732 pupils get clean sweep of 9s in their GCSEs

[HPFA]

Remember that thread about only a tiny handful of pupils getting all 9s?

According to one local newspaper (unfortunately they don't give a reference):
There were only 732 pupils across England who scored a clean sweep of top 9 grades in all their GCSE

www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/16594185.gsce-results-day-2018-get-the-latest-live-updates-from-schools-across-bucks/

Brighton College say five of their pupils gained 10 Grade 9s so the overall figure sounds roughly correct.

www.theguardian.com/education/2018/aug/23/gcses-boys-close-gap-on-girls-after-exams-overhaul

I am confused about the IGCSE and GCSE - sure many of the IGCSE are now 9-1 - but the fact is IGCSE's are not regulated by the OFQUAL the national exams regulator. So there are three elements: firstly the quality may vary, secondly the content may vary, and thirdly, OFQUAL may not be counting the IGCSEs in the 732 - so there may be lots of independently educated kids with a clean sweep not counted. Now I am not in education and I don't know enough about the comparisons between IGCSE's but the lack of clarity isn't helpful . It's the same with the Pre-U instead of A levels. I don't know if this provides some of the stretch the indies talk about, or whether there is gamification of the system. Any views?

Howabout, no. The data means a clean sweep of 9s in every subject they sat, with the proviso that they sat at least 7 subjects. I would suspect most of them took 10, but in the data there may be “only” 7 or 8 grade 9s because some are iGCSEs.

One of dd 'friends' has straight 9s and there are probably a few others

I haven't spoken to this childs mum in years...i have a feeling that i will have to be very careful walking through the village as she will be making a beeline for me

She will be rightly very proud of her daughter

Bet i can 'out proud' her

noble reads it differently Rosieposy. The Ofqual wording supports both of you but only one reading is correct! (now not sure which :)).

And actually I'd thought the predictions earlier in the year were based on students getting eight or more, not seven, and not a 'clean sweep' either. I assumed this was on the basis that the 'best eight' are used in various other measures. So on that basis I'd have thought noble was right but purely on the wording used by Ofqual, I'd have said probably you.

Anyone?

There has been confusion on Twitter too. Ofqual have clarified that a student needs to have taken 7 or more reformed GCSEs and get 9s in all of them.

So IGCSE 9s presumably won’t count. And a student could get 9999999BB and count but someone who gets 999999998 won’t even though they got more 9s.

Looking at it that way, it’s a bit of a crap measure, a headline grabber. Why 7? Anyone whose DC got swathes of 9s should be extremely proud as they are in a minority, even if not the official ‘732’.

twitter.com/ofqual/status/1032616091577733120?s=21

What semantics!

Incidentally, if your DC did get lots of 9s, you can see how unusual various subject combinations of 9s were (up to 3 subjects only, unfortunately) here: analytics.ofqual.gov.uk/apps/2018/GCSE/9to1/

So for example only 75 students in the whole country got 9s in Biology, French and Drama.

I would have thought that ‘8 or more 9s’ would have been a better measure, but they were stuck with the ‘straight 9s’ stuff of a couple of years ago.

IT strikes me that more than the 792 or whatever the number is have achieved 7+ 9s. If you look on the websites if some of the most selective Independnet and state schools, they report large numbers getting this number of 9s even when the odd IGCSE is added on too,mot take their totals to 9 or 10. These numbers of students would very quickly equal more than 792, plus lots of good Comps report a couple or several achieving this number of 9s - it makes me think there are more than the 792 number.

Perhaps this figure will be debated on Radio 4s statistics programme in the future, in the section where they analyse high profile data and what it actually means.

Would be more sensible for Ofqual to just give a figure for 7+ 9s.

DD's school had a pupil get 11 9s and 1 8. She shouldn't be effectively "downgraded" against someone who sat 8 exams and got 9s in all.

I guess if you had a kid capable of getting 8 or 11 9s you're pretty happy though!!

That all makes more sense. I asked because I was surprised that the figure was as low as 700ish because the Language x2 plus Maths figure last year was over 2000. I would have anticipated that more than half of those candidates would have a cumulative total of at least 7.

I agree that a Progress 8 measure tie in would be much more meaningful than the 7+ clean sweep quoted.

Also don't think 3 subject combination analysis is that useful having had a play around. It only allows grade specification for 2 of 3. Would be interesting to see eg. how many got 9-7 in Maths + science x3 and still met University English entry criteria as in the example above.

As a parent I couldn't care less how many GCSE level qualifications my DC have or have access to as long as they have enough to cover the bases for the next stage. Quoting the figures in the way they have gives the impression that any 7 are plenty if they are all 9s. That is not really the case.

It only allows grade specification for 2 of 3.

You can then click on the bars of the last subject to see how many students got each grade. So if you specify 9 for the first two and click the 9 bar on the last one, that’s how many students got three 9s.

Thanks noble. Off to play around some more.

15 of those 732 kids are at my DS’s school. Hopefully it’ll inspire my DS to get grades like them.

I got all A's then they spoiled it and introduced the A*. Now there are 9's. Gawd I feel old.

So, do we know how many people got an actual clean sweep? Not composed of IGCSEs etc.

And, furthermore, even that needs to be moderated. I was reading about a student who got multiple 9s, which is obviously excellent, but they had about four foreign languages in their crop, and had a "matching" name.

Additionally, having had sight of most of the GCSE papers, some are so much easier than others. The Biology paper was brutal, yet in Geography and Cookery quite a few marks could have been achieved with no prior studying and just a bit of general knowledge.

Biology is tiered so you were probably looking at the much harder Higher paper. Geography and Cookery are untiered so has to cover all the questions from easiest to hardest. If you looked at Foundation Biology it would have some ‘easy’ questions on.

Why are you harking back to O levels? That's about 1987 or 88? I can tell you as an ex teacher who left school when CSEs and O levels were the exams being Sat that schooling in those days was very different to today right from infants to senior school. The quality of teaching was very hit and miss. The efforts to raise attainment were non existent. My potential was not realised until my last year at school or rather it was then that a head of department came across me, suspected I was in the wrong set, asked others in her department and other subjects and was horrified to be told they all knew I should have been in a top set o level class - she told me this. I was not the only one. Despite the claims of a golden era, behaviour was worse, teaching overall poor so of course reaching those top grades in O levels was a rare thing to achieve. Pupils have so much more support these days, teachers as a whole are more aware of their students abilities and needs and are constantly trying to engage, motivate and try to raise attainment. Learning disabilities are more known, believed and catered for - I know there are still difficulties here but in the good old 80s dyslexia was dismissed as a fancy word for stupid - if it was ever acknowledged then. Different learning styles are now catered for rather than a one style suits all - again I acknowledge some schools and teachers are better at this than others and thanks to govt interference and the drivel of "in my day ...." it would seem rote learning is making a come back. So, with all that in mind. Of course results are better these days than in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s and why they continue to raise each year. Teachers are motivated. Kids are more.aware and on the whole willing to put the effort in.

Well done to all who achieved. Your grades are not Smarties. You succeeded because you and your teachers worked hard. As each year of this new system passes more students will achieve high grades because the teachers will be familiar with the exam and so better able to teach and guide.

Those of you who think it's easy, that the grafes are smarties- enrol in a course this year. Come back next year.

Ucant

Excellent post. Nobody should feel nostalgic for the eighties education. I sometimes see things like "teachers should just be left alone to teach" but anyone who remembers the days when that was literally the case has no desire to return to that time.

Don't doubt that things have swung too far the other way but we need accountability of some kind.

I'm in agreement too.

I went to a girls' grammar school in the 80s that is probably the most sought-after school in the country today. Back then many teachers were incredibly lazy. Quite a few seemed ancient - well, they looked ancient! - and were marking time till retirement (but not actually marking). At A Level my History teacher just read out her old notes in a droney tone every lesson, never looking up. I had an English teacher for A Level who a) never marked anything and b) taught the wrong syllabus so every pupil automatically lost 25% of the final exams.

Today there would have been outrage with parents storming the school, but back in the 80s if you had crap teachers then tough. And, I stress again, this was a top school .

At primary I did have a "golden" experience, but I had a marvellous inspirational teacher at a small village school between the ages of 7 and 10. Otoh, when I started the teacher was a woman who slept all afternoon whilst we did the same old jigsaws and kneaded the same old plasticine (mottled brown!) and every day packed up and left before the pupils. In fact dm and I used to meet her as we were walking home; she had already got home and was out walking her dog.

Great story about the dog! At my grammar school in the 60s we used to hold the teachers up as we walked to the school buses four abreast in the school lane (no pavement) as they tried to leave in their cars. They were definitely home before us though!