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

Yeah cant, this thing that pupils find really difficult in primary school, why don’t you just teach it better? Then they’d find it easy!

Incidentally, I saw this on twitter, vocabulary needed by pupils in this year’s SATs just to access the questions.

But Cakes, the extra stuff in the GCSE beyond functional skills is not particularly difficult for most students. It's not stretching to say that the need to be able to keep learning and get 6, 7, 8 etc in it ,long before you get to further maths. For many children, that is perfectly easy stuff.

Just not for all. And it's the ones who really struggle to get that that are the concern here. I have some who are barred from doing the A-levels they want, because of the constant re-sitting of GCSE. That is what is unfair. I'm all in favour of a separate qualification, if you want to give it a different name, that everyone can take, to give the same criterion for employment or to study A-levels or other Level 3 courses. But the average child also needs to do GCSE maths and learn the content in there that is not functional maths, but it still not overly difficult for many. So just making GCSE something that everyone passes, when we know how much some children struggle, is not a solution either. I like the Welsh idea, with two separate GCSEs. Or even that, plus a Further maths one for those who want to go on. No point restricting the many many children who could do the functional maths early in their secondary career, though, and telling them no more maths until A-levels.

Again, no-one wants to restrict the opportunity for those who struggle - we are all about encouraging them to achieve as highly as possible. We also don't want to force endless resits on children who aren't going to pass them, if it restricts them from doing their higher level courses. I'd like everyone to get a decent basic level of maths, and if I had any more magic techniques to get the struggling ones there, I would be using them. I really can't figure out what else you want from teachers. They do their utmost to get strugglers through GCSE, they give them the chance to resit, they offer functional skills for those who aren't going to get GCSE, they advocate for changes to the system to give more chances for the struggling students to have a course and an exam that meets their needs, they agree that employers are asking too much by insisting on a GCSE from everyone and wish that there were numeracy as well as reasoning GCSEs, or greater numbers of tiers.

OMG Cantkeep,

I couldn't read the paper on your link beyond question 6 as it is too upsetting. The format is so distracting and confusing, the bold outline of the answer boxes is so paralyzing. In question 2 it is impossible for my DC with ASD to make sense of the numbers, her eye and attention is completely trapped by the bold empty boxes. I know that my autistic DS with an A** in further maths would be be completely frozen by it, by the bloody bold line. But he would be labeled as lacking in reasoning.

(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)
You are absolutely right, this is exactly it. I was making this point less eloquently. The specific choice of verbiage, of context, and even the layout affects certain children disproportionately, creates real barriers, which are absolutely irrelevant to the learning goal.

Can you see why What is wrong with better teaching children in primary the "Reasoning" bit of the test? isn't the answer, given that 'Reasoning' is measured using the paper you just looked at?

The arithmetic is easier for all sorts of children, because the format is SO much more uniform and so much less distracting, and the vocabulary is minimal. However teaching children to be able to pass Reasoning papers (as opposed to do sensible everyday 'maths in the real world' calculations which require the same basic arithmetical skills) is not always about teaching maths - which is what we should be doing.

Pickle,

I am sorry but I am confused by the winds of your argument
the extra stuff in the GCSE beyond functional skills is not particularly difficult for most students. It's not stretching to say that the need to be able to keep learning and get 6, 7, 8 etc in it ,long before you get to further maths. For many children, that is perfectly easy stuff... Just not for all.

The meaning of your argument, its logical conclusion is that stuff for grades 6-9 is just incremental vs functional skills and easy for most, but not all. Yes, I agree most should be able to get grades 6-9 and it follows that grad 4 should be easy for even grater number of 'most'. I 've really been through Further Maths GCSE with DS, so I can tell it is also completely incremental vs Maths and easy for most who can do Maths 6-9. My argument on this thread has been that a really limited minority is not smart enough to not even get a 4 in Maths and if as many as 30-35% don't get it, then it is by flawed design that should be open to discussion and reviewed.

Unless I misunderstood you and you mean that everything beyond functional skills is easy, it is functional skills that is hard and those 35% as just too stupid to get those functional skills. So you are saying in effect that a third of a primary school class are too stupid to get basic functional maths and the further secondary education from this point is just an incremental conveyor belt. So those children are doomed at the very basic skills level?

I would say this is a perversion of most parents understand by the provision of education as a public service in this country. The basic design and practice of the universal secondary education should not be too difficult as to label 30% of children in normal range of ability as too stupid, especially by the age of 11. The system should be suitable and work for most, including those in the 30%

Cantkeep, I understand this, I am actually saying the same thing. Surely you can see this.

But the existence of this paper and its formatting is not the fault of the children being too stupid, as many argue on this thread. Somebody designed, approved, administered this paper.

From the parent's point of view, teachers are the system, they are the front line, education happens through them. One can't really argue that teachers are innocent bystanders and were not there when 35% of perfectly able children fail basic qualifications. It is not a personal attack and an expression of hatred to expect teacher to do something about it?

No cakes, it’s just incredibly naive. Who do you think is in control of education? Hint: It’s not teachers.
Double hint: It’s not anyone with any expertise in education.

Cakes, the thing is, what you want could easily be achieved - the government just has to move what 4 'means', and place it where 1 or 2 currently is, so a much smaller % of children fall below the level.

Technically, the Government has already done that, because a 1 is a pass grade. Only a U is a fail. So only those with Us - a small percentage - have no measure of their mathematical ability at the end of secondary.

If you place 4 where 1 currently is - so you declare that a pass grade is 'almost universal' - then one issue is that you then only have 6 grades (4,5,6,7,8,9) to describe the ability in Maths of the whole population of 16 year olds. That means a bigger spread of ability within each grade.

The other issue is that, although you now have a system which does what you want - gives a 'pass mark' to pretty much everyone - it no longer discriminates between those who are more capable of further high level academic study, and those who are less (remember I said that GCSEs are having to do too many things).

So then there would be another intermediate mark that became 'the benchmark for those wanting to do A-levels'. So 4 would be a pass, but say, a 6 a pass sufficient to do A-levels. And that replicates the current situation, just with different numbers.

Those who get 3s are not 'stupid', as a previous piece on here showed. Those with 1s still have an assessment of their mathematical performance at 16, that can be used as a starting point for their next series of qualifications / work related training. However what, in general, they can't do is access A-levels or some other more demanding post-16 options.

Noble, I know you are an expert and a good teacher and all that. I do.

However, you need to engage with the point that parents generally are neither stupid, nor hateful nor naive. They are the clients and the payers of the public service called education, which should work for children in bottom 35% as well.

Teachers don't 'own' the education, their expertise is not the exclusive right to have a say in it neither it is actually for politicians.

Pupils need to start school at Reception, gain confidence, skills, and come home with GCSEs after year 11. That is what school is for from parents’ perspective, on children’s behalf. Everything that happens in between at school is , well, teachers job. At the front line..

Cake, in all seriousness, do you think I, as a primary teacher, had ANYTHING to do with that paper design? What do you EXPECT me to do about it?

When the government says '30% will get less than a 4', that is not because teachers told them to. It is not because teachers lobbied them to. it is not because teachers advised them to. It is a purely political statement, taken in the face of all available evidence from those in the system.

Imagine it as 2 stystems, essentially unconnected.

There is the 'real school system', which teachers work in.

Then there is the government system, which makes decisions and throws them over the wall at the real school system'.

Very occasionally, what happens when what the government system decides something and the real school system implements it is so appalling that emergency action is taken (see the '5...no, 4 is the pass mark' fiasco last year, and the 'Oh, no you can get 3:3 in science on the higher paper, it's not a U' this year). Occasionally there is a slow motion car crash and a partial reversal of some aspects. But mostly, stuff is just thrown over the wall between the systems, and that's it.

I agree that it is a teacher's job for pupils to start in Reception, and make progress in all areas of their learning for the years of statutory education. If humanly possible, that progress should be the maximum the child is capable of, though there are resource and time constraints, and it should not just be academic.

I accept that as my job.

I don't accept that the measure of that job is 'gets a list of GCSE passes'. For some children, progress will be the ability to dress independently. For others, a list of GCSE passes is relative failure. Where 'what a GCSE pass means' is politically controlled and changeable, I refuse to be measured by such a meaningless yardstick.

no, everything beyond functional skills is not easy for all students. But for some of them it is, and they need to keep learning maths beyond early secondary when they've got the basics of functional skills. It doesn't serve anyone to limit the regular maths provision to basic skills.

But also, there needs to be a basic qualification that struggling students can take to show that they do have functional skills. They might not be able to pass a GCSE for a whole variety of reasons (SEN, lack of ability, apathy, no parental support, etc), or they might be able to pass it if given additional years and teaching. But a functional skills paper (or a numeracy GCSE, or whatever you want to call it) is a good first step. It wouldn't stop those who wanted to carry on doing re-sits of GCSE the chance to do that. But it would stop the compulsory nature of resits that block access to further education. That's what is needed. Not a limiting of opportunity for those with the desire to do GCSE, but a possibility of another qualification for those who don't want endless resits.

Absolutely, it needs to be discussed and reviewed - that's what maths teachers have wanted for ages. Many would like a 2-GCSE plan, with one GCSE having basic skills, and another having further skills (and possibly a third having what is now in the further maths GCSE). Or a three-tier system, where students can choose 2 of the three tiers to enter, to increase their chances of achieving as high a grade as possible.

I don't know that it is completely incremental, as a matter of fact. I do think some children just 'get' maths, and for them, it is all relatively easy, and matter of extra teaching on some topics, and they will understand. Others, it is a real slog. They can get there, but it will never 'just make sense' in the way in does for some of us. They can learn to do it, and that's fine. But it's a qualitative difference at times. There are others who can get it, but the wording/format of the current GCSE doesn't work for them - a different numeracy test that is more straightforward might suit them better. There's nothing wrong with a functional skills type test - knowing what's on it, I'd be glad if many of my students could learn that material instead. They enjoy it more, as it seems more practical to them.

And again, nobody is labelling children as 'too stupid' by the age of 11. We are doing everythign possible to get those children through GCSE. I am a tutor, but work closely with classroom teachers. Nobody wants to write them off. We want to do everything we can to a) get them useful maths skills that they can use in their daily lives and b) get them through the GCSE to grade 4 or 5 or more. We try everything possible, we use all the teaching techniques we know. If you think there are fancy specialist ways of teaching this that we don't know, then for the last time, tell us what they are!! We don't care what the flight path for any student is (other than that is they don't live up to the expectation, the school will be penalised). We want them to succeed and get as high as possible, and to catch up if at all possible.

But if they don't, we want them to have the chance to do a decent qualification that will get them jobs. We want them to be able to go on to A levels or other further education, without being held back by an arbitrary government target that says they must have a specific exam grade on a specific exam. We want them to have the option to take the exam again, if they wish to, and just need extra years to do it. We are willing to help them do any of these things!

We would be happy for all sort of revisions of the current exam, and particularly the tiers and the content involved in those tiers. It's ridiculous that children should be spending time in classes where the work is beyond them and the exams are inaccessible. They should have the opportunity to study content that builds on what they know - even if it's below age-expectations - and to improve on that, and to take and exam that shows this.

You've clearly had bad experiences with schools and teachers, but it is by no means universal. Teachers truly do want as many children to success in maths (or English) as possible. We wouldn't have gone into this field otherwise.

I genuinely am trying to imagine the headlines in the papers if all students got grade 4 and above in GCSE En/ Ma (and wonder whther the same would then have to apply to all subjects?)

It might work as a leavers' cert type thing in some countries but it seems not very British...

Piggy, it would look just like the current sheets of results, surely - so Maths - 4 would be there exactly where Maths - 1 currently is.

Since 4 is arbitrary (it could equally be called X, or C, or P for pass, or given an arbitrary number of points between 80 and 120 ...) it would just require a dictat: 'What was called 1 is now called 4. Everything lower than a 4 is still a U'

I think what cakes wants is for all students to achieve the current 4, I.e. be as good as is needed.

As if teachers don’t already want kids to get the best mark they possibly can and work hard to meet that aim.

piggywaspushed
The leaver's certificate is used in Canada.
I remember leaving school in 1985, and employers moaning that kids didn't have the right maths for working in shops etc.
You read similar things in our local press now.
If you, as a low Gcse student aren't going to access University, is that fair to say?
Surely having a certificate which says you can spell and formulate letters/emails and read them and understand them, and also you can add, subtract, divided to 2 decimal places, and multiply. Work out %'s and areas, would be better then having a 2 or 3, because actually you can do all the above mentioned, but are stumped by algebra, trigonometry and blind understanding of 2 of 25 unseen poems.

In 17 years of milking cows and running farms and another 18 years on the railway I haven't used algebra, trigonometry or understanding poems, but I have used daily all the things covered my my version of a leaver's certificate.

May I apologise to Noble for derailing and anyone I may of upset.
Just sick of watching brilliant kids who will only ever get 1-5 in Gcse's been seen as thick. Most are lovely and caring and would make great employees. (Also struggling to convince Ds2 that it's worth reversing and putting in the extra optional maths and English HW, when he replies "no point I will never get a 4, so will fail and may as well do Drama/Pe because I am already at 4/5" I feel like crying daily.
Once again sorry.

noblegiraffe
I've lost track with what they actually want. They seem to also want grade 9 ideas taught to students who haven't got the basics and all students to have an equal chance of getting the highest grades despite the fact that there is a natural bell curve, not everyone is the same, people have different aptitudes (otherwise I could be a scientific genius just because).

I refuse to be measured by such a meaningless yardstick.

So what yardstick would you like to be measured by? Every job needs some form of yardstick, so what measure/metric is better than GCSE grades?

Kazzy, I am happy to be measured by the PROGRESS individual children make in my class from the point at which they started with me.

I am not happy that Cake demands that my success is measured by 'all children come home with GCSEs [by which Cake means 'GCSEs at 4 and above', not 1s, 2s or 3s, however brilliant the progress that might represent for that child] after year 11', especially because in the lifetime of children who are 16 now, pretty much everything about GCSEs has been changed by politicians. Coursework; curriculum; grading; question style; standards required for each grade; EBacc; availability of GCSE equivalent qualifications .. to name just the few which have changed since around the time those children started secondary, let alone those that changed during the first 7 years of their school lives...

Kazzy, i would also make the obvious point about what metrics are applicable for teachers who do not teach Y11, if GCSE passes are the yardstick used. If I taught a child in Y9, or Y7, or Y5, have i been a 'failure' if, years after leaving my class, the child fails to get a level 4 in the subject(s) I have taught them? Or was I a success because the child made progress while in my class?

The single most progressive step I have seen in the GCSE field recently is the move towards a measure of progress (Progress8), however imperfect, affected by outliers and incomparable from year to year due to massaging of points awarded for different grades, rather than measures of 'absolute results', being given importance when comparing schools. A better and more consistent measure of progress would of course be better... but anything that recognises (and tries to embed in the public consciousness) that schools' job is to enable children to make the maximum progress from their starting points has to be a good thing.