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Due to the last minute scrapping of SAMs which meant the textbooks were out of date and useless even before they left the warehouse and school funding cuts which meant we couldn't afford to buy them even when updated, teachers have been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.

Hmmmm, I'm spitting teeth at some of the responses on here to Noble's informative front-line rant. Please go back to your perfect-maths-world-bubble and have a word with yourselves. The point is, these new 9-1 exams are not going to raise numeracy standards, which was supposed to be one of the main objectives, and will put many kids off maths for life, even those who were capable of being stretched. There are other ways to raise the bar whilst engaging students, but no one wanted to listen to the 'experts' (ie the teaching profession) especially not Gove - remember??? - he was sick of experts. Knob.

I have 2 in yr 11 (the school moves up in years after the GCSE students leave instead of Sept) and I am so worrying about these new GCSEs. My kids are doing extra lessons after school most days now and I've one kid who is completely turned off from learning and 1 who is throwing herself into school work/revision at detriment to everything else. She's frightened of missing out on grades needed for a levels. What a clusterfuck this all is, Gove can get fucked

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

The FSMQ is level 3 so should be more difficult, but I've not taught it so don't really know how they compare. The new GCSE doesn't have calculus on it so the FSMQ content is more advanced.

I'd say that the new GCSE has questions on it comparable to the AQA Further Maths GCSE and in some cases more difficult. The AQA Further Maths is also, IMO more fun. Some of the new GCSE questions just seem like a slog for the sake of it.

Totally non-scientific view here - noble is definitely the expert - but I would say that further Maths has more advanced content but with questions asked in a more straightforward, less 'designed to trick you up' way, whereas Edexcel GCSE Maths takes slightly more straightforward [though in some cases not very engaging] topics but twists them into unusual shapes for the questions.

Just been looking at some foundation past papers and they are similar to Y6 SATS , some much much easier.

Yes, because as I said before, the old G grade was roughly equivalent to a level 3 so some students in Y11 will be working at a level below the expected level of the Y6 SATs.

If you consider a C a 'pass' (it's a level 2 pass, officially) then these students will not be passing their GCSE, but they will be able to demonstrate their level of mathematical competence which will inform their next steps.

The new GCSE does not cater for them in questions, although it is supposed to cater for them in grades.

user1495025590 I know this thread is about maths but can I question your ability to read and comprehend.
The GCSE has to be suitable for the majority of students to access. Students who are working at a 1 or 2 deserve the opportunity to show what they can do.
In your opinion these questions could be done by a KS1 child, this might be true but less able children have a right to exams they can attempt. Or do you think we should just dismiss their needs?

User, that depends.

If you want an exam and grading scheme that is designed to demonstrate what maths someone CAN do, then you need a range of questions on core content through which a student can demonstrate what they know. That core content, IMO, should be weights, measures, money, calculations, everyday problem solving to do with ratios, areas, etc.

The grade available to students who can only do such 'limited' maths should, i agree, be the lower ones. However, simply in terms of a grade reflecting what they know, is it better to have a paper on which a low grade reliably means 'could do 25% of the paper, the basic functional stuff' (on which a future employer or educational establishment or apprenticeship could build) or a paper on which a low grade means 'couldn't do 95%, the few marks I did get were randomly distributed and can't be used to indicate anything'?

I would agree that a foundation paper where ALL questions are below KS2 standard would be wrong. However,. given the distribution of grades and mathematical competence at 16, it is not unreasonable to expect SOME questions to be at that level.

Boo hiss

User I don't think you understand what 'pass' means. Most people meanLevel 2 - grade C and above.

The kids that are at the level of the KS2 tests WON'T pass GCSE maths at Level 2. They'll get a Level 1 GCSE qualification, which they can then use to access Level 2 qualifications at college or wherever.

Except now they won't.

A paper in which ALL children of low ability get a uniform tiny percentage is a badly designed paper, also. A paper should be able to differentiate between 1s and 2s and 3s reliably and reproducibly. If it has no questions designed to differentiate between these different, though still all low, levels of ability, it is a badly designed paper. A well-designed Foundation paper should give a smooth range of results across the full range of marks available on the paper (from 0 - 100%) which can then be sensibly assigned to levels.

You can't make kids better at maths by battering them over the head with stuff they can't do.

And if they can't do it by now.... well we'll just test them again in a years time. I really really feel for my SEN and LA kids who will be lucky to scrape a grade 1 and rather then being told well done for doing that as I know it was a huge achievement for you, they are being forced and forced to resit.

It's been a horrible year for those taking gcse maths and for those teaching it.

This makes me want to cry - and my heart aches for you noblegiraffe and all our children....

I've always been passionate about children learning Maths - having found it easy all my life, I spent a lot of time teaching my peers in classes as well as teaching kids extra maths in DC primary and pbelieve that building Maths confidence is as important as skills... especially in later life

So speaking as a layperson - plus mother of DD in year 10 - I can't believe we are doing this to our children.

I was so excited last year when I read that Maths was the most popular A level in the country, outstripping English for the first time...This is so going to change and so unnecessarily.

And I hate the fact that so many children who think they are "stupid at Maths" are having this reinforced by the new exams... rather than celebrating what they can do and being excited to learn more...

Signing off in great sadness...

I always rather enjoyed exams at school. I cannot imagine the horror of sitting an exam most of which was. It just beyond me but designed to be beyond me. How utterly ghastly.

Thanks Noblegiraffe!

Will this exam ever be released to the general public to have a look at?

Yes the maths papers are bloody awful, but I'm a bit confused about what the OP said about simultaneous equations. Are you saying bottom set GCSE won't be able to do them OP?

Only asking cos I know our very weak bottom set year 9s are doing them at the moment and managing (though they hate them). If taught in real baby steps and introduced alongside other stuff it's very doable and they are by far not the hardest things on the new maths syllabus! (Some of which even my Cambridge university Maths degree DH who used to say the old papers were far too easy says are 'a bit harsh'.)

I think timing would be a real issue for the brightest kids. There was a question on the last Edexcel paper with circles inside a rectangle that would have been a nice puzzle to sit down with a cup of tea and have a look at, but in a time-pressured and stressful environment would have just relied on how quickly you could spot the trick to it. I don't think they should be testing speed and luck.

Don't get me wrong, the old GCSE was a pile of pants for the brightest students, poor preparation for A-level, insufficiently challenging and so on. It's possible that in time, as the better prepared students come up through the school - the ones who did the new SATs, the ones who will get an extra hour of maths teaching each week - will be ok at the top end. We'll figure out properly who to enter for Foundation and the middling students will cope. Unless there are major changes, I don't think it will ever serve the bottom end well and we'll see these students entered for other qualifications so that they actually achieve something, in an informal workaround similar to how further maths qualifications were used at the top end up till now.

But right here and now, for this cohort of students that it was foisted upon at the last minute with inadequate resources and insufficient preparation, it has been totally unacceptable.

Are you saying bottom set GCSE won't be able to do them OP?

That depends on the ability of your bottom set! If your bottom set struggles with solving normal equations then it won't go well.

My foundation set spent ages on simultaneous equations and were mostly pretty good at them by the time we got to the exam. Edexcel saw fit to make the sim eqns question more difficult by having the coefficient of x the same but the ys one positive and one negative, and one of the other sides negative. If they decide to eliminate the xs, they have to subtract the negative which will trip lots up. It's so frustrating that they have spent ages learning this technique and then Edexcel decided not just to test that technique, but put on a deliberately not nice one.
Yes we could have spent hours more time practising but then how much time are you going to devote to a single topic?

Timing has been a huge issue for lower ability pupils in English this year - both language and literature. Some of the pupils have not attempted to write anything as the prose is too hard

Will this exam ever be released to the general public to have a look at?

The actual paper that has just been sat will be kept secure until next year so that schools can use it as a mock, but there are 'practice' papers on the exam board websites that you can have a look at to get an idea of content/level.

PRIMULA ty for explaining you views re functional skills. I dont want to derail thread as it is about Gcse but I see your point. I teach fs to those who gained low grades or no grades at school and yes, interpreting the question can be difficult for them but the reality of usable everyday maths is problem solving rather than pages of sums. I am shocked that your college do not offer the paper based assessments as most students do prefer them for the reasons you mentioned. We provide highlighters, coloured overlays etc and try the best we can to meet all learners' needs. I am pleased to say that most succeed where the gcse really knocked the stuffing out of them.

DD did higher & is hoping for a 6, shes in set 1. Maths is her weakest subject but she was predicted A, she only got a C in Mocks. Shes put loads of time & effort into revision for a long time & a weekly maths tutoring.
Shes predicted As or 7s for everything else, other than Computer Science which was a choice shes regretted, shes on target for a B.

Ita really affected her A Level choices as Sciences were initially her interest but the advice was to take Maths if she wanted to take Chemistry so shes totally changed her mind.

Our bottom set is very low ability. Struggle with basic addition and subtraction sometimes!

To be fair it's more that they "get the concept of how to work out simultaneous equations/how to lay out the working@ rather than actually manage to get the right answer! When left to their own devices they more often then not get the answer wrong, but demonstrate they know how it should be done so would get 1-2 marks in an exam should the questions be there. (Unless the Mark scheme for showing working has changed.)

To be fair it was a big claim I made as I've only seen them when they've been talked through them in class as I've been away for tests. I think more should be made of 'functional skills' maths as a viable qualification for lower ability students. IIRC That mostly deals with things that they may come across in day to day life. (But I may be wrong as haven't been in a class that did that for 3 years.) In fact I think it should be offered as a more accepted qualification for any student who struggles or doesn't like maths, but maybe that's my memories of wasting whole maths lessons trying to get a straight answer from our maths teacher to the question "So when exactly are we going to use this in real life sir?".

I hated maths when I was at school and I hate it even more now. 8 yr old DS loves maths at the moment and I hope it will continue but... I fear!