New research: number to get straight 9s could be as low as 200

[noblegiraffe]

Unlike the previous prediction of 1-2 students getting straight 9s, this one is based on an analysis of 2016 exam data by Cambridge Assessment.
For students taking at least 8 subjects, they reckon between 200 and 900 will get straight 9s, out of about half a million students.
About 2000 got straight A*s in 2016.

www.tes.com/news/very-few-will-get-GCSE-clean-sweep

AlexanderHamilton - I’m afraid that I don’t think very much of someone who is both employed in HE and the parent of a Y11 pupil not bothering to stay informed about major changes/developments in the education system.

We had very little information from school.

As for dh. His job is to prepare students for professional work. One of the courses he teaches on has no minimum academic requirements (they have to retake maths & English is they don’t get Grade 4) & the other has 112 UCAS points requirement so it’s not really been on his radar

Not everyone is a child of well-educated and interested parents and they don’t all go to excellent and pro-active schools.

Also, the new system is complicated and confusing.

My children's school won't predict anything above a 7. I think that is smart.

It's not smart for plenty of high achieving children Imsodonewithshit.

noble, a school faced with these major refoms doesn't need to be 'pro-active' or 'excellent' to explain the new system, as far as is known, to parents. It just has to do it's job - not a big ask.

I just can't see what's especially confusing about the new system.

I agree, goodbye. I actually think the new system is a lot less confusing than the old system. What confuses people is when they can’t let go of the old system and keep trying to use the old frame of reference to grasp the new.

Oh come on that’s just not true. Formulas, pegging, two pass grades, unclear resit requirements, changes in tiering, extra grades at the top, fewer at the bottom...

I had to explain to a bright kid the other day that while it was top 3%ish to get a 9 in maths, it was more like top 10-15% to get a 9 in triple science. It really isn’t obvious.

noble - you are framing the new system in terms of the old (changes in tiering, extra grades at the top, fewer at the bottom...). You need to stop making comparisons, which are terribly confusing and utterly pointless, and forget about the old system. Just look at the new system. Of course it doesn’t have the benefit of teachers skilled in its delivery, but that’s the same for all children apart from those in top public schools who can choose to carry in delivering iGCSE until there is more hindsight and practice with the new 9-1.

Of course you have to look at the new system in relation to the old. Am I going to pass? Dunno. How does that a pass relate to a C? Dunno. What do you need to do A-level? Dunno. Should I sit Foundation or Higher? Dunno. Do you think I’ll need to resit? Dunno.

When there are no grade boundaries or meaningful standards published, the only way to understand the new system is by comparison to the old.

No noble, you really don’t.

The only question DC need to ask themselves is which 9-1 GCSEs they need as prerequisites for the A-level courses they want to do. They then need to work hard and to stop fretting about examination strategising (grade boundaries) and actually master the syllabus and question types.

One of the good reasons for changing examination systems is to turn the page on excessive examination strategising (by both schools and pupils) to force a return to emphasis on content.

user As a teacher, you really do. It’s ridiculous to suggest that all DC need to do is crack on with the work with no idea of where they’re headed.

Wholeheartedly agree user1499173618. I've had DC taking GCSEs at regular intervals since 2006 and haven't any problem switching over to the concept of 9-1. For DD4, the old system is of no consequence whatsoever - exactly as you say, all she's needed to do is try to master the syllabus and question types. A* etc are history, and have never crossed her radar - no need.

user I'm not a teacher, but I disagree.

It may be true if all you are sitting is maths, but when a pupil is doing 8-10 subjects they need to prioritise time and focus.

If they are told there is a risk of failing maths then they need to spend extra time on that, even if it at the expense of dropping from a 7 to a 5 for History. However if the teacher says they are a 5/6, then they can just steadily work on the maths and use the extra effort for another subject. Similar for prioritising English. Better a 4 in English and a 3 for Textiles than a 3 for English and a 4 for Textiles.

Plus if I have a 4-6 grade DD in maths, I want her teacher to be very much on the ball as to which tier to take. I would want that teacher to take previous years of experience into account when deciding or recommending.

Teen - can’t you see that all this time spent strategizing, with some kind of virtual Excel spreadsheet in the children’s heads, is exactly what urgently needs to stop?

I can't recall ever having a teacher discussing a mark scheme at either O or A level. It literally was just that: syllabus and question type. I'm amazed at all this mark scheme stuff that my DC seem to know; it's a totally different world and I'm not sure what it does that's so beneficial, in terms of learning.

err. No I can't.

I we hadn't strategized for DD1 she would have failed English Language GCSE, and failed History. As it was, we dropped History and she passed English Language.

To a lesser extent. DD2 y8 just had exams. We prioritised revision time on core subjects Maths, Science and English. I think that was the right thing to do as she struggles academically and projecting forward she doesn't have any confident pass projections for them. I think time on them is more beneficial to trying to learn French (when her English spelling and grammar are dodgy).

I think fussing between 6 & 7 or 8 & 9 is a bit pointless, but when it comes to passing 5 GCSE incl English Maths & Science then knowing whether you need to focus and drop something else is very beneficial.

I have to say too that the GCSEs that DD4 has just sat seem to have provided her with a far better education than her siblings' old style GCSEs. But then, she's able, and I can see real problems for those DC at the other end of the scale.

The mark scheme business encourages exam candidates to focus on earning marks as opposed to mastering skills and content. This isn’t the candidates’ fault (they are entirely innocent victims in the whole process and just do what the system requires of them).

Teen - your child was caught in a system that required those behaviors of her, but they are fundamentally flawed behaviors, a reaction to a dysfunctional system.

Are they? Unless we do away with subject exams altogether, then surely focussing if needed on core English and Maths (and possibly Science) is always going to be needed for some pupils?

What system would you invent where a pupil comes out of school showing they have reached a baseline ability (in this case measured by GCSE pass) in core skills needed for the workplace so that employers know they have the capability?

And surely better a visible mark scheme than the required answers being transmitted by a nod and a wink between the question setters and favoured teachers?

That’s good to know, goodbyestranger.

From an employers’ POV, far better a standardized online CAD.