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

It's all a shambles if you ask me. Someone up thread said the new syllabus should have been brought in from the bottom up and I completely agree, pupils in the first few years of these exams are having to play catchup, not good for pupils, teachers or parents, adding more pressure to everyone at an already stressful time.

Top grade allocation is a good idea to identify the very best achievers, but kids are now feeling the pressure to get 9s in place of A*s, but the two aren't comparable. For me, the grade should indicate the standard achieved (so in a good year more higher grades given, in a poor year less). It shouldn't be about the % of pupils achieving that standard in that particular cohort, but as far as I can make out, it will be.

At the other end of this,DS is year 10, DD year 7. We've been told that a grade 4 or better for the first two year groups taking the new GCSEs will be deemed to be a pass, but in subsequent years a 5 or better will be deemed a pass. So - as an example - if DS and DD both get a 4 in, say maths, one will have a pass and the other won't. Which seems like madness to me, especially later when it comes to employment.

Has anyone else been told / heard this?

If you look at the govt link above,

The next trick is to figure out where they get their 2014 percentages from, because 21.5% is bigger than the ~16% @AlexanderHamilton found via that bstubbs site data.

I find it mildly irritating that the top grade isn't a 10. Leaving room for inflation means 9s are set to be devalued in due course

Let me fix that: only have space for one digit in the field on the data entry form. Someone go tell Crapita.

There are lots of quite serious caveats around this, but they're running reference tests which in principal will help them to detect the genuinely improved performance that would justify making a grade 10. That's difficult to do, but at least they're attempting a more honest approach which is in stark contrast to previous decades.

That's the thing about grade 9. It doesn't represent a definite and particular standard.

Does A*? My attention span has never been up to absorbing it properly, but don't we have 'comparable outcomes'. I also think exams and top grades requiring near-perfection are measuring a significant amount of something besides the child's subject ability and knowledge.

Thanks tiggytape for the explanation - no mention of resits was made, so that now makes more sense.

I imagine though it might potentially lead to a lot of people deciding to, (or be required to), resit later on, to meet employment criteria.

I saw something on ofsted twitter about eng/maths resits last week. Looks like they are beginning to question just how worthwhile the resits are.

Interesting.

On any thread about state education there are plenty of posters who have DC 'predicted all 9s'.

Either it's BS or teachers are getter my it spectacularly wrong!!!

Ds did another maths mock today that he said was "official". Anyone else?

The latest mocks are Going on / finished round here too. Marks ranging from 40 to 200+.

Interestingly, ds said they all found it really hard, but they all finished really early. Even the ones who could do most of it.

The next trick is to figure out where they get their 2014 percentages from, because 21.5% is bigger than the ~16% @AlexanderHamilton found via that bstubbs site data.

The Bstubbs data is for all maths GCSE entries, the government will have used Y11-only data. That's the proportions they will use for grade boundaries, so about 70% of students will be awarded a 4+ This summer even though on bstubbs the A*-C rate last year was 61%, as it was dragged down by y12s doing resits.

Some concerns about pressure on pupils

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exclusive-only-two-pupils-will-get-straight-top-grades-new-gcses-dfe

Lots of comments on the Maths grades under this article:

ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2017/02/03/grade-boundaries-the-problems-with-predictions/

Some concerns about pressure on pupils

Well that's one way of putting it. Personally I'd have injected 'entitled' and a few robust expletives beween the first two words.

GSA girls must have the best prizes?

the government will have used Y11-only data.

Thanks, that makes perfect sense and with hindsight we don't have cohorts that big. Yet.

Good to see from that TES article that even education journalists don't know how the grade 9 will be allocated. And a teacher on the Ofqual blog thinks that league tables will be decided by a grade 4. What hope do parents have of understanding this!

Absolute fucking mess.

Which threads are those Carl? Are loads of kids in state schools really being predicted all 9s? I haven't noticed those claims and it isn't true at our school which is on the better achieving side of the line.

Also a bit curious as to why you single out state schools?

Is there any need to get too exercised? DC at the very top end will get 9s, the next tier will get 8s. Plus ca change etc. It's just not a big deal.

Sorry if this sounds a bit thick, I don't have kids.

But does this system mean that x% of pupils must get a fail grade. That seems really demoralising for the lower ability pupils and I can see that not ending well.

Does this also mean that someone from a "thick" year isn't really comparable to someone from a "genius" year? What about people who take a few years before going to college/uni/apprenticeship? An A* vs a 8 or 9 and a C vs a 4 or 5 how does a non academic recruiter deal with that?

Yep, a certain percentage of students have to fail, no matter how hard they and their teachers try. Supposedly 4-1 are still passes, just not 'good passes'.

Comparable outcomes also mean that it's very difficult for a cohort to do better than they were meant to do from their KS2 data.

So basically, if one school manages to improve their results, another school has to go downhill.

I mentioned this cap on achievement to Ofqual and they said it also has a protective effect- the cohort can't do worse than expected. This means that if, for example, GCSE maths teaching goes to hell because there are no teachers left, this won't be evidenced by a drop in GCSE grades.

Technically a 'thick' year should be awarded fewer pass grades than a bright year, and a bright year more top grades. In future years they'll use the new National Reference Tests to decide how thick or bright a year group are. At the moment they use KS2 data.

goodbye those claims appear on a variety of threads. They replace the 'DC are predicted all A*s' comments .

They've been made historically by posters attempting to prove that private school is 'a waste of money', that selective schools are unnecessary, that there is no problem with provision for the most able in the state system.

As I say, the claims are either BS or the teachers are being unrealistic ( and lots of kids and their parents are in for a rude wake up call ).

As for being exercised- not remotely. TBH I've all but ducked out of MN education threads. Perhaps it's because my own DC are almost done, perhaps it's because I'm very busy with my ( nothing-to-do-with-education) projects in RL but I find myself looking out across the horizon and seeing no fucks for me to give.

In real life, if I'm asked my opinion I will give it. I've attended numerous meetings about the proposals. I've said my piece ( I'm bored of hearing myself frankly). As a colleague in my department recently commented carl has done her time.

Yes I read very few of the threads now myself so it was a genuine question. Since predictions for the first round in 2018 will have only been made relatively recently at any school, I was surprised many of these claims could have been made - I don't really see that they can have been, at least legitimately. It doesn't make much sense.

You protest perhaps a little too much!

But actually Carl, reading back, my comment about being exercised was a very general one, certainly not directed at you! I now see you might have thought it was.

It will be unfair on those getting 4s as they will be seen as fails in future years. I think it unfair for y11s to have a mix as well.