Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

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

900 replies

noblegiraffe · 25/03/2017 21:12

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
cantkeepawayforever · 09/04/2017 15:23

You have stated:
"titchy no I don't agree because that relationship isn't particularly relevant and informs me only in part."
which implies that you do believe your expertise to be significantly wider than just as a parent of children who attend a superselective - and when I have quite reasonably asked what that additional experience is, you have stated that no, you have in fact deliberately restricted your comments?

goodbyestranger · 09/04/2017 15:23

Oh well I may have missed them can'tkeepawayforever since I do leave this thread from time to time. I went up a mountain yesterday and when I came back you were all still at it. You're welcome to list your questions if you want and I'll answer when I have time and provided the questions are reasonable, which some of your more personal questions haven't been, so those I've certainly ignored.

My older children are about to descend for Easter however, so I may give them priority over you.

goodbyestranger · 09/04/2017 15:27

Cross post by me now.

Yes, I have had eight DC at a superselective, it's true. Two are still there.

If we're talking friends and relatives who teach at comps as though that gives us expertise then yes, you can count me in - but I don't really think it does give expertise....

cantkeepawayforever · 09/04/2017 15:29

I suppose the basic question comes down to what evidence you have that the comments you have made on this thread, which are all about your personal experience in a single superselective school, are relevant outside the superselective sector?

I ask this because noble's comments, information and opinions are much closer to those I have encountered from comprehensive teachers and, as a comprehensive parent, from their pupils.

There are very obvious reasons why the scenario in a superselective is very different from that in a full spectrum comprehensive, as I have outlined previously, so i have wondered why you believe that your particular experience in a superselective is more widely applicable?

goodbyestranger · 09/04/2017 15:30

Oh dear, another cross post. I'm going away now though. But I meant that I restrict my comments to the sector I know best, for the very obvious merit that ....I know it best and don't claim to be a know it all like some.

cantkeepawayforever · 09/04/2017 15:31

Of course, if only direct teaching experience in a comprehensive is acceptable as a form of evidence, then noble's evidence is surely the strongest? (I would be entirely happy to accept this)

goodbyestranger · 09/04/2017 15:34

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh. Another cross post. Last one. I think perhaps you should continue this conversation with noble rather than me, since she's the one who said the staff at our school are embroiled in disseminating lies and nonsense whereas you say it's easy peasy because it's a superselective (although you did also say they were bonkers). Once you've ironed that out, maybe come back to me.

cantkeepawayforever · 09/04/2017 15:35

"don't claim to be a know it all like some."

I think that is a little impolite? The fact that your expertise related only to superselectives was not clear earlier in the thread, and while superselectives educate only a tiny proportion of the country's children, noble's comments, which relate to her experience in the comprehensive sector, can perhaps be seen as much more widely true?

cantkeepawayforever · 09/04/2017 15:36

I said it was easier to predict Y11 grades in a superselective, because of the extremely limited range of ability.

I also said that extrapolating backwards to award what were claimed to be 'true' numerical grades to work in Y9 and 10 was bonkers.

Both can be simultaneously true.....

goodbyestranger · 09/04/2017 15:39

Well no, noble's experience is extremely biased by her very negative attitude to all the reforms. If you look at the plethora of threads she's started and their tone, that illustrates what I mean. I prefer to accept the views of other comprehensive teachers I know in real life who aren't all so incredibly negative - with a few reservations around funding, recruitment etc.

goodbyestranger · 09/04/2017 15:41

Slightly rude but I strongly dislike self importance and it's a lot less rude than other things said on this thread.

TheFrendo · 09/04/2017 16:51

I strongly dislike self importance

That made me laugh.

For a maths anecdote, I do quite a bit of maths tuition. This year I have some students from set 2 of our local comprehensive. Last year this set got As & Bs in about equal measure. There were no Cs.

This year, in the last set of Edexcel mocks, no one got over 120 & some scored in the 80s. Quite a few of this group should get 7s, but the marks do seem a little low right now.

titchy · 09/04/2017 17:31

Actually goodbye Noble was very very pro the original reforms that came out of an earlier consultation. She argued they were well thought out, well piloted, based on solid evidence, addressed the many issues with the old curriculum, were good for gifted and weak pupils alike and were a good platform from which to do A level. M Gove unfortunately disagreed

So it's a bit disingenuous to say Noble hates any sort of change.

cantkeepawayforever · 09/04/2017 17:52

I would also say that, IME of both primary and secondary, the NATURE of the change is not the issue, with many teachers being in favour of this. It is the IMPLEMENTATION of the change that is universally criticised.

Being in primary has given us a preview of this - KS1 SPaG, anyone? KS2 Writing ('interim framework' still being used, came out very shortly before first set of assessments done) which has given us a set of data so unreliable that Ofsted has been told to ignore it in its evaluation of schools? They are NOW consulting on removing KS1 tests and making writing 'best fit' - but perhaps consultation before implementation next time, and allowing time for a proper implementation to be done, might be a plan?

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/04/2017 19:30

If you look at the plethora of threads she's started and their tone, that illustrates what I mean

What like this thread? I started this thread to inform MNetters of what Tim Leunig said, and made a joke about how it would affect MN boasting.

You are starting to come across as obsessed tbh.

OP posts:
Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/04/2017 19:41

Actually goodbye Noble was very very pro the original reforms that came out of an earlier consultation.

Sad the poor linked pair pilot. Interestingly, that's the route that Wales have decided to go with their new GCSEs which are now nothing like England's. They've also got an Intermediate tier, which lots of maths teachers would like to see return. I don't know how it's panning out though as I don't know any Welsh maths teachers.

Other reforms I have been in favour of include the scrapping of maths coursework and the binning of modular maths GCSE. I really like the new Core Maths option at sixth form, think it's a great idea. Scrapping compulsory GCSE resits for maths and English at sixth form and replacing with functional skills is probably the right move but from what I can see on twitter, badly timed and a rather shock announcement.

OP posts:
Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/04/2017 19:43

KS1 SPaG, anyone?

My DS sat that! Total incompetence from the DfE there. Unbelievable.

OP posts:
cantkeepawayforever · 09/04/2017 20:01

Absolutely. The only good thing about messing up KS1 and KS2 tests is that, in the long run, it doesn't matter for the child at all.

Yes, secondaries will have been sorting out the mess of 'expected' writers from different schools being at totally different levels (or worse, from different counties, with their wholly different moderation policies, leading to vast differences between counties in 'pass' rates in moderated schools), but it isn't something that a child will have on their CV for the rest of their life, unlike their Maths and English GCSEs.

cantkeepawayforever · 09/04/2017 20:07

And again, like the GCSE situation, I am not against the intention behind the changes - it is the incompetence and the ill thought through nature of the implementation, and to a certain extent the ignorance of its impact on certain children that I find frustrating.

goodbyestranger · 09/04/2017 22:32

titchy you can't label anything disingenuous if the author (me) is only peripherally aware of noble's existence, let alone the substance of her contributions. I don't tend to read maths threads and I've not sought advice about my own DCs' maths - well actually I've never started a thread. But it's good to learn that she's not universally anti everything, because I'm sure that would transmit to her pupils. Nothing worse than a moany dispirited teacher to kill enthusiasm in kids.

No Frendo, you'd be very hard pushed to label me self-important.

can'tkeepawayforever although my patch is in the more able sector, I've repeatedly said on these boards that the reforms are dire for the least able, but no one who claims to defend that particular patch ever suggests anything that they're championing which could ameliorate the effects of the reforms - there's just a lot of hand wringing and italics about people not caring. Surely people with responsibilities in that sector could be a bit more imaginative? So I'm not a complete fan by any means, but the reforms are good news for the more able, of that there's no doubt. We're straying a bit here though.

noble this thread title is fine. I refer to others which are rather more hyper. Although as soon as I came on and said DD had predictions of 9s - bang, you were off: lies and nonsense etc.

goodbyestranger · 09/04/2017 22:38

Perhaps I should say peripherally aware until all these recent noble threads. I don't recall any single poster ever starting so many in such a short space of time, so quite noticeable.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/04/2017 22:57

Fucking hell goodbye are you still obsessing about me?

Although as soon as I came on and said DD had predictions of 9s - bang, you were off: lies and nonsense etc.

Nope. I started this thread on a Saturday night. It wasn't till Monday morning when you had already made ten posts on the thread before I even responded to anything you'd written. Get over yourself.

OP posts:
Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/04/2017 23:04

And again, like the GCSE situation, I am not against the intention behind the changes - it is the incompetence and the ill thought through nature of the implementation, and to a certain extent the ignorance of its impact on certain children that I find frustrating.

I agree. It's the lack of piloting, the rush straight into wholesale upheaval and the complete lack of thought about the consequences leading to changes being made during or after the implementation period which is so frustrating.

Core Maths - I've said it's a good idea and a good qualification. That has been piloted! Why pilot a qualification which will be sat by a small number of students and yet not pilot a whole suite of qualifications sat by pretty much every student in the country? It's just crazy.

OP posts:
goodbyestranger · 09/04/2017 23:04

noble I haven't gone into that depth of analysis. Possibly because I'm not 'obsessed'.... I'll certainly defend myself against rude posters though, definitely when they say that I haven't a clue what I'm talking about and that teachers I've known for years are telling me 'lies and nonsense' implying somehow that these teachers know nothing, despite years of experience and excellent results. So yes, happy to see things through to an end but in fact remarkably unconcerned by all the hysterics.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/04/2017 23:05

noble I haven't gone into that depth of analysis. Possibly because I'm not 'obsessed'...

No, probably because you are used to making statements without any knowledge of the facts to back you up.

OP posts: