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Due to the last minute scrapping of SAMs which meant the textbooks were out of date and useless even before they left the warehouse and school funding cuts which meant we couldn't afford to buy them even when updated, teachers have been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

Why oh why is it so bad if a child doesn't get the top grade, stop the world I am getting off. If you teach a child that they will get the top grade and they don't, then of course they will feel stupid, surly the answer is to stop telling everyone they are so bloody clever when they aren't.

If the GCSE maths has put a few children off doing an A-Level in it then they probably shouldn't be doing A-Level maths. There are other subjects available.

Ok so the new GCSEs aren't as fun so children might not do as well. Well am the only person that believes lessons shouldn't be like a trip to the funfair, just get your head down and do the work. Maybe then children will actually find the subjects they are capable in and have an interest in. Rather than picking subjects where they just liked a teacher.

Lets stop University being somewhere anyone can go to with bog standard GCSEs/A-Levels and take it back to less than 25% of the population who work bloody hard to get really good results.

If a parent hot houses a DC into a grammar and they expect the school to grant them a level 9 five years later then its the parents fault, not the exams.

How old are your children Jamie?

Jamie,

I suppose it depends whether you think that putting entirely capable mathematicians off doing A-level Maths is what this country needs - I haven't seen anyone saying that we have too many people qualifying in STEM subjects to keep the economy progressing?

I expect it to even out for able pupils in the coming years, when all subjects are 9-1. For those like my DS this year, the fact that other subjects were still on the old system made them appear very much more attractive as A-levels ... so without a certain amount of leverage from me we would have ended up with another potential History / Politics graduate with no Maths A-level ...

You haven't addressed the concerns raised about the lower ability pupils, likely to be entering non-A-level routes after 16, for whom this exam does not cater at all.

Jamie's post illustrates exactly why people who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't opine on educational matters and absolutely definitely shouldn't be put in charge of them. Total bollocks.

Some children aren't academic and perhaps shouldn't be doing GCSE' s.

This was stated upthread. But the whole point of GCSEs was that they were accessible to (almost) all, with different tier papers.

A C/4 grade GCSE should mean 'competent for every day life', especially for Maths and English. You just don't need trig or simultaneous equations for day to day life. Neither do you need to be able to discourse at great length about the language used in a Dickens novel.
In order to make GCSEs more stretching for the top they have screwed them up for the lower 50%. We shouldn't need 'Level 2 functional Maths/English' as that is what a C/4 grade GCSE should indicate.

I'm just relieved that DD1 did GCSEs 2 years ago, and that DD2 has 4 years to go so maybe things will have settled down a bit.

I haven't seen anyone saying that we have too many people qualifying in STEM subjects to keep the economy progressing? But there does seem to be many people complaining about the quality of maths teachers available. How does having more and more, 'maybe/maybe not capable' mathematicians help much?

I agree the new exam doesn't sound like it caters lower ability pupils, maybe if Gove have been allowed to finish his changes he could have addressed this. More UTC's might be the answer .

How does having a different type of school - a UTC - change the GCSE qualification?? I'm a bit confused?

Currently all schools - grammar, sec mod, comp, PRU, free schools, religious schools, studio schools - enter pupils for GCSEs because those are the mandated 16+ qualifications.

Many, many competent maths teacher have left the profession because of the eternal, ill thought out, untrialled changes to the exam system, of which this is merely the most recent in a series.

So the chicken is the exam changes, the egg the shortage of maths teachers. Better thought out changes = more, better, maths teachers....

I agree the new exam doesn't sound like it caters lower ability pupils, maybe if Gove have been allowed to finish his changes he could have addressed this.

I don't think Gove cared about low ability pupils. They could have thrown in some harder items to the higher spec and left the foundation tier alone. They could have not pushed schools into forcing some kids to do the Ebacc when it wasn't suitable to them. His whole emphasis was on O level type exams which were never for the masses.

Some stuff I agree with. e.g. old MFL GCSEs were learning by hearts CAs was daft. And reworking CAs numerous times. And progress 8 as a concept.
But making pass grades so technically difficult to get and way harder than needed for real life doesn't do anyone a service. Especially with maths which is so much about confidence.

where learning by heart (I'm quite good at SPaG really)

If the GCSE maths has put a few children off doing an A-Level in it then they probably shouldn't be doing A-Level maths
It's not putting the children off because they're not capable of Maths A-level, though. It's because it's been rushed in to suit Gove's agenda. So not enough time for examiners to properly show what they are trying to test, to trial their questions and write lots of sample papers to demonstrate what the real thing will be like. Not enough time for publishers to write good textbooks and revision guides. Not enough time for teachers to prep for teaching the new syllabus. All so that Gove can appease people like you who for some reason think that lessons remotely resemble a "funfair".

As cant says, we need more capable mathematicians in this country. These new exams and especially on this timescale are exactly the wrong way to achieve that.

It's worth noting that the old Further Maths A level had a really high pass rate and a high % of candidates got good grades, compared to other subjects. This is because the cohort was very high ability (as could be seen from their performance in other subjects e.g. Maths / Physics). It's a self selecting cohort- children don't do Further Maths unless they're really confident in their ability to do it. A lot used to drop out after AS Further Maths because it was too hard. Whereas actually, those candidates who could get say a C in Further Maths at A-level- I for one think that's a pretty good mathematician and we could do with more of them around.

Under the new system we will have fewer. Capable candidates will doubt their ability and won't do Further Maths or else won't do any Maths A-levels at all. This is basically the exact opposite to what employers and universities are asking for and what we as a country need.

UTCs have been a total and utter failure. A waste of millions upon millions of taxpayers' money. Let's not go throwing good money after bad.

How does having more and more, 'maybe/maybe not capable' mathematicians help much?

Accepting for a moment that that's a good description, can you see that having more moderate-ability people studying maths is likely to result in a more numerate population overall, compared with discouraging those people from the studying maths at all?

Person X, sits Maths GCSE, gets a B. Goes on to do Maths A-level, gets a D. Goes on to be a primary school teacher.

Person Y, sits Maths GCSE, gets a 6. Doesn't do A-level. Goes on to be a primary school teacher.

Which do you think will be the better teacher?

And getting everyone to a level of functional numeracy is what really matters. Maybe the old GCSE didn't differentiate enough at the top level, but that's a specialised problem; those children were numerate and were doing fine anyway. They were going to go onto higher education. If we want to stretch and differentiate at the top end, that's easily solved by introducing a higher level paper.

I'm a professionalish sort of person with a degree, and all the maths I use in my life is what I learned by the end of about Y7. I never need to use trig or simultaneous equations, but I do need to know weights and measures, arithmetic, time telling, percentages, area and volume. With those skills, I can read a spreadsheet and fill in a VAT return. I can run a household budget and I can run a small business. Those are the maths skills we need to make sure are firmly embedded in people.

The last time they messed around with A-level (Curriculum 2000) the take-up of maths A-level plummeted. You can be assured that people didn't go 'meh, there are other A-levels'. In fact what happened was there was a massive intervention, maths and further maths were completely rewritten in terms of content in order to make them easier (a lot of A-level content moved to further maths, and a corresponding amount of further maths content was ditched completely). Since then (first sitting 2005 so you can see how quickly they acted), take up of maths A-level has increased until it's now the most popular A-level. This has been a huge success story and now it's in jeopardy because Gove is a fuckwit.

Draylon

Glad it's not just me.

Can I offer an additional rant?

IMHO GCSE maths should link to the mathematical side of other subjects . Eg computer science necessarily has maths in it, quite a lot, but I have yet to see children taught the same concepts in maths classes.

I know that has nothing to do with the teachers and everything to do with the syllabus but surely it would be better for every child to access some concepts in different subjects.

Various averages are used in lots of subjects from sociology to geography so that should be in GCSE maths, again IMHO.

I think the current shake up have missed a trick by nor looking at the content of various subjects and looking at overlap.

Why oh why is it so bad if a child doesn't get the top grade, stop the world I am getting off. If you teach a child that they will get the top grade and they don't, then of course they will feel stupid, surly the answer is to stop telling everyone they are so bloody clever when they aren't.

I don't think you understand the phenomenon. DS is in a selective school he got in on his own ability and was not tutor to get in except explaining exams techniques. His year 7 CAT test put him at "he should achieve a 9" in his GCSEs.

He was an able maths pupil as his maths teachers told us through his 5 years of secondary school. In November he took a mock new GCSEs exam where he wasn't able to complete more than about 40% in total. He then decided he's stupid and said that even if he's achieving 9 in his actual gcse he will not do A level maths. I doubt he turned into a low achiever around Nov/Dec time.

These type of kids are put off doing maths, not all but a big proportion of them. They can't even trial it at AS level, once you choose it you're stuck with it.

Maybe the old GCSE didn't differentiate enough at the top level, but that's a specialised problem

The real problem was that when they got rid of intermediate tier, higher tier became watered down. Only 25% of the paper was A*/A questions which wasn't sufficiently challenging to prepare students for A-level and lots failed to make the jump. Lots of schools remedied this by entering top sets for further or additional maths GCSEs, so a workaround to make up for a problem with the qualification. It would have been also possible to solve this by reintroducing intermediate tier.
Instead, Gove decided to reintroduce intermediate tier, then make higher tier harder than the old higher tier. He called intermediate 'foundation' and essentially binned foundation tier.

"Various averages are used in lots of subjects from sociology to geography so that should be in GCSE maths, again IMHO."

Sorry? Are you saying you don't think they do averages in GCSE maths?

I spend a lot of my time teaching students where they will use the skills I am teaching them in maths in other subjects. I have also in the past few years spent a lot of my time teaching some of them basic computing skills so it cuts both ways!

Ok so the new GCSEs aren't as fun so children might not do as well. Well am the only person that believes lessons shouldn't be like a trip to the funfair, just get your head down and do the work. Maybe then children will actually find the subjects they are capable in and have an interest in

The problem with the new maths GCSE is that it sets the kids up to fail. I agree that we need to improve the level of maths ability in this country, but just suddenly introducing a harder maths GCSE doesn't improve ability, it just puts children off maths.

The whole maths curriculum needs to change, right from year R. We need to look at the way we teach, and the attitude we have, to maths in this country. Then maybe in 10 years time the children will be ready for the new, harder GSCE papers.

But not now, with very little time to prepare. The whole thing feels like a rushed through, botched job that hasn't been thought out properly.

And my DS hates Michael Gove almost as much as I do !

"Ok so the new GCSEs aren't as fun so children might not do as well. Well am the only person that believes lessons shouldn't be like a trip to the funfair"

Are you suggesting that GCSEs used to be fun? Quadratics represented in interpretive dance or something??

Sorry? Are you saying you don't think they do averages in GCSE maths?

No, sorry maybe I worded it wrong, it is just one topic that comes up in a lot of other subjects so should be taught, but I think there should be more links between subjects.

I'm dismayed by the mention of apparently "trick" questions. Maths surely should be about knowing the techniques and rules to use to get the answer, it shouldnt be about being able to do that AND spotting the trick of the question.

I've never been very impressed with the maths curriculum in this country, I'm not sure of the value of teaching kids what the ^ symbol means, and yet NOT teaching them what 30% APR on a credit card means. They will encounter the second one far more often than the first one!

"UTCs have been a total and utter failure"

In what way? What are they supposed to offer that schools and 6th form colleges can't offer? A couple of DD's friends are studying at a UTC for A levels because they didn't fancy staying at school and didn't want to go to the local 6th form college.