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

Just as a caveat, as someone on another thread has discovered you do need a 4 in science to enter teaching , so that A Level art student would need to be aware of that if they aimed to teach down the line.

I am not sure if this is true for post grad teaching courses but it did seem to hold true for all BEds.

I also gather that the policy is for children to have at least five good GCSEs. And the 5 GCSE's being tracked in statistics are EBAC. Just saying.

Ebacc is going to be quietly forgotten I’m sure. The Tory deadline for having nearly all kids do the Ebacc has been pushed back, and absolutely nothing has happened to make it happen. There aren’t enough language teachers for a start.

Piggy I think needing science is for primary teachers only?

Maisy is an English teacher. I’m sure most music teachers would be aware.
Thanks for the common sense.
user1471450935
Thank you.
It wasn't about teacher hating, just more frustration at the never ending suggestions at times on MN in general that staff must by nice posh middle class people in nice posh schools who only like top universities, only care about bright children, don't care about the lower achieving children etc.

The other conspiracy that comes up is the other one I mentioned about how if a child refuses a basic rule and then argues they shouldn't be sanctioned. If we sanction it then we are the ones who are holding up the lesson because we shouldn't have challenged their DC.

Not claims of teacher hating (save that for silly moments where posters track teachers on other unrelated threads and go 'OMG and you're meant to be a teacher.' ) , more amusement at some of the peculiar ideas about teachers.

We're perfectly capable of having our own feelings about higher education and still caring and supporting the students to achieve.
E.g. i'd never tell a child to turn down an unconditional offer if it was best for them (regardless of my feelings about how the system uses them), but might have a chat and encourage some reflection if a student known to seek easy routes was considering am unconditional over a course that may suit their aspirations more. Then whatever they choose they have my support

Yes noble : someone with A Level art might well want to go in to primary?

I did find some PGCE type course that wanted 'C grades' for maths, English and science.

I am not sure how much this is highlighted to young people post GCSE results. There must be other jobs/ courses with this requirement.

Sorry, I wasn't to trying to say that missing out on a grade 4 in science doesn't matter - I meant that it isn't as drastic as missing out in maths and English. You still have options if you don't achieve the 4 in science and you also don't get trapped in to an endless cycle of resits. Obviously the better your grades the more options you have, but missing out in maths / English really does seem to have a much bigger impact on employment opportunities than other subject.

Just clarifying, piggy as it appeared you were suggesting you needed science for teaching in general.

Talking about teaching, it seems that despite having a requirement for maths and English GCSE, there are a huge number of candidates who have problems passing the numeracy and literacy skills tests; so much so that they’ve had to get rid of the ‘three takes’ limit and allow unlimited bites at the cherry as it was preventing too many people from becoming teachers.

So it seems that even in among ‘highly educated’ teachers, requiring maths and English GCSE isn’t enough to guarantee literacy and numeracy.

Should employers who require literacy and/or numeracy be setting their own skills tests, like teaching? Are the teacher skills tests a good test of the sort of literacy and numeracy levels that an employer should expect?

Example teacher literacy test: sta.education.gov.uk/system/resources/W1siZiIsIjIwMTcvMDQvMjUvMTJfNTVfMzRfNTUxX0xpdGVyYWN5X1ByYWN0aWNlX1Rlc3RfMi5wZGYiXV0/Literacy%20Practice%20Test%202.pdf

Example numeracy test: sta.education.gov.uk/system/resources/W1siZiIsIjIwMTUvMDUvMDgvMTJfMTNfNTZfNjA5X051bWVyYWN5X1ByYWN0aWNlX1BCVDJfSmFuXzIwMTUucGRmIl1d/Numeracy%20Practice%20PBT2%20Jan%202015.pdf

I'd liek to see the stats on the people who fail these tests : I do certainly know of English teachers who have struggled with the numeracy one(not with very much good grace, as you can imagine!). But I do wonder whether the people who struggle most ahve come throuhg less traditional routes : perhaps late starters who did GCSEs/O Levels aeons ago, for example , or people who have done an access course.

I won't mention my English teaching colleague who failed the literacy test....

I think they are a reasomable refresher. As a career changer it was a while since I did my GCSE maths and I certainly was a bit rusty. The tests gave me a quick incentive to brush up. I think they are basic skills that all teachers should have.
I know some on my course argued 'but you don't need maths if you're teaching art' but given the amount of data staff work with and trips etc, basic numeracy isn't asking much.
There was also someone on my English course and a former trainee at one of my schools who struggled to pass the literacy test. Quite worrying really.

What is the pass mark Noble?

Oh piggy I’d love to discuss stats

Here’s the spreadsheet for last year: sta.education.gov.uk/system/resources/W1siZiIsIjIwMTgvMDYvMDQvMTJfNDBfMjFfNTczX0NvcHlfb2ZfMjAxNl8yMDE3X3N0YXRpc3RpY3MueGxzeCJdXQ/Copy%20of%202016-2017%20statistics.xlsx

Funnily on the whole, the age group who were most likely to fail to pass both tests were the under 25s. Also the least likely to pass either numeracy or literacy on their first attempt. Not sure what that says about improving standards in education.

I think that numeracy test is likely to be what employers think the GCSE maths is all about.

Generally the pass mark is about 64% according to the Internet. The official answer is that it varies according to how difficult the test is.

the numeracy test is actually really hard in places - not the content, but the timing. I'm working with a severely dyslexic adult who is struggling to get the mental maths part of it. She's not strong in maths generally, but is OK and certainly works hard, and she isn't intending to teach it; she can do maths at the needed level for admin etc., but so far is finding the mental maths impossible. And some of the questions really are a lot for someone to do in a short amount of time, and require a lot of listening and processing at the same time. I feel for her, as it's a real barrier to entry. She does actually have a GCSE grade C, but that's not enough.

I do think a good numeracy exam that everyone took would be an excellent idea, but as well as, rather than instead of, another maths GCSE that could be taken by higher achievers. I don't think you can have a single qualification to show employers the basics, and then not let anyone do anything beyond that at age 16, because for many students, GCSE maths is quite easy - some of them do just 'get it', and they also shouldn't be stopped from having the option to be stretched by the higher material.

Many teachers wanted two separate GCSEs like this in the recent reforms. Or the option to have three tiers, and students to be entered for one or more of them. All are decent ways of covering both basic content needed for employment, and more difficult stuff.

I have often thought that those with A Level maths/ English should be exempted from the relevant parts of the test. It seems a waste of time and admin.

Funnily enough, I am good at data but find (at least in my school) that mathematicians (sorry noble!) and scientists take it all on and shove anyone else into a corner as if somehow they wouldn't understand it. I am , in fact, one of the few members of staff who (inconveniently) queries data , and I dodn't think that makes me popular!

I remember when i did the numeracy test that it is very much 'maths for teachers' not 'maths for teaching maths', if that makes sense?

So at primary level, passing it / failing it is not an indication of whether you understand 'curriculum maths' well enough to teach it well, more whether you can do enough maths to do the work of a teacher (especially if you work in a small primary where things like data analysis and quite a lot of budgeting tend to fall to teachers themselves in a way they wouldn't in a big secondary).

It may have changed, though.

(I have Further Maths A-level at a high level, but I still found it, as a career changer, useful to do the numeracy test because its focus was not the same as the focus in the 'school maths' I did)

I would absolutely support the idea of 2 Maths qualifications. In primary, tests are divided into 'Arithmetic' and 'Reasoning'. IME, even lower ability pupils do pretty well in the Arithmetic, and where they lose marks is in the Reasoning.

Extending the idea towards GCSE - fluency in the basics of calculation and 'real life maths' vs higher level problem solving - would be a really good plan and would perhaps more clearly show 'what a pupil CAN do' rather than 'what they can't'.

Wales has gone that route, cant

There was a plan 10 years ago when maths coursework was scrapped to have a ‘functional maths’ exam that students had to take alongside GCSE. It was to contain real world stuff like the cost of carpeting a room, or pricing up a holiday. The idea was that pupils had to pass the functional exam to be awarded a C+ pass at GCSE. If they got a good GCSE grade but failed the functional exam, the highest they could be awarded was a D. My school took part in a pilot of the functional exam, it was all set to go then scrapped at the last possible minute. I think the problem was that too many kids failed the functional exam and they realised this would be a huge issue for the GCSE pass rate...

Should say they failed the functional maths pilot, it was never taken by actual GCSE students.

cantkeepawayforever
Same when I did mine. It was very functional maths
E.g. what % of the class got a C and above from this spreadsheet?
If you were running a trip for 30 and all the bits cost this much, how much will the trip cost students?

I've not rtft so my apologies if I'm repeating something pp have already said. But I'm mid 30s with an E in GCSE maths. I was predicted an N, so it was a real achievement! I have dyscalculia, which prohibits me from ever being able to pass a maths exam at this level. I don't understand my y3 son's maths homework. My failure in this area prevented me from training to be a social worker or teacher. I'm now a lecturer with a First and MSc from the LSE and I'm midway through a doctorate. I'm not stupid, though I've spent my life believing I am. I find it ridiculous that I'm thought capable of teaching at degree level but I wouldn't qualify as a primary teacher. The insistence on possession of a pass mark in these subjects excludes so many people from so many careers, many of which are crying out for people.

I am definitely of the opinion that being unable to pass GCSE maths should prohibit you from becoming a primary school teacher, given that primary school teachers have to teach maths up to about that level.

But I’m not of the opinion that being very bad at art should prohibit you from being a primary teacher despite primary teachers teaching art.

the current professional skills numeracy test does have a lot of practical maths used for interpreting data etc, as well as lots of basic fractions and percents and conversions etc. So that part isn't so bad. I do find that the timing on the mental part is restrictive, though, and that's what is stopping my current pupil from passing (and she wants to teach Early Years). If it wasn't timed, she'd be OK; she will be OK on the written part, with a bit more practice, as at least you can split the time up between the questions as you see fit. But not on the mental part.

I do think the professional skills test could be a lot better designed, though, even on the written part. Much of it is poking holes in the statistics in a trivial way, instead of getting them to extract useful data from it. They have to look through test scores over several years, for example, and work out the percentage of people with a certain score, and then the question is about whether it has increased every year or not. One year it will have gone done by 0.5% or something, and that will mean that the statement is false. And yet, the point of looking at data like that is to see the broad pattern, which is very clearly one of improvements year on year. And loads of other similar examples, where the focus is on minute details and not on anything relevant.

So I'm still not hugely convinced that it is a test fit for purpose either. I think it has to be passed in addition to a GCSE in maths, but I'm not absolutely sure on that. I only know that my current pupil does have a C, but has to do the test, but it could be because her C was a while ago.