all with a pinch of salt and if a Year 8 kid gets say a Grade 7 on a piece of work we just take that to mean they're doing well and not get too worked up about what it "predicts" for their actual grade in 3 years time. I can't help thinking the old levels were much easier to understand.

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

Here that is because of the subjectivity you mentioned. English increasingly has very little to do with reading and standard comprehension, and a lot to do with 'literary analysis' and that depends on the prevailing consensus around what the author was up to etc.

I think it's premature in terms of age (starts in upper-KS2 or worse), but it's essentially part of the 'skills not facts' agenda i.e. literary analysis is a 'skill' and who cares if you don't properly comprehend the meaning of some words before trying to read a dead author's mind and blathering on about the structure.

If I ran the planet I'd kick all that up to A-level.

Bertrand - for example, the syllabus for GCSE French taught DC a form of gibberish. Who cares if the DC get A* or D in gibberish? There is no point at all worrying about the finer points of grade boundaries...

noble Kent was a casual reference to educational angst - not about you!

Yes HPFA I think taking a relaxed approach is a good idea. I can't see any more need for absolute precision now than in the past, in terms of marking of internal tests. I'm not sure that taking that approach should meet with the level of opposition it has on this thread. I'm even less sure that castigating parents for commending high quality teachers, some with many decades of teaching and exam experience, for using the new numerical grades as best as they can, and with a degree of confidence, is appropriate either. This seems to be to be more about the totality of the educational reforms than a single part of them and this very over the top condemnation of every one of the sum parts characterizes all the recent threads on the subject. Still, very soon the White Paper allowing leafy comps to convert to selective status will be out, and attention can turn away from the minor issue of numerical grades to the rather larger issue of the demise of leafy comps.

Still, very soon the White Paper allowing leafy comps to convert to selective status will be out, and attention can turn away from the minor issue of numerical grades to the rather larger issue of the demise of leafy comps.

Oh dear and I was quite enjoying taking a break from that particular battle!!

"Who cares if the DC get A* or D in gibberish"

Well, to put it in terms that the average Mumsnetter will understand- the A* in gibberish will get you into Oxford- the D in gibberish won't.

This whole thread has brought back some strange memories - the year after I did O-Levels one person in the girls grammar I went to AND the boys grammar next door got an "A" in History O-Level. I even remember her name.

I wonder if whether you're stressed or relaxed about 9s depends on your age? If you're over a certain age it maybe feels more like going back to the norm?

The A in gibberish will get you into Oxford*

It really won't - www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/tests/tests-students-applying-study-modern-languages-or-linguistics

if a Year 8 kid gets say a Grade 7 on a piece of work we just take that to mean they're doing well

The silly think is that there is absolutely no requirement to put any grade on that piece of work. Schools did it with levels and sublevels which were totally made up and not how levels were designed to be used, so levels were scrapped. Schools instead of thinking hard about making the system better just tried to slap the new GCSE grades where the old levels used to be without even stopping to think about whether it even makes sense to give a Y8 who isn't doing GCSE yet a GCSE grade for an individual piece of work, using grades that haven't been decided for an exam that hasn't been sat.

It gives the illusion of science to a bunch of nonsense.

And while I think about it, the research shows that if you put a grade on a piece of work, the kid will be more likely to look at the grade and less likely to look at the feedback. Making up a nonsense grade in order to have something to put on your assessment actually makes your marking less effective.

Noble very good points.

Schools did it with levels and sublevels

'Twas ever thus. Once upon a time in the olden days it wasn't unusal to see O-level track work marked: B+, A-, A, C+, C...

Did primary schools do it? This story is a level 4b?

Dd's primary definitely did in year 6... she used to talk about individual pieces of work and the mark she got

The reason grades cannot be more accurately predicted is that the exams (of which there are, of course, no past papers yet with which to compare) is that the exams are supposed to be harder.

My understanding is that previously over 90% would pretty much be an A, over 80 % an A and over 70% a B etc. Therefore if 30% of the cohort scored over 90% they'd get As.

However as the exams are likely to score lower percentage grades it will be strictly done on a curve and a certain percentage given 9s (very few), then the next percentage 8s etc. So if you factor in clever cohorts someone who may have got an A* previously may not get an 8 if they do not fall within the percentage available for 8/9. So a proper curve system (like when I did my O levels).

The other things goes to the percentage being achieved in the exams. If the exam is harder then the spread of scores is likely to have a wider range thus differentiating between the top of high end (9) and the bottom of high end (8). Until there are some actual exams with grade boundaries set and then a number of these it will be hard to say what is a likely 9 or 8 or 7 (or 6/5/4). There will also be distortions where if one school year are not quite as clever you may expect say (pre example) 68% got a 9 last year. However if this school year is cleverer then it may be that you need to score 73% to get the 9. (All hypothetical scores until there has been some actual sampling).

When schools get the results at the moment (under the A* - G system) do they also know the percentage scores the child gets. So would they know whether the child got over 96% or between 90-95%? If so would this be an indicators as to whether they are potentially 9s rather than "just" 8s.

If so then they would then be able to use this date to guesstimate whether a piece of work may fall within a numerical scale in that they could compare to previous students' work for comparisons to high As to low As.

Wow _ I hope that makes sense (it does in my head) but I standed to be slated corrected!

After being accused of hyperbole upthread about how a drop in take-up of A-level maths was a huge issue, I've just read this TES article referencing the twitter thread I linked to.

"Charlie Stripp, director of the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics, said the centre was aware of early indications from schools and colleges that they are expecting fewer pupils to start AS/A level maths courses this September.

He said: "If this happens, it will be very bad news, coming after years of strong growth in the popularity of maths at this level....He urged policy-makers to take note of the "early warning signs" and "do everything possible to ensure that the financial arrangements are in place—or put back in place-- that enable schools and colleges to continue to be able to offer AS/A level Maths and Further Maths to all students who would benefit from taking them|.

He added: "Otherwise the gains we have made in recent years could disappear and both individual students and the country as a whole will lose out.”"

"We are getting a sizeable proportion of people saying there are multiple issues and they are affecting the take-up of post-16 maths next year. Alarm bells ought to be ringing,” said Golding." (President of the MA)

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/new-maths-gcse-causes-drop-a-level-applications

Not just me that is concerned then!

A short discussion thread on TES about the take up of A level maths & further maths come September..

community.tes.com/threads/a-level-maths-and-further-maths-numbers-for-september-2017.754755/

Charlie Stripp, director of the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics, said the centre was aware of early indications from schools and colleges Might those 'early indications' be from you and other similar maths teachers. Parallels to the effects of rumours on the stock market come to mind .

Seriously, as I said before any dip will only be temporary and students who really enjoy maths will still choose it.

Is there also a dip in English A level uptake?
What subject starting new GCSE grading next fall victim to grade prediction uncertainty!

I remember in my days of O'levels never being told what my grade predictions were, just that I was doing ok. I did n't realise that should have affected my A level choices and my future, I thought that my choices were about how well I revised and did in the exams. Not sure we even got past papers. So naive .

I remember in my days of O'levels never being told what my grade predictions were, just that I was doing ok.

Must admit I never realised until Options evening for DD how different the mentality is now. It feels like when we wrote essays we were just told whether they were good or bad - I don't ever remember being told in detail how I could improve them.

At Options Evening the Geography teacher showed us the plan of work and for every topic there was a whole detailed list of what you had to do to get to each level, what Keywords you had to put in etc. And last year at Parents evening DD's RE teacher told us how good DD is at getting in the Keywords - and it came over as high praise!

I'm not sure how I feel about it really. It seems a depressing way to do subjects like History. But even though I went to an independent grammar quite a few girls left without decent qualifications. And for those who didn't get on well in certain subjects the attitude was pretty much it was their fault and little effort was made to help them. Their seems less chance of children falling through the net now.

Might those 'early indications' be from you and other similar maths teachers.

No, I voted 'don't know' in the poll because I've no idea whether my school A-level uptake has been affected. (I wanted to see the responses to the poll). I'm guessing that people who voted that their school had seen a drop in uptake have actually seen a drop in uptake, and this is what is being communicated.

The thing you have to remember is that maths has been here before. When maths A-level uptake plummeted by 20% post-curriculum 2000 A-level changes, lots of research was done into the reasons. We know that a poor experience of maths GCSE affects A-level choices. We know that a perception of maths as an elite subject for a 'clever core' affects A-level choices. Given that we know this, anyone looking at the fall-out from the November mocks would be alert to the possibility that history could repeat itself. This is compounded by the fact that the current guinea-pigs for the new GCSE will be the guinea-pigs for the new A-level which starts in September. Maths will be seen as a risky choice without the back-up of being able to drop it at AS.

I'm not sure where your confidence that a dip would only be temporary has come from, and the country can't really afford any dip, nor a wait-and-see approach.

It feels like when we wrote essays we were just told whether they were good or bad - I don't ever remember being told in detail how I could improve them.

Enter league tables and incredibly high stakes attached. Schools are now totally in the business of getting kids through exams in a way that they weren't at all in the past. I remember doing maths coursework and spending hours going around shops measuring pizzas because I had misunderstood what I was actually meant to be doing, but no one saying anything. We sat mocks, we did some work, we were told to revise, that was it.

Now after mocks (and other internal exams), I have to enter every single mark for every single question for every single student onto a spreadsheet. These marks are used to generate personalised revision checklists for students, personalised revision booklets, and can be uploaded to a maths app to generate personalised quizzes.