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

Cake my point is your claim that:

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

You are claiming repeatedly that teachers as a group have no clue how to teach, go on about learning styles (which have been proven not to be a thing) and then claimed that children in bottom sets are NEVER TAUGHT anything to allow them to get good grades which is totally and utterly bollocks.

Add into that that previously 3 levels of progress (so expected progress) for some lower trainers means that expected progress form primary to y11 is less than a C/4 at GCSE.

Then read the posts ive said about the nature of the English exam. Then read what IHeartKingThistle has just posted. Then have a look at the good piece of writing produced by oldbirdy's DC who got a 3 in their exam. And then, maybe just then once you've applied a little bit of critical thinking consider that maybe, just maybe, these students ARE being taught but it's simply bloody difficult for them to try and cram write for the paper.

One minute you're having a go at teachers because nobody actually knows how to teach low attainers. The next you're annoyed saying the assessment method needs changing for low trainers. The next you've got an issue with people doing a functional english qualification (which is assessed differently).

Some time ago I posted a thread asking which are the schools without sets and flightpath and was shouted at by highly 'energetic' crowd about how silly and blasphemous an idea it was to want such a thing...
I believe the main reason people were saying this is because you can't reasonably compare what a child did at ks2 SATs with GCSE courses, new courses so no grade boundaries other than educated guesses, nothing more than 'roughly that child seems bright enough so they can have X'.

But of course, cakes knows everything.

There was another thread about mixed ability recently and the usual suspects energetically argued how great setting was, even though many posters argued mixed ability worked better for middle and lower attainers. They were shot down because on MN it is all about the winners, as long as you are part of them.
Again, if it's the thread i'm thinking of it was quite an interesting thread debating the merits of setting vs mixed ability, whether some subjects leant themselves more to setting or not, challenges of ensuring the top end are stretched, bottom end are supported etc. The central thread coming out of it is quality of teaching e.g. that to do mixed ability well requires strong teaching, bottom sets require strong teachers to close th gap, but equally a teacher with lower subject knowledge can't teach top set.
And it comes back to there are not enough qualified teachers in schools. Wonder why when every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they know the system and how to teach so well having never actually done it.

There are failing schools across the UK. There shouldn’t be. But that’s no reason to tar all other schools with the same brush.
This.
And the system also has a good number of teachers who fight to make it better instead of sitting online dishing out endless criticism with little to no actual understanding of front line teaching.

oldbirdy that is a brilliant illustration of what I said pages ago : that someone with a grade 3 in Enlgish is by no means illiterate.

It is such a shame that, under pressure, your DS didn't get a 4. I do think - hope!- that that is an example of soemone who, with one resit, could get a 4 easily. Wish I could help.

It's be nice to think a sixth form/college would take him on to Level 3 qualifications while he was doing a resit? Ceratinly ours would : but not to do any A Levels which direclty require English.

Sadly at my school, a lot of lovely students missed out on pursuing the A Level courses they originally chose so are having to change options. It's all a bit of a mess , especially since the 5/4 thing came in. Different debate, though.

cakes, I am a well known MN champion of mixed ability teaching (at least for my subjects) but I am afraid to tell you that that means my high, middle and low achieving SEN students have to sit in the same classroon as students who are dim.

piggy he has been kept in by his school, very luckily. They know he's clever enough to do the A levels he wants and that it's communication at speed that is the problem, not basic literacy. We are very lucky that his school has a sixth form. He would not have got into the sixth form colleges locally to do A levels.
We've known for some time that he couldn't do it fast enough to pass so it wasn't a surprise. I don't know how he will ever pass, which does worry me.

I do think - hope!- that that is an example of soemone who, with one resit, could get a 4 easily. Wish I could help.
I would agree. It seems a classic example of a student who writes well, but finds the demands of the exam too much in the time.
This may sound silly but is it worth taking a sample of his writing to the college and seeing if they will accept that as evidence that he should be able to do a level 3 course (and just redo perhaps a functional english course as the issue is clearly exam not ability)?
Failing that, if he has to resit maybe encourage him to do the writing section of the language papers first as they are 50% of the whole grade combined. Sometimes I've found lower attaining students spend too long on the reading questions (which is easily done because a couple of them aren't very good in my opinion. Trying to do too much in thr time rather than fewer questions answered well but that's my feeling about the exam) and then don't have enough time for the 40 mark writing questions.
He might find that swapping the order he does the questions secures him marks on the writing and then it's not the end of the world if he drops a few on the reading. If he does resit and is doing AQA then I'm happy to DM you the advice I gave to my students. Everyone got 4+ and 90+% got 5+ (mixed ability group with some lower prior attainers)

oldbirdy cross posted with you. Never mind. The offer is there still if he does need to resit.

Maisy thanks for that - much appreciated. He did do AQA, his teacher was excellent, tried so hard with him. But 25 percent extra time doesn't compensate for autism/anxiety/ freeze response to tough questions! We are looking at trying to change to an IGCSE course as private candidates, as one or two still have coursework components. But if school can't accommodate that then I'd love your advice 😁

So basically in an average state school all of the lower set and half of middle sets gets zero grades 4 in English and Maths.

The thing is, given the way the exams are set up, isn't that exactly what you would expect?

The percentage 'allowed to pass' is essentially set, and then the pass mark is decided. So in 2018, just under 30% got lower than 4 in each of English and Maths - because that is EXACTLY how the exam system was designed.

The question is whether you would expect the high overlap found between the c. 30% who don't get level 4 or above and those who leave primary with low prior attainment (which for those taking GCSEs in 2018 meant they got less than a 4 in KS2 SATs in 2013).

In 2013, 14% of children got less than a 4 in KS2 Reading SATs, 15 % in Maths, 17% in writing.

Would you EXPECT that a statistically significant proportion of children who were in the lowest 15% in primary after 7 years in school would be above the 30th centile in attainment terms in the same subjects after 5 more years? Yes, of course there will be some individuals - children who were relatively recent arrivals in the UK later in in primary, for example; children whose SEN were diagnosed and better managed in secondary; children whose individual circumstances(e.g. bereavement, illness, family circumstances) happened to be very difficult in 2013 but better 5 years later. But would you expect there to be a large enough number to affect national-level statistics?

I would expect, by the way, for there to be a different picture for subjects other than English & Maths - because performance in Maths / English at KS2 is not a good predictor of success in GCSE Art, for example.

Why do 'Well above average' state schools achieve slightly differently for their low prior attainers? I wonder whether that is to do with circumstances other than school, and also the way that low prior attainers are distributed between schools demographically. So in a school with a very small proportion of lower attainers, each may well receive much more individual attention, which is simply not possible where these children ate 35% of the cohort. More importantly, we have all been arguing here as if the only influence on pupils' results is school and in particular the teacher. Some low attainers will be in that group at the end of primary, and at the end of secondary, because of family and personal circumstances - worklessness, chaotic f familes,addiction within the family, poor housing, very poor parental levels of education, gang involvement etc etc. As 'well above average' schools are often - not always, but often - 'sought after', they will tend to serve catchments, or socio-economic groups, which have a slightly smaller proportion of these 'children affected by issues outwith the school's control, and this may mean that the school can create more progress for children whose lower academic attainment is 'simpler' than it is for those where it is compounded by social factors.

In terms of progress 8 my local state school actually does very well in terms of progress for children entering with low attainment (below Sats level 4) , remarkably so in fact but it has terrible results for those who are of average and higher attainment. I didn't want to send my kids there as I knew ds would sink and dd would not be challenged. (in fact only 30 parents applied for September 2017 for 150 places so I'm not the only one but if I was the parent of a very low achieving child I may feel differently.

Just coming back to say that I am worried that some may take my post as saying 'teachers and schools write off those who have low prior attainment, because they decide in advance that they are not going to make the benchmark'.

That is absolutely not what I am saying. As Maisy said earlier, children who start as low attainers at 11 may make absolutely fabulous progress without ever reaching that critical 'level 4' benchmark, because to do so they have to leapfrog at least the next 15% of the cohort, as the fact that 30% will not reach level 4 is fixed in advance. Teachers - IME, and I know a lot of them - strive for every child to make progress, and celebrate 'success for that child', whether that 'success' be measured by a 1 or a 9 in SATs.

Local 'well above average' comp has a very high Progress 8 for low prior attainers BUT a very wide confidence interval (from 0 to over 1.5!) because of the very small numbers.

Woah what happened overnight?
If anyone wants to suggest that I’m in favour of setting in maths because I’m ‘all about the winners’ then we can take it outside...

Re low sets not passing GCSE - well which kids do you think it will be? Sets aren’t allocated at random! If a pupil has made below expected progress in primary school then they will need to make above expected progress in secondary in order to achieve the expected level at GCSE. They don’t start secondary school with a clean slate, what they did at primary school matters.

Ds’s school has fairly average statistics for all attainment bands. But after a year there I’ve cime to realise they sometimes sacrifice their figures in order to individualise the curriculum.

Our other local comp I didn’t want him to go to although my Bruce has done very well there because they divide the school into streams with names & certain subjects are only offered to certain streams so he could not have done Computer Science there or been in top/2nd set maths if he was in bottom set English.

Why do 'Well above average' state schools achieve slightly differently for their low prior attainers

Probably because the above average state schools have more pupils with private tutors.

I have been to enough school prize giving ceremonies where the school are congratulating themselves that their teaching has got more people into Oxbridge than ever before but look closer and you will find for every Oxbridge success story there is a trail of tutors behind them.

In the end you are left wondering whether it is the schools teaching that did anything

Last night upset me a bit to be honest, especially a direct attack on Dds school (it wasn’t named but the school of another mumsnetter was named). The country doesn’t need people like my Dd & her friends apoarently.

Woah what happened overnight?

Long and short of it, we're all crap, lower sets never study anything, schools write off lower attaining students and maybe if we went back to learning styles suddenly everyone would be above average. Any challenge to such an illogical position proves we only care about the high achievers.

Oliversmum,

Actually, that was the type of thing I was thinking about.

Local comp's small number of low prior attainers will tend to be children who are not academic, or have specific SEN affecting cognitive ability, but will be decently fed and housed, will have grown up in an environment where it is the norm to be employed, to attend school etc. Most will have supportive families who are concerned about education, which may well include payment for tutoring or, at the very least, involvement with school and homework and any after-school coaching lessons in Y11.

This may well not be the case for the much higher number of low prior attainers serving a difficult area at the other end of town.

Tbh, I'm not sure whether it is the tutoring per se which makes the difference. It is the involvement of parents with education, the desire for a child to succeed, the money to pay for tutoring (which also suggests that the family may have employed adults within it), the organisation to be able to commit to something which happens regularly, and the value given to 'doing well at school' - tutoring is a sign of lots of other 'positive indicators' rather than being an educational benefit in itself.

Alexander,

I am really sorry if i upset you last night.

I do absolutely believe that the country - the world - needs those involved in the performing arts, and I have two children heavily involved in the performing arts.

However, I can also see that the imbalance in funding between that given to a child gifted in one of those arts at a specialist school between 11-16 and that given to any child in any other school can seem quite difficult. This is especially the case because 'performing arts for the many', in terms of dance, drama and music provision in virtually all mainstream secondaries in the poorer funded counties, is being decimated.

It isn't personal. It isn't saying your DD shouldn't have access to high quality dance education - but it is asking whether the government should ALSO be funding all other pupils well enough that decent quality PE (including dance), music and drama is available in every state school. To fund the elite AND the many is fine. To fund JUST the elite and nobody else fails some kind of 'fairness / civilised country test'.

Can’t - no not at all. Your questions were perfectly valid & are questions I have asked of myself many times. We absolutely should evaluate outcomes & value for money. It was not you.

cantkeepawayforever
I agree.
Educational achievement and underachievment is complex and involves a range of factors.
I have a personal policy to switch off as soon as anyone suggests it's simple (be it in discussions or CPD or some overpriced consultant).

user’s school sounds totally shit, to be fair, and I think parents who have to send their kids to places that offer a very poor education are right to be angry about that and very angry when they see the state paying for other DC to receive a very good education.

But the DC shouldn’t be the target of that anger, nor the parents.

I agree noble.
There's every right to want every child to go to a good school with decent, qualified staff and every right to a good education.

Just making claims that entire cohorts of children are written off and not taught the material to access GCSE is the sort of inflammatory dramatic bullshit that doesn't help push for progress and change. (If anything it just exemplifies the sort of attitudes teachers end up dealing with and then we wonder why there's a shortage).

Our other local comp I didn’t want him to go to although my Bruce has done very well there because they divide the school into streams with names & certain subjects are only offered to certain streams so he could not have done Computer Science there or been in top/2nd set maths if he was in bottom set English.

I've just been made aware of this by someone who was concerned I had inadvertently named ds. It should read my neice has done very well there. I have no idea why auto correct turns neice into Bruce!

They don’t start secondary school with a clean slate, what they did at primary school matters.

Thank you!

In some ways, SATs (particularly in their last incarnation, which is what they will have been in 2013) are probably a better test / indication of 'functional literacy / numeracy' than GCSEs.

Reading: Read some mainly age-appropriate material, answer some literal and some inferential comprehension questions.

Maths: Carry out some arithmetic and some non-arithmetic maths questions, some using a calculator, some without. Do some mental maths.

Writing: Produce, over a year, some writing of different types and on different subjects. Assses this against a range of different skills, both technical (spelling, punctuation) and about composition / style.

The new SATs tests, and SPaG, are perhaps less good indications of 'general functional skills', but that's a different discussion! The point is that those who did not achieve the expected level in those KS2 SATs were genuinely lacking some skills that are likely to be needed in secondary - whether that be reading for meaning, writing a piece of work on a set subject, doing mental and written arithmetic and applying this and other maths skills to problems - and would mean that those children had to make much faster progress in secondary to 'overtake' 15% of their peers.

I've always been against SATS in principal, but having seen many past papers (for English anyway), mark schemes and the sample/past papers my kids did then I agree entirely. I've not seen the format of the new ones but have heard they ar pretty awful.

Ds always scored pretty highly on old Sats type papers and excercises somewhere around a good Level 5 level although he often fell down on the creative writing papers. His grammar, spelling and punctuation are fantastic, and he is very articulate, but he can't write GCSE style. His teachers have tried, I've tried.

Going back to schools and funding though, what I would like to know is why we have 5 schools all within 2 miles of each other, 3 of whichare within walking distance of each other, yet those schools have very different outcomes. If we take the school over the county border out of the equation (it serves a much more affluent catchment for one thing) and the school in the oposite direction where there is a middle school system then we have 3 schools, all within walking distance of my house, all serving fairly deprived cathcments one of which has been in special measures for 5 years and the kids make little to no progress, one of which is supposedly good but has a very narrow focus and the other which appears to be going strength to strength. Money has been poured into all of them wheras ds's school (the one with the middle school intake) has had very little money invested yet gets better outcomes than school 1 by far.

I agree. The difficulties my DDs had with primary learning that meant they struggled with SATs, didn't go away the day they started secondary. Those difficulties continue to impact in secondary.

Yes, some children will have been poorly taught at primary, or had extenuating circumstances such as illness. These children will be able to 'catch up' at secondary. But for other children the reasons for lower results in primary will move with them to secondary and will continue to impact their learning.