The new 9-1 GCSEs. 79% for a 9? 17% for a 4? What do we think?

[noblegiraffe]

My class sat Foundation maths and got 4s and 5s almost exactly as I thought they should (I got the 5 grade boundary almost exactly right and my school was way out, so smug). They did well and I am pleased for them. There were some odd results for our Higher tier students and I think it might affect A-level entries. It's not clear whether we had the Foundation/Higher split in the right place and there's huge analysis ahead. There were quite a few 9s in our top set, but interestingly, not everyone who got a 9 even got an A* in Further Maths, let alone an A^, so elite mathematician for one didn't automatically translate to the other.

The grade boundary for a 9 on Edexcel was 79%. The stated aim of being able to separate the really able from the simply very able is going to be hard to defend when we still can't tell who got really high marks. (Oh yes, Jonny got a 9, but he only got 80% where my Susie got a 9 and 95%) Obviously this grade boundary will go up quite a lot over the next couple of years (sawtooth effect) and then probably creep up after, but it still has quite some way to go before it will be taken really seriously.

I've seen some comments on here where students unexpectedly got a 9 in English when a much lower grade was anticipated. Does this mean that the 9 lacks rigour? That the change to linear exams and lack of coursework means that a student can blag a result on the day that doesn't truly reflect their ability? Or was their ability simply underestimated or the boundary misjudged? Did anyone get a totally unexpected 9 in maths?

The 4 grade pass mark for the higher paper was 17%. Is it acceptable that you can get a pass at GCSE and not have to resit in sixth form based on 41 marks over 3 papers? I know the paper was tough and that's why the mark was so low, but does that percentage really give enough scope for students to demonstrate what they are capable of? It's pot luck with the questions. With the grade boundaries so low we will see more students being entered for Higher next year, thus missing the chance to do a substantial amount of maths aimed at their level of understanding in favour of chasing the grades. We need an Intermediate paper. Students should sit exams where they experience success, not failure.

In English, you only needed 6 marks out of 160 to get a grade 1. Is this reasonable?

There was lots of talk of students deciding against A-level maths because their confidence had been damaged by the difficulty of the exams. Have they changed their minds now the results are out? Are students feeling uncertain about taking maths with a 7 because there are now two grades higher?

Lots to think about.

My tuppence is...

I guess "top" universities will be interested in knowing that Suzie got 95% while Johnny 'only' got 80%... but will employers ever care? Isn't it enough to know they were both in the top 3% of results?

How many Universities or employers get lots of chances to choose between applicants who got in top 3% vs. top 0.2%? This fine slicing of the top ability group seems... not useful to me. That's leaving aside the things NG pointed out about how some kids who did well in furtherM didn't do so well at regular math GCSE, & visa versa. Allowing for natural underlying variability/randomness in the results, does distinguishing the top 0.2% from the top 3% really important?

Thanks very much for those revision suggestions MaisyPops; much appreciated.

what did you mean by the sawtooth effect?

Ofqual did a bunch of research into the effects of changing a syllabus/method of assessment on exam results. Obviously when there is a huge change like this year, kids won't be as well prepared as they would have been for a familiar exam. Teachers don't know the spec as well, there are fewer resources and if it's like this year, the whole transition is a complete mess. Next year, teachers will have got their heads around it a bit more and be more confident so the kids will be better prepared. Because of comparable outcomes and not wanting to disadvantage the guinea pigs, the grade boundaries were pegged this year to the proportion of passes from the old spec. Next year, if a cohort of exactly the same ability as this year sat the same exam as this year, they'd get higher grades due to being better prepared, not due to being more able, so to keep the outcomes comparable, the grade boundaries would be set higher than this year.

Comparable outcomes means that each year a kid with roughly the same KS2 profile should get, on average, the same grade as they would have done the previous year. It's what they brought in to deal with grade inflation.

Ofqual reckons it takes about three years for a new spec to become properly embedded and for students to start performing at a consistent level. It's only then that we will start to see any stability in grade boundaries (except for variations due to difficulty of the paper).

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/549686/an-investigation-into-the-sawtooth-effect-in-gcse-as-and-a-level-assessments.pdf

I've been surprised that the press haven't picked up on the low grade boundaries. They've been parroting the government's line that these exams are harder or tougher or that the standard is now higher. The low grade boundaries to me suggest that in all the confusion and upheaval this cohort (in the new specs) have probably worked to a lower standard than previous cohorts but the way grades have been awarded has just masked this. I think it was just as hard to achieve a "C" but that the difficulty came from the added stress and uncertainty and teachers who just had to guess what the standard would be rather than having to produce a better standard of English or Maths IYSWIM.

@noblegiraffe thank you so much for such a detailed reply, I really appreciate it!

Are there any recommendations for approaches to homework/revision

The most important thing an already hardworking student can do is learn how to study effectively. There's no point in putting in the hours if those hours are spent beautifully highlighting text in a myriad of colours and no actual learning.

The most effective methods of learning are:
Retrieval practice - self testing. The act of trying to remember a fact makes you more likely to remember it in the future. Flash cards, trying to write down everything you can think of about Tybalt (including which family he belongs to ) then looking at the answers would be more effective than simply reading about Tybalt. If you're going to do questions on the area of a circle, don't turn to the page with the formula and questions on, try to remember it first.

Spaced practice - As soon as you learn something, you start to forget it. But if you revisit it the next day, and then a few days later, then a week later etc then you are more likely to remember it long-term. People who cram for exams fall foul of this - they pass their exam then instantly forget the lot. No good if you want to take that subject for A-level or there's more than one paper!

Some more tips here: classteaching.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/supporting-learning-through-effective-revision-techniques/

Obviously, if the student isn't already hardworking then the advice is to pull your fingers out. Y10 isn't a doss year. Mocks might not 'count' but they're a bloody good tool for retrieval and spaced practice, making success in the real thing more likely.

DON'T HAVE YOUR PHONE IN THE ROOM WHEN YOU'RE STUDYING. EVER.

The grade boundaries in some of the new reformed A-Levels were just as low. An A* in Edexcel Biology was only 67% for instance.

My daughter was switched quite late in the day from higher to foundation Maths as it was felt that she would freeze on the day with a tough higher paper, I think they were right to do this. She did get a 4, she's just pleased to have passed.

Thank you very much Curious, Kitty, and Alexander! I am more of a natural essayist than mathematician really.

Bubbles Yes, a joint honours including French has been playing on my mind recently. I intended to read some French literature this holiday but didn't get round to it. I hope I'll enjoy French A-Level and hopefully I'm close to fluent by the end of the course. Studying French will be beneficial to me professionally as well as personally too, I want to work in diplomacy/international human rights someday. But I'm getting ahead of myself now.

Feeling I agree, not sure what board you marks for but we did WJEC Eduqas and the mark needed for a 9 was 142/200 for Language and 160/200 for Literature. There has always been a significant minority of people at my school who don't drop more than 5 or 6 marks for long essay questions (of course this is in mocks) so I did think the boundary for a 9 was very generous. We got 40% Grade 7-9 which is fantastic. And most people in my year hate English!

I also concur with Dumbledore, it's a little unfair to begrudge Grade 4/5 students who sat Higher Tier their achievement, all 3 Edexcel papers were really difficult and many will have been underconfident and underprepared. It also must be very demoralising to sit an exam where you can't access more than 50% of the questions (sorry, don't know exactly how the questions corresponded with individual grades). Even for me I found the last few pages of Paper 1 pretty inaccessible - had a shot but doubt I got many marks.

Thank you noble, I hope that my friends will still want pursue maths and physics in the future. Even my back up option if I didn't get the necessary grade in Maths was Physics, which was a bit shortsighted upon reflection...

This is interesting, apart from one glaring admin error by AQA that was quickly sorted, our English marks were as expected but Maths seemed a little more erratic. I did notice that our 9s had nearly all compared Bayonet Charge with Kamikase rather than the more obvious choice and had studied The Tempest and Pride and Prejudice rather than the other top set that had studied R and J and Jeckyll. We ended up with roughly 10% 9 in Lit and Lang. I wonder if rarity made the answers seem more interesting, I see that 90% of entries were Macbeth or R and J.

Thanks for the further suggestions, Noble. I've noted them all down for when DD1 nexts asks for my advice (trying not to be pushy as she is a hard worker). I don't allow tech in bedrooms so patting myself on the back there, but giving into her pleas for 50 different colours of fineliners was probably a mistake...

There's no point in putting in the hours if those hours are spent beautifully highlighting text in a myriad of colours and no actual learning
Yes! Every year i say this.

Redsrule
Not sure on rarity.

On the old lang as level technology answers always came in higher (students could choose from 3). We decided it was because more able students were actually more likely to pick technology questions, whereas weaker students woulf always do gender or power (along with othet top students obviously).

So a thoughtful poem pairing may be done more by the top end purely because they have the sophisitcated ideas to pull it off and that places them in the higher band.

Mine loved effects of war comparing Kamikaze and and Remains. One essay I loved was nature, Storm on the Island and Ozymandias. But weaker students probably wouldn't be able to write a strong essay on those comparisons so would stick to something safer.

Somerville
Not a mistake.

One thing some of mine did this year was do their notes in black + one accent colour.

E.g. shakespeare notes and quotations were all written in black with red highlighter/accent colour for key points

Poetry was black with purple etc

Some even brought the system into class so you could tell flicking through their book what each lesson was on.

When we say dont waste time on multicoloured notes we mean hours on rainbow mindmaps and copying oht revision guides with fancy titles etc.

Ah, thanks Maisy. (You've given me a lot of good advice over the past few days!) I hope she's doing more of the former than the latter but will double check. She's revised a fair bit of sciences and humanities over the summer, mostly
by testing herself from the specifications she found online, and has done daily flash cards for her language. But I don't think she's done much English beyond learning her poems and reading P&P multiple times. Unfortunately after a successful year 10 mock result, she seems to be coasting relying on native ability in maths at the moment.

Somerville No worries. Hope it's helpful.

I had a few y10s who got 4s in their mock this year and are now of the view that 'i didnt have to do that much so it'll be easier'. But I also have some 4/5 who worked really hard. When you compare the reasons why they ended up at 4s, the ones who worked will spike as soon as we fix their exam technique but the ones who did,'t revsie much will hit a ceiling soon.
(My group is 6 targets).