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

That may happen in some schools but not in any of the schools I attended or my children have attended.

Personally, Isent, I always teach the kids in front of me, not the name of the class.

Alexander And if your dc was in the right set you wouldn't know it happened either!

noble I’m not too bothered what set is called either.

He wasn’t in the right set for maths. They moved him up. He wasn’t in the right set for English, they moved him down.
He was in the right set for science but they phoned me about social problems he was having & how he got upset almost every lesson. We discussed the pros & cons of moving him down 1 set. It worked.

I don't know any job that I've gone for that has t required a minimum of a C at maths and English

At his previous school mind you I begged them to move him down a set for maths as he was having huge problems. They did refuse.

noble That is absolutely lovely
I wish you taught my dd.

Alexander, thank you and bless yours too.
Back on Sunday and I'm over doing the advice and printing off specs.
I do find it hard not having daily input anymore, so I lecture her for the last week. No eye rolling anymore which is a huge bonus.

I don't suppose you know why some specs only go up to level 5 on the marking scheme. I'm sure I'm missing something.

Final ever post
Humberside died in 1996, it became ERYC, Hull CC, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire. You would die if you called us Humberside. Please join the 21st century.
We are in ERYC, which is a Tory dominated County, and school is shit on, even our Tory MP ignores it.
North Lincolnshire is also Tory.
Many schools in Hull now exceed ERYC schools, because Labour invested in them and Lib Dem council paid for FSM for all city kids.
May be if you took your Tory blinkers off you would learn something. Also under Humberside our school got same funding as Hull schools.
Paying for private, piss off it would cost £22000 to send ours to 2 of local schools and £41000 to other, cheap housing, average price in our area is £195000. Loads of Southerners and Holiday makers buying cheap holiday rentals.
Plus we are 1st generation in both our families not to have had FSM for our kids or living in council properties. In fact both our kids are the first to have had holidays abroad or even yearly holidays. Private schools aren't for us.

Finally I am sure their are low earns on the music scheme. But the kids we know on them have had years of music lessons, cost at least £150/week. Dance students also have loads of training.
Our friends said their Ds had to do a full days auditioning and interviews to get in to his school, your not telling me a kid from our primaries who got 1 terms lessons on a trombone would get a place at that school.
Finally my eldest is a national schoolboys champion at Rugby League, they also returned following year. It cost us £60 as parents, school £5000 to send team. We pay no more than £90 a year for him to play rugby. There is no super scheme to send him to Rugby or Eton schools. There is no scheme to send his ex girlfriend to medical school, she will have to fund it through student debt.
So once again why Ballet and Classic music and why does the government fund these?
Like I said I wish you lot had a blood clue about where we live.
But Humberside Really?
That would get you a 1 or 2 in Geography.
I despair, I can tell you about London, that Salford being a city all of it's own, similar for Trafford. Tell you about Leeds and Liverpool versus the Wirral. Even that Leigh is in Edinburgh, but you think I live in a Labour controlled Humberside.
If it wasn't so sad I would be laughing with you.

What is that hate campaign and mobbing that developed here?

What makes you think Branleuse, you can insult and speak of me, or anyone in this way? Why do you piggy back on other peoples abuse, want to score browny points, you think you DS will be handed GCSEs if you kick in the teeth other parents that ask questions that some on this thread find uncomfortable?

If you have questions ask it, but you don't have any right to involve my name in it .

Branleuse Thu 30-Aug-18 21:48:27
Ok can somebody tell me if Cakes is talking bullshit when she says that children that dont pass SATS are unlikely to be even taught the right stuff to get GCSEs because ive got a little 11 year old with SEN, going into year 7 that only just missed out on passes. Am i going to have the same shit over again.

Why does anyone finds it acceptable to continue this disgraceful hysterical mobbing?

Ok can somebody tell me if ... children that dont pass SATS are unlikely to be even taught the right stuff to get GCSEs because ive got a little 11 year old with SEN, going into year 7 that only just missed out on passes. Am i going to have the same shit over again.

Maisy,

Your post in response to Branleuse is factually incorrect and misleading. The answer to the question "Am i going to have the same shit over again" is yes. This is what this whole thread is about and this is upsetting for me as a parent and of course other parents as well.

I don't understand why you continue to smear me instead of answering the question and stating the facts. I am shocked that that you deny reality in such a blatant way. Separately you don't seem to have any ethic and decency in blaming it on me, which is problematic for a teacher. Stop distorting and falsifying my posts and fuelling this gastly witch hunt.

You are the one filling this thread with false assertions that I said 'no one, ever, never, anything, don't teach, don't that' and so on. These are entirely your products that you falsely attribute to me and then angrily dispute.

There are indisputable facts in government statistics on the national level, by LA and for specific schools, that show that with few exceptions, low prior attainers don't get GCSEs English and Maths at grade 4 in schools with average or lower progress 8 scores. In average schools the percentage tends to be zero. Just look at specific schools in your area for low attainers. It is a fact and I had no part in its making. I think it should not be like this. Cankeep confirmed that that is what to be expected from the way the system is set up.
cantkeepawayforever Thu 30-Aug-18 09:32:13
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 national average for low attainers across all schools is 9.6%, which would include grammars and all those extraordinary well above average schools, Cantkeep discussed reasons why in such schools this proportion is higher. This means on average only 1 in 10 children with low SATs are likely to get a 4. This is a fact. For me this means I am going to have the same shit over again for my DD.

It is acknowledged on this thread, even by Noble in as many words, except that 'some' means 30%
noblegiraffe Thu 30-Aug-18 12:13:46
cakes we agree that the GCSE statistics show that some children don’t get 9-4 in their maths and English. We also agree that children who are below the expected standard at the end of primary are statistically unlikely to meet the expected standard at the end of secondary school.

It is also discussed on this thread and many others that those low attainers are going to be in bottom or lower sets and this means they will be progressing at slower pace compared to the top set and therefore by the time of sitting the exam in year 11, it is very likely that they would not be taught for long enough, or even not at all some of the material that is necessary to get the top grades, like 9, or 8, or 6 - the exact thing will depend on the school. Bottom sets are typically entered into Foundation paper in Maths which does not allow grades above 5. Noble even enters bottom set in Level 1 certificate, in addition to GCSEs, which basically confirms she does not expect them to get top grades. I never said children are not taught any GCSEs. This is s falsification. But I did say that generally, as a matter of system set up, they are not taught all the same material as top sets and in a way so they could accelerate their progress and catch up. This is acknowledged by most on this thread and it is unethical to deny this and channel parents' anger to me.

It is just not true that any child in bottom set has the same chances of getting grade 9 for the sake of argument, as a child in top set. Due to the organisation of tuition by sets and the target setting by flightpath, structurally, due to the system, children in bottom set (ignoring ability for the sake of argument) do not have the same opportunity as those in top sets. This is what I find wrong .

If by misfortune of circumstance a child of good ability lands in bottom set due to delays in SEN provisions, or health, or some other factor affecting SATs at the age of 11, that child is unlikely to get even a grade 4 'statistically' as Noble puts it. Unless teachers pull all the stops , accelerate progress and move the child up the sets, but this is rare. Noble and Cantkeep are sceptical about this.

I just think that the system of sets and flightpath is a vile trap for children like my DD and many others. I have every right, like everyone else, to express my opinion and participate in the debate and aggressive mobbing is not a satisfactory answer in a free country.

There is absolutely a place for parents like me to question and for a public discussion on the wisdom of this 35% (or 30) mark. There is absolutely the right to question what the level of skill and qualifications should be at the end of universal secondary education for children of at least average range of ability in 21 century.

There is absolutely a need for a parent, like me, of children with disabilities to point and question how this arbitrary watermark already at the age of 11 is disproportionately affecting their children, how it is discriminatory for reason of disability and to question how to remedy this.

There is absolutely a right for a parent to question the teachers how to help their children to get the good GCSE pass if they are in the unfortunate situation of being in that 30% and to seek to have system in place to this effect.

Currently the compulsory GCSE resit is a backdoor to catch up, however flawed, but people are anxious to do away with this.

So I ask what other systems do you propose to replace it? To accelerate progress or catch up by the age of 18 for those kids? Without locking them in qualification of lower value, which would be discriminatory for reason of disability?

There is absolutely no apology to make for me, or any other parent to ask these questions and trying to engage.

What is staggering is the response: the hysterical mobbing, the smearing and trying to hunt me off the thread, the imperviousness, the rejection of any discussion, the dismissiveness and aggression. There are no other answers on offer. There is no way to engage, to get through.

This is sad, but I am not going to apologise for trying.

And I think a child like mind, like many others in those bottom 30% deserve the answer.

I think issues lie in primary school.

I can only go on my own experience but talking to others in the same boat (although different schools so not quite the extreme measures.) If your DC cannot read by (it used to be year 3 but suspect it is much earlier nowadays) a certain year group then they would sit through the lessons trying to guess what has been written on the whiteboard and maybe get a TA for 10 minutes reading per day.

No real teaching of these DC actually goes on. Then they get to SATS. Fail SATs then are left to flounder for a few more years.

There should be not many pupils this applies to. If there are then maybe the system should change but a proper lesson with a qualified teacher or even a TA who could spend an hour each day with a small group teaching them to read and write might help a lot of these children.

There are those that might need more specialist help and they should get the diagnosis and maybe a qualified teacher in SEN

This might cost money but the alternative of pushing it down the line is just ending up costing millions having a perfectly capable person on benefits for life. Or not fulfilling their potential and having a lousy life.

I know someone who didn't pass English but is now heading a research team in the search for a cure to a particular cancer.

If he comes up with the cure it will be thanks that this ridiculous standard was not in place when he was 16

cake you ask what other system there is to replace it.

Providing someone is not illiterate then I would say dispense with it altogether and spend the money on getting those that cannot read and write to be literate.

Or do what I suggested in previous post. Not let it get to this stage.

user . I think , to be completely honest, you are totally guessing where everyone on here is from , and their backgrounds. I am not form the south, if that helps, but from further north than you. I began teaching in a school that was closed down and got the lowest results in England. I got a full grant, back in the day, for university.

... and I know Ellie. She isn't from MK. We live in an area you might define as posh (although it really isn't!) and her mum is a teacher who works with gifted and talented students form disavdvantaged backgrounds (not Hull yet but various pockets of the country which have poor representation at HE).

I wish all the very best to your DC at Lincoln. I am coming to the Open Day soon with my (state educated) DS1.

I admire your passion but it is misplaced shouting at noble, I do genuinely believe that.

.... and I am really sorry, but there isn't a Leigh in Edinburgh . I think you mean Leith.

Due to small cohorts and an unwritten rule parents have not to “out” other people’s children I can’t give specific examples but yes, children are accepted into MDS schools who have done nothing but an outreach scheme previously.

Really lemony? Not doubting you but would like to know what jobs these are since so many onf my GCSE students are told by colleges that they can't gain places on apprenticeships, BTECs, NVQs etc without Cs/4s (occasionally 5s)

When my DCs were young , it was reasonably obvious that many of their nursery nurses didn't have Cs in English. Now, anyone that wants to pursue nursey nursing requires a 4 to get on to the course. Not necessarily a bad thing, but definitely a change.

Though Humberside does not technically exist. I have used it is a euphemism for an area near Hull which does not share the same characteristics as some relatively prosperous 'North Lincolnshire' towns.

Branleuse
Just to reiterate, claims children are not taught anything to get good grades are false.
Not all students will get over the 4 threshold. That's how the grading is designed (an increase in grades for one school is a dip somewhere else). I don't agree with it but that it the system.

We do teach children what they need for the course. I had a couple of 3/4 borderline students this year. They were taught the full texts, full course (no tiers so no different content), how to write, were given laminated keyrings with what exam structures they needed to use for each question to refer to for the 2 years. Classwork for 1 got up to bottom of a 6 level but exam technique was the main issue. One for 4s and one got 5s.

Did I force a child working at a 3/4 borderline to read A Level critical theory that I gave to students aiming for 8s? No. Because learning is sequenced and that reading was beyond GCSE. It was available for all students in the revision folder on the VLE. I wouldn't expect a new runner to run an ultra marathon, I'd get them through a 5k first in good form and build.

People will teach the children in front of them the course they have to get through. There's good and bad in the system, but ideas that staff simply decide not to bother teaching material requires for good grades are false.

I never said children are not taughtanyGCSEs. This is s falsification. But I did say that generally, as a matter of system set up, they are not taughtallthe same material as top sets and in a way so they could accelerate their progress and catch up.

You said...
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
And I repeat. You claim that lower set students never get exposed to material that enables good grades.
That is my issue. Don't make sweeping generalisations that will whip up worry and stress telling people their children are written off by staff.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberside

We accept people with 3s in Eng and Maths on to Level 2 apprenticeships. They then need to work towards Level 2. We put them through a Level 1 programme first (online resource plus one to one/small group sessions) to fill in the holes, reassess them at Level 2 with an online diagnostic assessment and then build them up to taking Level 2 exams. The demographic is skewed of course - they have got onto the apprenticeship course so have certain qualities - but very very few do not achieve the Level 2 qualifications. English groups are generally mixed ability but Maths is differentiated based on initial and diagnostic assessments, so someone who could have got a C/4 if circumstances had been different (for whatever reason) will not be in a group with someone with lower grades. Learners with special needs are assessed as to ability and put in the appropriate grouping, and offered additional ongoing support.

Cakes,

The assumptions that you are making are that a child with poor SATs results

a) Is always put in lower sets
b) Remains there, even when they are of higher ability
c) Is not taught the whole syllabus

Let's look at a) first. Many schools don't set for English in early secondary, and some delay setting in Maths for some time to monitor actual performance in secondary. So all children with lower SATs results are taught with, and the same amount as, their peers.

When sets are formed, SATs are often not used to determine the set, and even if used, are often modified by use of other tests - CATs, internal school exams (for which everyone has been taught the same) - or in-class observation by the secondary teachers. If reports from primary say 'Child A was ill; Child B was bereaved; Child C had only just been diagnosed with Z; Child E had just arrived from elsewhere speaking little English but their fluency was increasing all the time' as reasons for getting poorer grades in SATs, then that also will be taken into account.

Then let's look at b) - the idea that a child never moves sets. If a child initially in a lower set performs well, then IME they move up - and if they are in a high set and perform poorly, they move down. I asked DD how her Maths set had changed over time - fewer than half of the children who started in it are still there. Yes, there will sometimes be issues about numbers. However, IME that is sorted exactly as noble says - the teachers teach who is in front of them. If a child is performing at the level of the next set up but there are already 33 children in that set performing at that level or higher, then the teacher simply teaches more challenging material to the child who is performing well.

Others have talked about c) more than I have. In many subjects for GCSE there are no sets, and then obviously all material is taught to all classes. In all subjects other than Maths, there are no tiers, and the curriculum is the same for all children, so again the same material is taught. Where there are obvious, sensible differences - x group will need help with structuring an essay, y group will need higher level critical analysis - then again IME the material overlaps between sets: it is not that Set 3 never sees any of the material used with set 2, or set 4, so a child performing well in set 3 will have an experience that overlaps with a child in set 2.

Maths is slightly different because it does have tiers. There is a core 'body of knowledge' (the 1-5 curriculum) that everyone will cover, and then additional material that many will cover. As I understand it, your point is that everyone should be taught all the material from 1-9, so that all questions are theoretically accessible to every child? That is, of course, true for almost all subjects, but Maths is not a 'set of knowledge to be learned', but a set of techniques which have to be manipulated and applied and used. If a child cannot use and apply the more simple techniques, what would you suggest - that they are taught more techniques (to theoretically be 'able to get an 8 or 9') or that they work for longer to master the 'core curriculum' so that they can use and apply it?

cantkeepawayforever
Well said.

I was in bottom set for languages. I got to set 2 and was waiting for a spot in the set above (it was annoying but as my teacher said, for one to go up one has to come down). I was studying the same course. A spot came up in set 1. I got an A and probably would have got an A in set 2 (like many did).

I've had middle set students get As, A*s, 8s and 9s too.

Maths is the problem and not just because of the specifics you mention but also because we have very weak maths teachers, actually very weak science teachers too. Half the kids have tutors to make up for the poor teaching. Ds didn’t have a maths teacher for half of last year - his teacher left and they couldn’t replace her.