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

Ok I looked back. I first posted lateish Sunday night, about 40 posts in, you replied earlyish Monday morning. Big deal. I don't know why you're so bothered. I think it would be best if you ignored me and I ignored you - how's that for a plan?

How about you stop banging on about me? I don't think I'm the only one getting bored of it.

"there's just a lot of hand wringing and italics about people not caring."

You can understand teachers getting irate when they have to put up with stupidity like this:

www.scotsman..com/news/opinion/jim-duffy-i-could-teach-educators-a-thing-or-two-1-4413809

His assumption that he knows all about education despite presumably never actually working in a school is too typical unfortunately. As a strict amateur on the education pages I'm always aware how much more knowledgeable the actual teachers are - it's very easy to get things just a little bit wrong

That sodding article, HPFA! So many exploding teachers on twitter!

Okay, possibly a bit of a daft question but could the GCSE changes and the funding challenges combine to bring some interesting results in unexpected ways?

I am particularly thinking about the structuring of the new GCSEs to give fixed proportions of grades (same proportion getting 4+ as C+ and 7+ as A+ and the fixed quantity of grade 9) and the number of schools dropping non-core subjects for financial reasons.

If fewer state schools offer (for example) Music or Art then the number of independent school students entered in those subjects will be proportionally more - could that mean they then come away with lower grades? Even the state schools offering the non-EBacc subjects will possibly restrict them to the higher achieving students because of attainment/progress 8.

HPFA as in any profession, there are excellent practitioners and really poor quality ones - bad in the classroom, bad outside it. It would be ridiculous for anyone on this thread to make that about them, because it isn't - but I've seen too many poor quality teachers in action to put much store by what they say; one needs to discriminate, as with any profession. Unfortunately the recruitment crisis hasn't helped - poor quality teachers can be appointed with more ease, because schools are desperate.

Oddboots interesting question if the profile of students taking a certain subject changes.

I don't think schools ditching non-Ebacc subjects will affect the first sittings of the GCSEs because student would have probably taken their options before the latest round of funding cuts. It's only the first sitting where they will use proportions of C and A grades to set grade boundaries I think, after that they are going to do things differently, and they will already have had a cohort through the exams to compare with (bearing in mind the sawtooth effect). Ofqual currently use KS2 data to assess if a particular group of students are more or less able when setting grade boundaries, so that will still happen for those subjects. Private schools that don't sit SATs are excluded from those calculations.

goodbye I think though that teachers are probably alone in having the problem (although perhaps social workers have something of the same issue?) that so many people think they could somehow do the job better and more easily themselves.

I mean, we all have opinions on doctors that we think are better or worse than others - in terms of finding them more or less sympathetic and understanding- but you don't hear people saying that a doctor's job is easy or doesn't require skill.

I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to say HPFA! I don't agree that one should revere anyone at all simply because they have a job title.... and that goes for any profession. If you think that every teachers with qualified status is good, knowledgeable etc then no, I'm afraid I can't agree. Nor have I come across the syndrome whereby a lot of people think they could do the job better and more easily, although you clearly have, it's just not something I've encountered. To do the job as it should be done requires a whole range of skills and the best teachers do an incredible job - all I'm saying is that there are some very poor quality teachers about.

every teacher

I don't care how many threads Noble starts. They are either fact based threads or links to very interesting articles that I otherwise would not come across eg from TES or similar.

My youngest is at a superselective ((94% A* or A last year) so we are looking at a top end 7-9 predictions) and they say they cannot state at present where people will lie in the curve. Maybe they can but they are not telling students or parents.

Interestingly generally 2/3 of the cohort take Maths in year 10 and get an A* CIE igcse. This year year 10s are not taking early so they can get an idea of what achieves a 9 so that year 10s will have their best shot at getting a 9 in year 11.

It is obviously easier sitting it a position where our kids will be (based on the type of school they are in) knowing that the main interest to the school is where the 8 to 9 split is rather than worrying where the 3/4/5 boundaries are. I sympathise with all those in that situation and entirely get where Noble is coming from.

"I don't care how many threads Noble starts"

Neither do I.Always interesting and thoughtful

"I don't care how many threads Noble starts"

Disagree. There aren't nearly enough.

If fewer state schools offer (for example) Music or Art then the number of independent school students entered in those subjects will be proportionally more - could that mean they then come away with lower grades?

Hasn't there been some fiddling of this already suggested, for instance in Latin, where it's unlikely that the entrants will have the full ability range?

(I don't have any handy links, backup for this, or even a child doing it -- just mildly interested!)

I also find Noble's threads interesting and informative. I may not always completely agree with her point of view, but I am much more aware of issues than I otherwise would be.

Wrt this thread, I think it is preferable that it is rare to get straight 9s. In some ways it will take the pressure off the more able kids, and it will make the few who do achieve this truly newsworthy.

No I couldn't care less about the number of threads started by noble either. It's just a fact that the recent spate have been on the hysterical side, as a number of (other) posters observed on one of the many grammar school threads. I haven't noticed noble much before, so that's what sticks out to me. It doesn't matter of course, no-one said it did.

Allthebestnamesareused unless I have completely misread what noble said, she has as many issues with the 7/ 8/ 9 split being unpredictable as she does with the 3/ 4/ 5 which is why she took such exception to me saying our teachers are giving predictions.

As an aside, DD Y10 has completed the new GCSE course so I think it must make it relatively easy to predict the new grades, and not in any way bonkers.

"there are some very poor quality teachers about."
Absolutely. I think that is true of all jobs / professions, isn't it? There are some poor doctors, poor nurses, poor accountants, poor managers, poor plumbers, poor checkout operators etc etc etc. That is not at all to say that they are in anything other than the small minority, but they are there.

Locally, the real horror stories about poor teachers, in terms of classroom control and subject knowledge, come from a single sex superselective in the next town. Other local schools of all types do have some poor teachers, though not in such large numbers - either those who are poor across the board, or who are poor for a certain group e.g. those who find it specifically hard to deal with lower groups, or to stretch the most able.

In primary, it is common for teachers to be stronger in some subjects than others - I will freely admit that my art and PE lessons, though competent, are limited, especially when it comes to extending the most able .

"As an aside, DD Y10 has completed the new GCSE course so I think it must make it relatively easy to predict the new grades, and not in any way bonkers."

no - your DD Y10 has not completed a new GSCE course as it is not possible until the exams this summer and the results in August!

I should also add that I have taken as many CPD opportunities as possible in both 'subjects of relative weakness', always plan them with a colleague for whom they are a relative strength, and come out fine on them in both internal and external scrutiny. However, I 'stick to a single path' through they curriculum for both, in a way that is very different from my approach in e.g. Science or Maths or History, where I am much happier 'off piste'.

Thanks for all the supportive comments, they really are appreciated! :)

Hasn't there been some fiddling of this already suggested, for instance in Latin, where it's unlikely that the entrants will have the full ability range?

The fiddling was done to the method for setting the number of grade 9s, to ensure that subjects that had loads of students getting As or above would have proportionally more 9s available. The formula is
Percentage of those achieving at least a grade 7 who will be awarded a grade 9 = 7% + 0.5 × (percentage of students awarded grade 7 and above).

9s will be like hens teeth!! That's the point of the new grading system isn't it.

But it's still considerably less than the previous govt figure of 20% gaining grade 7, being eligible for grace 9. I think!