Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

13% for a pass on maths GCSE (November resits)

50 replies

noblegiraffe · 11/01/2018 22:21

The kids who failed their maths GCSE in the summer had a chance to resit in November and the results have recently come out.

The grade boundaries for the maths papers, the second set of the new fat GCSE were even lower than in the summer. 13% for a 4 (old C) on the Edexcel higher paper.

I know, I know, a 4 means that they have had to answer some difficult questions and they would have to be of a reasonable standard to achieve that amount of marks on higher because it's so hard, but really? 4.5 hours of exams and get 87% of the questions wrong and be awarded your pass. Isn't that just a monumental waste of time? 13% to represent your entire maths education in a single number?

Obviously the answer is that pass grade kids should be entered for Foundation but there will always be chancers on higher.

However, despite low grade boundaries, the resit pass rate for maths was 30%. (39% for English). I guess only those who had a shot at it were entered as well.

OP posts:
RB68 · 13/01/2018 11:47

I think the real issue here is that no one outside the education system has a bloody clue how the thing works and that includes employers so there is alot of misinformation. As a result the exam results become meaningless. 13% could mean they got every question in the relevant section correct, but that at the higher sections couldn't do them.

Sats work somewhat similar I believe which also causes problems

RB68 · 13/01/2018 11:47

I think the real issue here is that no one outside the education system has a bloody clue how the thing works and that includes employers so there is alot of misinformation. As a result the exam results become meaningless. 13% could mean they got every question in the relevant section correct, but that at the higher sections couldn't do them.

Sats work somewhat similar I believe which also causes problems

RB68 · 13/01/2018 11:47

I think the real issue here is that no one outside the education system has a bloody clue how the thing works and that includes employers so there is alot of misinformation. As a result the exam results become meaningless. 13% could mean they got every question in the relevant section correct, but that at the higher sections couldn't do them.

Sats work somewhat similar I believe which also causes problems

noblegiraffe · 13/01/2018 12:02

How the papers are put together in terms of grades is: (from Ofqual)
In a higher tier paper, half of the marks should be targeted at grades 9, 8 and 7 and the other half of the marks should be targeted at grades 6, 5 and 4.
In a foundation tier paper, half of the marks should be targeted at grades 5, 4 and the top of grade 3 and the other half of the marks should be targeted at the bottom of grade 3 and grades 2 and 1.

If you look at the picture and see how the grades targeted align with the grade boundaries. For Foundation, 50% of the marks are targeted at lower grade 3, 4 and 5, but you only needed 50% of the marks to get a grade 4 in June. This means technically you could get a grade 4 without even answering any questions targeted at a grade 4. Although it has always been the case that the grade boundaries are lower than the grades targeted by questions because we have to allow students to get some questions wrong, this does seem odd.

The Ofqual blog about this only concentrates on the complaints that the grade boundary for a 4 is very low on Higher tier, but it doesn't look at how low it is to get it on Foundation which I think is something that does need investigating.

ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2017/11/03/gcse-maths-grade-boundaries/

I just saw a tweet from the Mathematical Association about asking for 3 tiers. They said that the DfE wanted a single tier for maths (Shock Shock Shock) and that it was hard enough to argue with them for two tiers. Three tiers, they said, would be impossible. All this shows is that the DfE shouldn't be allowed to make these decisions as they don't have a clue.

13% for a pass on maths GCSE  (November resits)
OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 13/01/2018 12:10

but I assume that if kids are entered for the higher papers, they have been taught the whole syllabus?

No. That has never been the case. Students who are around grade 5 will need to be taught trigonometry in Y10/11. They will probably find this difficult and need a few weeks to get to grips with your standard SoHCaHToA questions. In contrast, your top set probably did trigonometry further down the school and will just need a quick reminder in Y10/11 then move into 3D trig, sine and cosine rules and trig graphs. The grade 5 students won't have time to do the 3D trig, sine and cosine rules and trig graphs. If you did rush them through the standard trig so that they did have time to do them, they most likely wouldn't understand them well enough to get questions correct in exams, but also they would fail to get the standard trig questions correct because they hadn't spent enough time on it.

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 13/01/2018 12:25

Teen As you say, they can't just decide that 75% on Foundation (or 90%) is a 6 because then there would be inconsistency between the Foundation and Higher papers. 20% of marks on Foundation and Higher have to be common between the two papers (meaning that the top 20% of marks on Foundation have to be the same questions as the bottom 20% of marks on Higher). They were supposed to look at how students did on these overlap questions to ensure consistency of standard between students getting a 4/5 on each tier. I don't see how this can possibly have been the case when you only needed 60% for a 5.

They gave themselves too many restrictions.

  1. Grade 4/5 students need to perform at a similar standard on the overlap questions whether sitting Foundation or Higher
  2. The grade 5 boundary on Higher needs to be set numerically as halfway between the grade 4 and grade 6 boundary
  3. Roughly the same proportion of students needed to get a grade 4+ and a grade 7+ in 2017 as in 2016.

They met 2) and 3) - I'd be really interested to see whether 1) is actually true.

OP posts:
lljkk · 14/01/2018 12:22

Thanks 4 thread, NobleG.

BlindLemonAlley · 14/01/2018 19:54

A quick question for teachers. Are these targets fixed from KS2 or is there any scope to adjust them when a child reaches secondary school? If not, it seems that SATs matter a hell of a lot more than we are led to believe.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2018 21:48

Blind do you mean individual student targets for GCSE? Schools usually have computer generated GCSE targets for each student in every subject from very shortly after they start Y7, based on KS2 results.

These are amended each year when the results from Y11 come in. The targets change depend on how Y11 actually did that year, so a child's GCSE targets in Y7 may then be different in Y8 and very different by the time they hit Y11.

Schools can't amend these computer generated targets, but they do not have to share them with students or parents. Schools can create their own targets and amend them as they like. Some schools, unfortunately, don't do this. Some schools only allow targets to be amended upwards from the computer generated targets.

OP posts:
Julie8008 · 14/01/2018 22:09

Cant schools be held accountable (eg via Ofsted) for entering pupils in the correct exam. Foundation/higher. Maybe only children who achieve a 6 in their mocks should be allowed to do the higher paper?

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2018 22:13

If only kids who got a 6 on the mocks were allowed the opportunity to get a 6 in the real thing, there'd be hell to pay!

Deciding tier of entry is a fine balancing act when the kids are borderline. Only the teachers of those kids (with consultation with the kids and maybe parents) can really have the final say.

OP posts:
Julie8008 · 14/01/2018 22:53

there'd be hell to pay
Why? It seems schools are getting it wrong, gambling, or chancing their arms putting pupils in for the wrong exam. I dont see why it would be the end of the world to say only bright mathematicians are capable of the higher paper. If some children are border line then they have all of Y10 to up their game.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2018 23:00

Because you'd be capping their achievement at a grade 5 in November/January/whenever the mocks are. Students can, and do make improvements between the mocks and the real thing in maths, sometimes (although not often IME) more than one grade.

There's a discretionary grade 3 awarded on the higher paper. I don't think many students actually fell off the bottom and got a grade U in June. The grade boundaries aren't so low because pupils are being entered for the wrong paper in huge numbers, they're so low because the paper is so hard. If students get a grade on it, can it really be called the 'wrong' paper? It depends on what your priority is - the best mathematical experience versus the best chance of getting a grade 4/5.

OP posts:
BlindLemonAlley · 15/01/2018 09:18

Thank you for the explanation Noble this is a whole new world for me. So kids GCSE targets are computer generated targets - that’s just great Shock

WRT borderline students, I agree that they should not be limited to a grade 5 so early. Would it make sense to have two separate tiers, foundation and higher, with grades up to 9 in each and more appropriate levels of questions and difficulty where students could access more than half the papers. Colleges, Unis and employers could then decide what their requirements are dependent on the course or role with perhaps a high minimum grade at foundation required or a 5 at higher level or even higher at higher level if the course is maths related. I just cannot understand how they exams where someone can get a high mark having only answered half the questions.

noblegiraffe · 15/01/2018 16:56

Wales has gone completely off-piste, they have reintroduced Intermediate tier, retained grades A*-C and have two separate maths GCSEs - one numeracy based, sat by everyone, and one more abstract, not sat by the weakest.
I'm not sure how that's going - anyone know any Welsh maths teachers?

OP posts:
Jackyjill6 · 15/01/2018 18:00

That sounds such a sensible idea Noble. A win win situation all round. How I wish the rest of the UK would adopt that approach.

MrsLandingham · 15/01/2018 20:27

Neither English Language nor English literature has tiers any more. One exam for everyone, 1-9. The kids at the bottom end won't even be able to access the exam paper. Thanks, Mr Gove Angry

Rkay2 · 15/01/2018 20:32

This was resit maths. The majority of students that did not pass in the summer would have had to complete this exam.

These students did not pass first time around
There are a smaller number of students sitting these papers compared to the summer
They did not have learning over the summer and they would have had six weeks of learning when coming back in September

Exams boards set the grade boundaries after the exams have been taken
The boundaries are lower than the summer reflecting that actually the students resorting generally did not do well

Nationally the English and maths resit pass rate is very low

noblegiraffe · 15/01/2018 20:45

No, that doesn't make sense. If the students aren't as good then the pass rate should be low, the grade boundaries shouldn't be lower to get more students to pass.

Exam standards should be maintained between June and November, the ability of the cohort sitting it shouldn't make any difference to those standards.

OP posts:
BlindLemonAlley · 16/01/2018 19:55

Why is there no correlation between the syllabus and the exam standards?

Rkay2 · 18/01/2018 13:19

The pass rates are lower as the students aren't as good.

Official communication from Pearson

17 January 2018

Dear Colleague

Last Thursday we released the November 2017 series results to candidates across the country. I wanted to write to say a huge congratulations to all of the candidates at your school, who no doubt have worked extremely hard.
I wanted to send you some more information about how grade boundaries are set, to hopefully answer any questions you may have. I am also keen to understand your thoughts on how best to communicate this information in future so would be really keen to keep an open dialogue with you, certainly if you have any other comments or questions.

In preparation for setting the first November series grade boundaries of the reformed GCSE (9-1) Mathematics qualification, all awarding organisations worked together with Ofqual to agree a common approach. This common approach is explained in the Data Exchange Procedures (Appendix 1). Information on the approach to awarding 9-1 qualifications follows, and more can be found on our website here.

This approach to setting grade boundaries has taken into account that the reforms to GCSE Mathematics have led to the inclusion of more demanding content, greater emphasis on problem solving and a new 9-1 grading scale. Significantly, this series, we have needed to consider the implications of a largely resitting cohort, and that we did not see a large range of candidate performance across all grades. To account for these changes, and to ensure students are not disadvantaged during this time of reform, statistical evidence has played a key role in setting qualification-level grade boundaries.

This document sets out the process and explains how each qualification-level grade boundary has been set for GCSE Maths in the November 2017 series.

You may have also seen that we are making some improvements to our papers from the summer 2018 series onwards. This is as a result of feedback we received after the summer 2017 series, and as a result of additional technical analysis we have done on our papers after their first sitting.

We are using evidence of question performance from our papers to focus on ensuring that:
the early questions on Foundation Tier papers are accessible to all candidates and will be mainly one-mark questions
the common questions which appear on both Higher and Foundation tier papers are all accessible to candidates targeting grades 4 and 5
appropriate language and contexts are used in all questions, so that we are testing mathematical ability only
there is a good coverage of topics tested each series, including those which are new to the curriculum
the layout of the papers is reviewed to make sure diagrams are large enough and candidates have enough working space.
We are also using evidence of question performance from our papers to further refine our approach to targeting questions at particular grades. This will help us ensure that the difficulty of questions increases steadily through the paper so that candidates are able to gain confidence as they work through each exam paper.
Some of the improvements can be seen in our autumn 2017 Foundation and Higher tier mock papers.

If you have any further queries or would like additional support, please do not hesitate to contact our GCSE Maths assessment team
([email protected]).

Kind regards,

Hayley Read
Assessment Director

BigSandyBalls2015 · 18/01/2018 13:26

What was the percentage for a 4 in the summer exams?

noblegiraffe · 18/01/2018 13:26

The pass rates are lower because the students aren’t as good, but that shouldn’t affect the grade boundaries.

What worries me about that letter is that they have made some amendments to the papers to make them easier than in June and yet the grade boundaries were lower than in June when a lower grade boundary is usually set for a harder paper.

What a mess. How can they claim consistent standards?

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 18/01/2018 13:44

The comparison between June and Nov grade boundaries is here if you can zoom in?

If you can’t, it was lower on the higher paper in November for all exam boards except Eduqas

13% for a pass on maths GCSE  (November resits)
OP posts:
BlindLemonAlley · 18/01/2018 15:09

What a mess indeed. It seems like they are just doing whatever they like with grade boundaries just to get the results needed to keep the DofE off their backs. It’s not in their interest to hold their hands up and say that the whole thing is a mess. Basically the attitude is just make the figures look good and who cares about what impact all this has on kids and their education. So much for raising standardsHmm

New posts on this thread. Refresh page