Rant about the new maths GCSEs. Michael Gove you tosser.

[noblegiraffe]

I've got to write this because I've been fuming all day and I need to get it out or I'll never sleep.

So today was the final maths paper, the first round of teaching of the new GCSEs complete. What a total and utter nightmare the whole thing has turned out to be. The poor kids today looked like wrecks. Over 20 different exams spread over weeks has really taken its toll, thanks to all subjects being made linear. We had a revision class yesterday and they had nothing left to give, it was a really horrible ending to the course, trying to cajole them into squeezing in some last minute revision. Three papers for maths has meant it has been a real trial to keep the momentum going (not to mention the added expense of all the extra photocopying of 3 papers instead of 2). Next year it will be even worse as at least this year they still have the cushion of coursework in some subjects.

Due to the last minute scrapping of SAMs which meant the textbooks were out of date and useless even before they left the warehouse and school funding cuts which meant we couldn't afford to buy them even when updated, teachers have been scrabbling over the internet for resources to teach the new topics on the syllabus. The syllabus is unclear and teachers have been trying to find out what they actually have to teach from looking at the sample papers put out by the exam boards. Workload has been horrendous. One question on Edexcel Foundation caught lots by surprise because that style of question wasn't on any papers, and being an old A* topic, many schools hadn't taught it.

Some of the syllabus is just stupid. Memorising exact trig values on foundation? Really?

Before the most recent higher and foundation papers we had foundation (up to a D) intermediate (up to a B) and higher (up to an A) which were then replaced with foundation (up to a C) and higher (up to an A). Essentially what has happened is that we've gone back to the old system with an intermediate and higher paper, but got rid of foundation and are making all the weaker kids sit intermediate. There is nothing for them on the papers. Kids who would have got a G or F grade are having to sit 4.5 hours of papers where they can answer maybe 2-3 questions on each. What does that say to them? The first question on the first maths paper that they sat was (non calc) 2^4. The third was solve x/5 = 2 1/2. Those poor kids.

And the papers themselves? Awful. It used to be 'the examiners are looking to reward what you know, not trying to catch you out'. Well that seems to have passed Edexcel by. Questions which could have been fine had twists put into them for no reason other than to increase the chance of failure. Foundation kids for the first time have to solve simultaneous equations. But why put a question on which is going to trip them up and confuse them? Lots of fuss about trig being on Foundation so we dutifully taught it and spent lots of time on it because it's hard. It was on every sample paper they produced. It wasn't on the sodding real thing. What a waste of time.

My foundation class would have comfortably got Cs and be able to answer the majority of a paper without breaking a sweat. Now it's all very, very difficult and they hate it. We've had higher tier students lose all confidence, bomb out of the higher paper and be moved to foundation, capping their potential grade. Other higher students have decided that maths isn't for them and wont be taking A-level.

All this has served to do is to put kids off maths and make them think they can't do it.

And it's all very well saying 'the grade boundaries will be low, it will be fine, the same proportion will get a C as last year' etc etc. As a maths teacher who is interested in the maths education of the population, this is simply not good enough. You can't make kids better at maths by battering them over the head with stuff they can't do.

I've just fed my Year 11 science students homemade brownies. Papers were 'ok' - to be honest I think they are passed caring. Back to class to try and motivate an exhausted year 10 class.

I think lower numbers taking Maths A Level may just be because the flaky ones have weeded themselves ut rather than get an E or drop out altogether. O level was end of Y11 exams so this situation replicates that position. Mine did iGCSE and that was end of year exams too.

Genuine question, so please be kind.

Are you saying that questions such as 5 x 2.5 or 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 are too hard for a C grade at GCSE? Or is it the presentation of such questions?

In all honesty, I would really hope that most 16 year olds could answer such questions.

Also, I would expect the better students to know basic sin / cos values of 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 180. They are all quite useful in many future subjects, and much better than using a calculator.

I may have missed the point.

It was me who made the comment about functional skills . One of the biggest problems is understanding the questions , given that many of the students taking the qualification will have SpLd wading through a question which goes on for two pages and being able to pull out the relevant information is difficult in itself . Especially for those with dyslexia or concentration problems. The information needed to resolve the questions is often hidden deep in pages of typeface littered with unfamiliar words about landscape gardens or decorating which phase a less than confident reader.As it is on a computer screen you can't go through with a pencil or highlighted pen and then reread etc

Plus all the colleges around here make you take it on the computer which means typing your workings in so it becomes a test of typing skills rather than maths . Typing maths workings using a normal keyboard is quite challenging .It also makes reviewing your answers harder. In a written paper it's easy to read the paper over at the end and maybe pick up the odd error that's much more difficult when going through a computer screen , by the time he has changed back through the screens my ds has forgotten what it said in the later one

It is often very poorly taught in very large classes oh one lesson a week , well over 40 at the college my ds goes to and half fail to turn up every week . The poor teacher hardly knows who is there from week to week and basically they just practice doing questions on the computer .

Anyway that's just our experience .

I'm no fan of Gove but id still like to know why we are so innumerate as a country. I think solving that is more important then finding exam formats that anyone can pass.

My question too, @SpicyTomatos

I'm no fan of Gove but id still like to know why we are so innumerate as a country.

That is a valid question. We need to get away from people boasting that they are no good at maths. Gove's reforms aren't going to do that.

Spicy, I was thinking exactly the same about 5 x 2.5 and 2^4....

Other countries use teaching systems where the child succeeds before moving onto the next level.

We have a system where some of them can only attempt a few questions before bailing out of the system. Madness.

It's awful that there are some very capable kids out there who may not do maths at A level now - after working so hard, it's not good for their confidence. Also, our kids are the next generation who'll be working and we're going to need those skills gained at A level and above for certain jobs.

My daughter is very level headed and doesn't worry too much until she knows there's a problem. Due to this, she just takes the attitude it was hard as I find maths hard anyway - she's forecast a 7 and it would have been nice to have her saying she'd answered some questions well, rather than I put something down and maybe got a mark here and there..

Are you saying that questions such as 5 x 2.5 or 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 are too hard for a C grade at GCSE?

No, they are perfectly reasonable and in fact relatively easy questions for someone who is going to get a C at GCSE. The problem is that they were the first page of questions on the foundation paper which is where the G and F grade students are supposed to pick up their marks. And it wasn't 5 x 2.5, it was solve x/5 = 2 1/2 which is more complicated - kids who could do 5 x 2.5 easily would get the equation version wrong.
GCSE has to be sat by all students so there should be questions on the papers to cater for all abilities. A grade G/F is roughly an old level 3/4 (under expected level for leaving primary school). Last year over 10% of maths entries were F/G/U so this isn't a tiny percentage.

The paper starts with easier questions and works up to the harder questions, and those were the 'confidence builders' By the end of the paper students were solving simultaneous equations, plotting a reciprocal graph and stuff like that.

I would expect the better students to know basic sin / cos values of 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 180.

That's fine, but it's also being expected of the middle and lower ability kids. They aren't expected to know about or be able to manipulate surds, but they are expected to know that sin(60)=root3/2. Of foundation kids, a minority of them will be able to do basic trig questions and yet they're being expected to learn stuff that only comes in handy when you're working at a much higher level of understanding. It's pointless, especially seeing as most of them can't even do trig with a calculator.

noblegiraffe - many thanks for the explanation.

Bubbles maths has been linear for a while, and it wasn't actually modular for that long. The problem with saying 'oh the kids now not taking maths A-level are the flaky ones that would have probably failed anyway' is that we need those kids to take maths. Getting an E or a D at AS is better for them and the country than not taking any maths post-16 at all. Apart from that, many of the ones not taking maths aren't going to be flaky failures but are simply underconfident students, most likely girls. It's a known issue.

We are one of very few countries where maths isn't compulsory post-16 so any measures that reduce take-up even further are a problem.

"We are one of very few countries where maths isn't compulsory post-16"

I was wondering about that from reading some posts. So, in England, children can drop maths completely after 16/GCSE?

Noble, do you know how the new, more difficult (edexcel) Maths GCSE compares with the FSMQ (advanced level) Additional Maths?

Thanks for your oversight on this Noblegiraffe. To think in this country we are supposed to be encouraging our DC to study STEM subjects. Employers are crying out for good maths candidates.

In our school, Year 8 is having extra tuition, as of this week, on both science and maths, to cope with the latest paper, which a pp posted about!!

My foundation class would have comfortably got Cs and be able to answer the majority of a paper without breaking a sweat. Now it's all very, very difficult and they hate it

what is the point of an exam everyone can pass???

The old foundation papers were absurdly easy.

A couple of the responses on here such as "In all honesty, I would really hope that most 16 year olds could answer such questions." is the problem with the new exams; a lot of 16 year olds are being basically told they are worthless - when students can't read the question how are they going to answer It?

It's the same with the grades available - more grades available for the higher ability, fewer for the lower ability

The students who are not A* are being told they crap and the added kick in the teeth is that they have to resit...

The old foundation papers were absurdly easy.

If all the kids taking the old foundation papers found them absurdly easy there'd be 100% achieving a grade C. Was there? No, so I think we can readily infer that actually, a lot of kids did NOT in fact find them absurdly easy. FFS.

what is the point of an exam everyone can pass???

We didn't have one. Nearly a third of Y11s failed maths last year.

The old foundation papers were absurdly easy

Michael, is that you?

The old foundation papers were absurdly easy

For who? Kids with special needs? Not everybody is clever, these students need an exam they can access as well.

It pisses me off that all the emphasis is on the bright kids and no one gives a fuck about kids at the other end of the spectrum.

One of the reasons we are not 'good at maths' as a nation is cultural. Parents hate and fear maths and pass that on to their children. They hate and fear maths because they have been made to sit exams they can't access. We were trying to combat this but now we are back to square one. Or minus square 1.

So, in England, children can drop maths completely after 16/GCSE?

Yep. Unless they fail to get a C or above at GCSE, in which case they have to resit it in sixth form/college. Most of these students went on to fail it again. Students who got an E or below were allowed to sit functional maths instead. These resits continue until they leave school.

Professor Sir Adrian Smith wrote a report into making maths compulsory post-16 that was due to be published in January but has been kicked into the long grass delayed. It was expected to reveal that this would be incredibly difficult as the country doesn't have enough maths teachers to teach the maths already on offer let alone fill new sixth form teaching posts, and that any measures would take at least 10 years to implement.

Somebody who cannot display a reasonable level of competence in a subject should not be passing a GCSE. Just been looking at some foundation past papers and they are similar to Y6 SATS , some much much easier.I mean showing a picture of a jug of water with a scale on the side filled up to the 500 ml line and asking how much water it contains.I mean that is stuff i would expect a KS1 child to answer with ease.It should not be on a GCSE paper!