The DfE needs to stop the farce of compulsory Maths and English GCSE resits

[noblegiraffe]

Another year, another 124,560 students failing their GCSE maths resit and 99672 students failing their GCSE English resit.

Colleges have been saying for years that this government policy is a failure, that students are entered into cycle of resits and failures that does nothing to boost their confidence or enhance their qualifications.

If you get a 3 in maths or English GCSE you have to resit GCSE. If you get a 2 or below, you can take other qualifications like functional maths instead.

The government argues that GCSE is the key to opening doors and as many students as possible should be resitting to get that opportunity. But wouldn’t a qualification that they are actually likely to pass be better?

The resit pass rate for English dropped from 35.5% to 33.1% this year and for maths dropped from 37% to 22.7%. This is not an improving picture!

www.tes.com/news/gcse-results-english-and-maths-pass-rates-drops

Not if SATs turn out to be in lower stream (sets). They will progress at slower pace and never exposed to material that enables good grades.
Well that's my lower sets doomed forever. Yep. I never did anything challenging with them at all. In fact I took one look at their SATs scores and thought fuck this & ripped up the schemes of work because i can do colouring and mindfulness for the whole year, slot in a few word searches. Maybe we'll read Elmer the Elephant and Spot the Dog once a week. Didn't do any writing other than some stories either. Who has the time for that. Bottom set so it'll be shite. I could teach them some excellent books but nah, we invented out comics. Bottom set kids don't need no books. Right easy year. Having bottom set is awesome because you don't actually have to teach them anything useful...

Or alternatively, they accessed a structured curriculum building from primary with some recap of key ideas throughout, we studied KS3 texts (though admittedly Sickens was done in an abridged form with some original extracts), they discussed and debated the poor laws, wrote slimmed down versions of essays, were coached in how to analyse language but had some extra focus on literacy skills to close the gap. They did extended writing twice a week and by the end of the year most of the class were meeting the standard expected for the year.

But sure. Bottom set means kids never learn anything.

dim

Jesus wept.

Leave my kids out of your SEN experiment thanks.

ANY school recognises that there is a range of children both with and without SEN. Our top sets contain students with ASD, visual impariment and many other SEN diagnoses. Our bottom sets contain students witha range of learning dificulties and without. A boy I taught with ASD just got an 8 in GCSE Lit.

And, goodness - some of us don't even set!!

I know you like to come on to every thread and get on to a grammar soapbox lets but what you just said is insulting to almost everyone.

ANY school recognises that there is a range of children both with and without SEN. Our top sets contain students with ASD, visual impariment and many other SEN diagnoses. Our bottom sets contain students witha range of learning dificulties and without. A boy I taught with ASD just got an 8 in GCSE Lit.
And, goodness - some of us don't even set!!
We don't set at KS3 except 1 in each year at who don't do a modern language (seems to be quite a common set up to give extra literacy and numeracy).

Sorry for my sarcastic rant there it really does my head in seeing outright falsehoods being spread on here as it risks worrying parenta needlessly. There's enough posts where parents worry that their child's educational outcomes are determined by SATs without claiming some children aren't taught anything and are doomed to never get GCSEs.

Do you know what is like for bright children with SEN ! They have often labelled and defined from the moment the set foot in Nursery school . This means such children are effectively prisoners within their own minds .

Often been labelled..

And if your know anything , the amount of abuse children with SEN get from some of the aforementioned pupils is 'horrible'.

Yes, lets, I do believe I do.

I’ll tell that to Dd - she will be most amused.

And Ds who is top of the top set in maths & a talented actor but happens to not be able to write in a GCSE English manner.

Their “labels” have enabled them to access support & understanding & helps them to know there is a reason they are the way they are.

You have an agenda - that much is obvious & I have no doubt that some schools are awful at dealing with these things. But most teachers are done by the best they can under the current system to help children to achieve to their potential (not what their parents would like their potential to be).

I could blame the teachers for ds’s poor prognosis in English. Or I could accept he is who he is & work on helping him to get the best out of what he can achieve.

You were the one who just labelled other students dim.

I have labelled certain pupils who used to laugh and physically /verbally abuse DS things for wearing his school jumper inside out or back to front or walking 'funny'.

You speak so much sense AlexanderHamilton.

There's good and bad in the system for all sorts of children. One school near me seems to do well on it's SEND and disadvantaged but their outcomes for bright students aren't great and able students get a pretty raw deal at that school in my opinion.
Some schools have amazing EAL provision because they do a lot of EAL teaching witj studnets who arent fluent in English or are in an area with lots of community languages. Then you go to a school in coastal Yorkshire that's 98% white British and suddenly the arrival of an EAL student witj limited English sets a mild panic off because they've not really had to do that.

Anyway, back to the original topic... resits yes.

I think that all students should have to study some maths & English up to the age of 18 but not necessarily a GCSE or A Level. Sort of complimentary/enrichment studies perhaps. But I live in an area where most schools are 11-16 & the kids then go off to massive 6th form colleges. It probably isn’t practical in a small school 6th Form.

One thing that I've seen that works well (based on my very limited knowledge of maths teaching) is having a post 16 certificate in maths instead of an a level. Some colleges near me (including mine) offer a course by a board that's higher than GCSE but not an A Level.

I'd hate for English to be compulsory post 16, mainly because post 16 is the only time we ever get students opting to study it. The rest of the time we are dealing with whole cohorts whilst humanities lament that they've got 6 studnets who might not suit the GCSE course.

I have taught children with SEN who are exceptionally intelligent, and others (sometimes with the same diagnosis on paper) who have significant cognitive impairment, and everything in between.

The point is always, surely, to work with the child, their family, experts and clinicians to, as far as possible, identify the barriers that particular child has to their learning and, as far as possible within the physical, time and monetary constraints we all work within, reduce those barriers.

Tbh, it's no different in approach, though obviously different in scope and detail, from teaching any child: find out what they can do, establish the next thing they need to learn to do, identify any difficulties in learning to do it, teach them to do it, repeat.

(I chuckled, by the way, at the idea that a grammar school would be the best provision for the most academic of the children with SEN I have taught over the years: yes, I agree, a superselective in the area might well be a good fit for some, but they have made it crystal clear that the level of 1:1 support and daily adaptation needed for the children in question to access the 11+ and the school are simply 'you have to understand, just not available in a school like this')

I have labelled certain pupils who used to laugh and physically /verbally abuse DS things for wearing his school jumper inside out or back to front or walking 'funny'.

Yes, but surely you would label these particular children as unkind or bullies.

As far as I understand it, these are not the same children as you charmingly chose to label dim - children across the whole spectrum of academic ability can be unkind, and can be bullies.

Dim is an unkind word used in a derogatory manner to denote those who are cognitively impaired, or may find academic subjects hard, often those with SEN which affect their ability to learn.

I find it somewhat strange that you should choose a word which has unkind, bullying, derogatory connotations to describe those who are not highly academic in a school setting, while at the same time complaining about the verbal bullying of your DS for his SEN?

I was too livid to explain cant but you did it so well.

I might just be practising my kind 'teacher' smile and extra slow talking ready for the start of term, Piggy...

The suggestion on this thread that the education system and the teachers should be dispensed from responsibility to educate those who have average ability to a mainstream Level 2 pass (GCSE grade 4) in universal secondary education is a step backwards and is structurally discriminatory for children with SEN.

Literally no one is saying that.

You are projecting so much rubbish based on your one single student experience.

It is in my interest as a teacher for my students to achieve the highest grades possible.

You aren't understanding that for some students (both with and without SEN) achieving a grade 4 is impossible. They simply cannot understand, retain and apply the knowledge no matter how long they spend learning it.

I cannot think of more than a handful of students who should have achieved a grade 4 but didn't.

Christ,
I disappear for couple of days and then lurk, and my amazing low achieving son becomes dim, great.
Around us, you can't do level 3 qualifications without c/5 for English and Maths, you have to do level 2 and resit.
Well unless you apply to the Army or Navy, who will take you.
I am only a dad, but we where told by school, Ofsted rated 4 comp, and Fe teachers we know. That if you need to, you could start on level 1, then pass those then move to level 2 and if you pass those onto level 3 and so on. I believe another route was First diploma, foundation degree/course then degree.
It was sold like that even if no Gcse in Maths and English.
Is that wrong?

Personally, I only got my Level 2 Maths and English, in 2017. I have never been unemployed, from 15 to 31 ran 200+ dairy herds. Since 31, I have a job where I am in charge of the safety of 1000's of people daily and earned last year £46000 with overtime.
It's complete bollocks that kids like my "dim" son can't add anything work wise.
I would never want the return of grammar schools, but think the return of CSE style exams for lower set kids would be a god send. My kid doesn't need to have the steps taught to him in year11, for accessing further maths, but will be taught it, no choice.

Finally, since this sh1t government took office, kids like my son have been thrown to the wolves.
GCSE PE, no longer practical based,
GCSE ICT, no longer available
GCSE DT, gone, BTEC replacement abandoned, think DS2 is on 4th version as school tries to find a course acceptable to DFE.
Many vocational options cut.
You would never guess most went to private or grammar schools in the TORY party, would you.
Like Ed Sheeran says why cut all the funding to music, drama etc. Which traditionally has been a escape route for some lower set kids.
Especially as they then fund bloody middle class families, like our friends Ds, to attend a extremely expensive private school, yes you Chethams, and 7 others.
Actually subsiding him more in two years, then they have actually fu8king spent on 7 years and 5 years secondary education of my 2 lower achieving kids. If it wasn't so disgusting and truly disheartening, I would say it was a joke.
I think I need to walk away again, before I say something that gets me banned.

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say there are a lot of non middle class, low academic ability children who attend MDS schools too.

I’m the daughter of a plumber, granddaughter of a power station worker. Dh is the son of a crane driver, grandson of a bus conductor.

My daughter’s school has done an amazing job with both high & low academic achievers & without funding only high income families would be able to afford it.

When I say grammar schools, what I mean are schools specifically aimed at SEN children with academic ability . I don't mean mainstream grammar schools. Through if I had used the word 'special' school I suggest people would not have got all het up. The word Grammar school is a synonym for offence on here, or the suggesting of suggesting a child might benefit from a different type of set up .

I find it 'ironic' that the very pupils who would condemn DS to constant bullying for being 'dim' (though said in far more graphic terms) themselves did not pass at level 4 in Maths/ English.

However, I must confess the worst bullying came from the 'untouchables' .These being 3 DDs of teachers who were Oxbridge bound . This gave them a free pass at being bullies and my DS was quite simply an easy target !.

Alexander,

The question I would have about MDS schools is how many vacancies are there for those who are trained there, and given the post 16/18 sector of conservatoires, dance schools and drama colleges exist, whether the pre-16 residential (as opposed to local provision + county and national level enrichment in the form of orchestras / theatre groups / associates, many subsidised but none fully funded) provision is a cost-effective use of government money?#

I speak as the parent of a musician (applying to post 18 conservatoires) and a dancer (capable of, but currently not intending to, apply to dance college), so I'm not 'anti arts', just not sure whether there is not an 'over supply' of trained musicians / dancers / actors, and musing whether the success rate of those who have trained residentially from 11 or earlier is so much higher than those who train non-residentially from 11-16 or 18 and then go on to post 16/18 provision that the much higher cost to the taxpayer is worth it?

(My gut feeling, btw, that the short career of a dancer probably means that residential school from 11 or a bit later may be necessary to yield enough graduates for professional ballet companies, and some subsidising of their education may be required to keep admission more ability-based than ability to pay based. I am less convinced about music, where careers are so much longer that non-residential to 18 followed by conservatoire funded in the same way as universities - ie through student loans - may be a better use of public funds, especially where school music for the many is cut to the absolute bone due to lack of money)