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

noblegiraffe
I agree. There has to be a basic standard of literacy and numeracy expected of teachers.

I cried when I got my level 2 Maths, it meant more than my PgCE, Hos Degree, HND, Exec Dip Mgt from the CMI.

The argument about not needing maths to teach in FE and HE is that you don't need Maths, unless this is your subject.
A level students will have their maths, or retaking.
level 1/2 college courses, they will be taking functional skills from another teacher rather than their subject tutors.

It is assumed students have the level required, so the teachers don't need a high level.
My problems were the expectation that because you have a PgCE you should be able to teach any subject.
I think it's wrong that there are teachers with level 2 OCR / functional skills teaching secondary maths, and the reason I left the profession.

Agree completely, Dljlr. It's entirely possible to have a stellar higher education record, certainly in the humanities, without needing to know the slightest bit of mathematics beyond that covered at primary level. Why on earth should Maths GCSE be a gatekeeper to anything other than those subjects and careers in which knowledge of theoretical mathematics is a necessary foundation, rather than an arbitrary prerequisite?

downs, I think an awful lot of employers want their employees to be able to do and understand fairly basic maths. In the absence of a nationwide "functional maths" GCSE they simply look for a grade C in ordinary maths GCSE. There is an assumption that if you can't achieve that grade they you are unlikely to be able to do basic, every day, maths. Most employers, especially small ones, aren't going to bother with a separate test like the teaching one because they can fill positions with candidates who got a C.

Expecting everybody to reach a basic standard of literacy and numeracy isn't arbitrary and isn't unreasonable. The problem, imo, is that the GCSEs don't actually test those skills. Those students who are capable of writing (like the work a pp posted upthread) aren't given the opportunity to prove that they do actually have the skills required in the workplace.

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, ... they also shouldn't be stopped from having the option to be stretched by the higher material.

But there is a GCSE Further Maths that does just that. That exists already. There is so much focus on 'stretching the higher achievers' already in the system, as if they are the main disadvantaged group. Every time someone is trying to talk about mid and lower attainers and give them a fair opportunity, it is always shut down by 'the need to stretch the most able'. The systemic need to create loosers to give a further advantage to those who are the winners already. There is obsession with this at every level so their needs are pretty decently covered. The whole grade 9 is about them.

Those who are so bright and in need of stretch should choose Further Maths GCSE, surely. But very few do, probably because they are not so extraordinary at maths or bored by absence of challenge. They just want a clear run at Oxbridge and they already have it. They can choose A level maths and go on to Maths degrees and PhD research. There isn't a scarcity of opportunity for high achievers.

The children in lower but average range of ability are disadvantaged by the current system because their skills and chances are not given the same priority, the same value. Why do you need to introduce a third inferior qualification other than to pinpoint who the losers are? That is covered by Level 1 already.

The thing is, the current maths GCSE has too many roles to play:

• It is a school accountability measure for the Government.
• It is used to measure the attainment of all 16 year olds in the subject.
• It is used as a benchmark of 'academically able to do A-levels'
• It lays the foundations for further study in Maths
• It is used as a benchmark of 'sufficiently numerate for employment or employment-focused training'
• It is used as a selection tool for job applications

As a result, it is not great at any of them. Separating out the different roles into a range of different qualifications, if done well, would mean that it could do these roles better. However, while the first - the accountability measure - is so overwhelming, is what drives all the others, such reform isn't possible.

cantkeepawayforever
I have similar feelings about GCSE English Language. I really like most of the changes to English literature. Language always seems to try to do too many things and it's not as effective at doing any of them.

Cakes In fact the high achievers are the worst performing group in my school when comparing predictions to achievement. This is for a variety of reasons, lack of parental support, lack of aspiration, poor teaching because these pupils behave they get the worst teachers. Your ascertation that there is plenty for the top end is false.

Miasy

I was going to add 'and English', but agree with you that there is a distinction between Lit and Lang.

Since that distinction already exists, it would be relatively easy to make English language really good as a measure of 'sufficiently literate for further study and employment' while having English Lit as the qualification which lays the basis for further study of English.

However, it might affect the accountability measure too much (sigh)

Dermymc,

I wonder whether, particularly as a parent, you only see the disadvantages of a particular qualification or course for your own DC, not for other groups, and therefore assume that 'it's great for everyone else but it's not great for the group that includes my child'?

This is of course equally true as a teacher, because at best one has deep insight into a few schools.

Then the gap has to be filled by statistics ...

I don’t think Further Maths is even available in many schools apart from academically selective schools. or at least it isn’t round here). Certainly not available at either Dds or ds’s school.

Cant I'm confused by your comment aimed at me, was it meant for cakes?

If so I agree with you.

Cantkeep you also make a good point re gcse English Language and Literature.

Ideally Maths would be split into gcse numeracy and gcse Maths. The government did start a consultation but quickly stopped. There are many advocates for such a system, including most maths teachers I know.

Sorry, Dermymc,

Yes, apologies. I was agreeing with you, and also feeling that what Cakes is expressing is a really common, general phenomenon - it's a bit like asking parents who gets the most focus in the primary classroom. Parents of able pupils say teachers focus on lower and middle attainers and don't spend time with able ones. Parents middle ability pupils say they are the 'overlooked middle', while teacher focus on high and low attainers. parents of low attainers say that teachers don't spend enough time with their children because teachers focus on the middle and higher attainers who will reach particular benchmarks.

In fact, if I have a parents' evening when parents of children across the ability range complain that I don't spend enough time on the 'group' their child belongs to, then i know I'm doing the best possible job use i am in fact splitting my time pretty fairly!

... 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'.

Introducing "Reasoning" into the rationale why mid and low attainers should have different qualifications to the high attainers is just giving them the label of being dim. This is such a step backwards humanistically.

Secondary education up to 16 is basic level, really. And reasoning is absolutely part of everyday life skills all people with normal range of ability do have. Reasoning in humans is not a privilege of top 25%.

What is wrong with better teaching children in primary the "Reasoning" bit of the test? This is where the disadvantage is being created even before the age of 11.

Real life maths' do involve higher level problem solving. Factorisation of quadratic equations by completing the square might be an extension bit. At what age do you teach to solve this problem: there were 5 pencils on the table. Three children sat on the table and took one pencil each. How many pencils left on the table?

Reception.

Or nursery, using real pencils.

Secondary education up to 16 is basic level, really.

For the students you are talking about it really isn't!

Cakes, have a look at recent Year 6 Reasoning papers.

2017 ones here

Some, absolutely, are the type of 'real life maths' that all children should be able to use fluently before they leave school, and I would expect problems of that type to appear in any useful 'maths fluency and real life maths' type paper.

Some are not.

(Tbh, IME, many children's barriers at KS2 are NOT maths ones. They are working through the verbiage, the context, the technical language, the layout to find the maths to do)

Dermymc.
high achievers are the worst performing group in my school ... lack of parental support, lack of aspiration, poor teaching because these pupils behave they get the worst teachers. Your assertion that there is plenty for the top end is false.

Do you mean high achievers in your school get GCSEs grades 1-3? Do you mean your low attainers get 6-9? Then it just proves that children can achieve very well with good teaching and support and there is no need to create structural barriers between levels of attainment.

Which of the options I listed are not available to your high achievers and how is it the fault of middle and low attainers? Which part is false in relation to the general national picture?

You list specific problem in your school and give specific reasons. Nothing in your post suggest that there is not plenty available to high achievers.

Dermymc,
^Secondary education up to 16 is basic level, really.

For the students you are talking about it really isn't!^

This is just educational Darwinism. I am talking about students with ability in average range and of the universal secondary education. I am sorry, in this country education up to 16 is viewed as universally mandatory, and therefore assumes that it is suitable, desirable, accessible to all. Why are examples abundant of people who failed GCSEs and went on to do degrees and PhDs, or even learning to use those skills in a different setting?

Sorry, called away: it is the barrier imposed by the verbiage, the context, the 'finding the maths' which means that many children who can express 18/24 as a simplified fraction or convert 3/4 into percent - and will do so with 100% accuracy when these are presented as 'bare' number problems in an arithmetic paper or real life - won't do so when it is all dressed up with cats and koalas and sleeping...

Cakes, what do you mean by 'ability in average range?'

If you mean a child on the 50th centile in terms of mathematical ability, the fact that 70% of pupils gain a level 4 or above in Maths GCSE suggests that someone on the 50th centile should obtain 4 or above.

Do you mean 'between the 30th and 70th centile in terms of mathematical ability? Again, statistically virtually all these children should get 4 or above, though with some variation at the 30th centile line because of 'on the day' factors.

Do you mean 25th - 75th centile? Yes, 5% of that 50% of children - so 1 in 10 - will statistically fall below the 30th centile line and will get less than a 4 (though they are those most likely to get a 4 in a retake).

Do you mean 'all non SEN children? 14% or so of children have a special educational need here. Obviously not all of those needs will affect cognitive ability - for example it will include physical and sensory impairments such as deafness.

What do you mean?

Sorry, thought of another option 'Achieved at least a 4 when they took SATs 5 years previously, in 2013', which is above the 15th centile.

At that point, KS2 SATs were based on measuring whether a child showed specific skills. Achieving the benchmark of a 4 or above showed that they had those skills. However, the distribution was skewed - many more children achieved 'high - level 5 or above - than 'low' - level 3 or below. Does this mean that primary achieved better than secondary - in that only 15% fell below the benchmark? No, it just means that the benchmarks, for historical reasons rather than anyone thinking coherently, are set in different ways.

Where a child on the 16th centile is 'average' is moot. Whether they 'fall within the Government definition of 'middle prior attainers' - yes they do.