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

Surely there has to be a floor level regarding the requirements of attainment for pupils between 16-18 above 75-80 IQ.

Pupils that cannot attain a certain standard (we can argue what that standard should be and what requirements are valid for everyday life ) . However, a requirement to advance in English/Maths attainment for such 16-18 year old should be embraced, not lambasted .

As stated earlier regarding later study for those over 18, the lack of GCSEs/ A levels should not be a barrier to Higher Education or employment opportunities. I know of people with Degrees/ Masters level Qualifications in their 30s,40s and 50s forced to study Maths/English GCSEs for job opportunities.

However, if we are talking about a coordinated system surrounding pupils today, a floor level of 'achievement' is required.

If you made this floor level say @grade 3 in English/Maths, this presumably would just be lowering requirements to a low level.

To think that after 12 years of compulsory education it would be acceptable for children. Those within the normal correlation of intelligence quotient to attain at a level below the 11+ is unacceptable

Oh no! Now we've hit learning styles.
Zombie idea alert. Learning styles don't exist.

I think cake should get themselves into teaching. They seem to know it all (whilst equally having zero clue about the difference between numeracy/literacy for life and the contnet of the new GCSE specifications).

People seem to be repeatedly confusing levels of literacy/numeracy with 'getting a certain grade on a GCSE Paper'.

E.g. Being literate and having the ability to critically appraise texts, see bias etc is not automatically the same as GCSE English Language where you are given an 8 mark question on 'how does the writer structure this extract to engage the reader?'

1. The board aren't terribly clear what they mean by 'structure'
2. It's a question that was poorly done across the county because or lack of clarity
3. Some of what they want is more the writer uses this simile in the middle because... (so not actually structural analysis like you do in any higher study if language)
4. The extracts are usually a random piece of literature and many don't actually have interesting structural features
5. 'To engage the reader' well I'm a 15 year old student who thinks this text is boring so how am I meant to talk about how engaging and exciting it is when I don't think it is?

Is being able to get 6/8 on that question the benchmark of literacy and hitting an appropriate standard? I would say not.

If you do well on the GCSE Paper then you are probably readonably literate, but I wouldn't say someone was illiterate because they require longer than 45 minutes to write a short story or a newspaper article on a random topic.

I'm not sure you know maisy. I think the new GCSE is more Language than it used to be (when Shakepseare was on it, for example...) and is more teachable. It profits hoop jumpers. That said, it is utterly unsuitable for any child with slow reading speed or lower litearcy (but then that's what the lower grades are there for in the latter case) because the extracts are so bloody long and really rather archaic in the case of paper 1. I quite like paper 2 (saddo!) of AQA.

I do agree that soem students can resit maths and English ad nauseam and never get a 4. Grades 1-3 need to be seen as valid for something surely?? We have got ourselves into a position now where college apprenticeships for - say- hairdressing or butchery (two examples of mine) are asking for grade 4 English GCSE. Why??

Piggywaspushed
We used to do Of Mice and Men as our language text for controlled assessment (did the Shakespeare for literature).

I'm still upset they got rid of the spoken language study controlled assessment. It was the best bit of the old course and worked really well for a level preparation. Plus the speakers were usually good. We had Malala and Obama some years.

It is interesting on this thread how several posters have cited Shakespeare and learning poetry as barriers to success in English Language GCSE. Both of these are Lit GCSE. The difference is much more delineated nowadays.

Personally i think that there should be two types of maths gcse

The one they take at the moment for some students

And one that covers living maths...percentages, fractions, adding division etc and basic bookkeeping, budgeting etc that everyone has to take and pass until they are 18... business maths really

In theory the basic one could be taken in year 10 with more academic children moving to further GCSE maths in year 11 and anyone who failed being able to retake in year 11

There is probably a really good reason why this wouldnt work but I'll not be swayed

Piggywaspushed
Honestly, I think it's just too easy for people with little recent or relevant knowledge of a topic to weigh in without giving much thought to what the reality of a situation might be.
It's like cakes refusal to understand that there is a difference between numeracy for life and GCSE maths / literacy for life and GCSE English Language. It's much easier to just rant about how schools are limiting children and teachers should be penalised if anyone doesn't get a 4.

rufus there is in Scotland, so it has always surprised me that Gove did not suggest it. Possibly because he will have been the academic elite at his private school and probably sneered at O grade arithmetic. It was regarded as easy so the bottom sets did only arithmetic; more able did maths and arithmetic. I am still scarred and bewildered by the fact that I did better in maths than arithmetic!

I liked spoken language, too. I did the Big Bother Diary room. I loved that transcription stuff!

Oh that's interesting piggy

I thought they did similar in America as well

apparently 18% was a 4 in maths last year

Bit i think that grade 4 child must have been incredibly strssed while revising and doing the exam thinking they were failing

Surely giving sme children confidence that they are actually pretty good at everyday maths would be much more beneficial

To be fair, if they did have GCSE arithmetic it would probably still have a bell curve, so there would still be plenty of 1s, 2s and 3s. In my mind, it's about attaching value to thos grades of soem kkind. People need to stop calling them 'fails' as they really aren't. They are basic passes. Somoen who gets a 3 or a 2 in English is not great but they are functionally literate.

To be fair, if they did have GCSE arithmetic it would probably still have a bell curve, so there would still be plenty of 1s, 2s and 3

I agree

Those would be the children who would retake til 18, in the hope that they could get a higher grade later

And im talking basic maths here so hopefully it would be easier to get a pass

People need to stop calling them 'fails' as they really aren't. They are basic passes. Someone who gets a 3 or a 2 in English is not great but they are functionally literate.

This is below the standard required to pass the 11+ , not great when considering pupils are over 16 !

People need to stop calling them 'fails' as they really aren't. I thought a level 4 was a pass and a level 5 was a good pass - what has changed? They are the equivalent of a C aren’t they?

Honestly, I think it's just too easy for people with little recent or relevant knowledge of a topic to weigh in without giving much thought to what the reality of a situation might be. Surely it’s just a good opportunity to correct posters who are a bit clueless - isn’t that what free speech is all about? Say something that doesn’t make sense and other people wade in to inform and correct?

A C has never been the lowest pass! Grades A* - G were all passes. Grades 1- 9 are all GCSEs. 4 is a standard pass, whatever that means and 5 is a strong pass. I have battled against the idea that a D is a fila for years...

This attitude perpetutates into A Level where a D is also regarded as a fail by many.

A C has never been the lowest pass! Grades A* - G were all passes. Grades 1- 9 are all GCSEs. 4 is a standard pass, whatever that means and 5 is a strong pass. I have battled against the idea that a D is a fila for years...

This attitude perpetutates into A Level where a D is also regarded as a fail by many.

But lets, the 11+ is for grammar school entry.

Isentthesignal
I agree.
I just think there is a difference between not knowing something in a discussion and being corrected (happens to us all) and coming up with fairly damning criticism without the knowledge to actually have an informed opinion.

Please link to the official documentation suggesting 1,2 & 3 are passes...I have never seen anything official to say they are.

I don't need to isent : I am a teacher.

They may not be the passes anyone wants but when somone says a course requires say 6 GCSEs, unless they stipulate at 4 and above , they could be grades 1 - 9.

They are a grade.
A grade is a pass.
Some grades are deemed a good pass (old C)
Some are deemed a standard pass (grade 4)
Some are a strong pass (grade 5)

Maisy you must find the general pop frequently assume a lot about current education policies. I often wonder whether employers are actually aware of the skills the English and Maths GCSE demonstrate when they make them a firm requirement for employment.

My son passed his 11 plus. It was based on computer based verbal, non verbal etc reasoning tests which put him in the top 20% for some areas, top 10% in others.

He has autism.

He is currently predicted Grade 2 English GCSE.