League Tables using Grade 5 as a "pass" for GCSE?

[Boyskeepswinging]

Why do the league tables published today report on the percentage of children achieving Grade 5 in English and Maths?
I thought that most universities, colleges etc class a Grade 4 as a pass, not a 5?

The new number system was introduced partly to deal with grade inflation (huge numbers getting A and A* and no way to differentiate between those that were really good and jus reasonable) and also as part of the raising standards across the school curriculum.

If you remember, SATs at KS2 have also changed and the curriculum made harder.

So a 5 which was a high C was what was considered to now be a pass - as part of raising standards, what would have been a scraped C now wouldn't be good enough for the new, slightly higher expected standard. That's what it was all about and not about establishing a new system with exact parity to the old one and not with a 'pass' being at the same level as the old system but slightly higher.

Why has a 4 been accepted by many colleges and used in some league tables - because although the government wanted to raise standards and the specifications became harder, not enough kids achieve the 5, as can be seen in those results tables. Standards have not been raised enough and to give all those who are not a 5 standard a 5 would generate grade inflation through the system.

So most schools report on both 4 as a pass and 5 and you can then see the difference. What you then see is that some schools have an awful lot getting 4s, rather than many getting higher grades - and people should be able to see that.

What about a 4? To be honest, the standard to get one is low. Some of those on a low 4 wouldn't have got a C in old GCSE. Colleges might take it because they want bums on seats for income reasons and it might be suitable for some lower level courses but couldn't be considered acceptable for A Level or equivalent. And as for Universities, they are running academic courses (even of varying difficulty/standard) so a 4 really isn't a useful grade for that level study.

What does a 4 show? It shows a certain level of competence, but not quite that to be considered what you'd hope students to achieve - so it isn't in those league tables. And yes, that does make lots of schools look likes poor performers, but if they aren't getting higher proportions to 5 and above, they are poorer performers, isn't it simply a fact. There might be all kinds of reasons why that is, in terms of catchment and starting point etc and value added measures like Progress 8 should show that, but in terms of raw attainment, some schools deliver less than others and yes, lots don't deliver well in absolute terms. Making the tables reflect 4+ won't change that but just hide some of the issues and how will that help anyone?

I appreciate not everyone can get a 5 (or a 4) but the tables aren't to make schools or local areas all feel good about themselves but to reflect actual attainment and give accurate information. Look on school websites to see the nos getting 4+ if you want to know about that measure. It's useful for anyone compared to the 5+ one.

The 5 is a stick to flog schools with. It was claimed by the governemnt that this was to stop schools coasting and make them aspirational. As you can imagine, it's not the easiest message to sell to kids that , yes, 4 is perfectly good enough but we really really want you to get a5. Because league tables.

Some of those on a low 4 wouldn't have got a C in old GCSE.

Are you sure? I know that at any borderline in any exam, on a different paper on a different day, a proportion of those above that borderline would have fallen below it, and vice versa.

However i thought that the proportion getting 4 and above was pegged (at least for the first year after conversion) to the proportion getting C or above, so those getting 4s are not getting 'lower than a C', they are getting 'equivalent to a low C', though of course the exact individuals above / below the borderline will be slightly different due to the edge effect mentioned above.

IIRC, the gubmint initially stated that a 5 would be the new pass grade. Then they changed it to 4 being considered a pass for a transition period after which you needed to get a 5 for a pass.

Then, they decreed that a 4 should always be considered a pass.

Few remember this last change, as would you believe, it was announced on the day of the Brexit poll result.

Job done, news hidden.

As far as I am aware employers, colleges and universities can use what grades they see fit as a minimum requirements.

Not quite, Frendo, it was announced on the evening of 28th March 2017, the day before the Article 50 notification. I had an annoyed thread about it www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/2889484-Y11-PARENTS-GCSE-pass-grade-lowered-to-a-4

Noble, thanks & thanks for the original thread, which I nearly remembered correctly.

Wombat, in my subject ( science) I totally disagree with you. The increased volume of content, degree of difficulty and the longer papers mean that anyone getting a 4 now would easily have been at least a C under the old regime, never mind going back a couple of years more where the kids sat the exams in about six tiny bits, all resittable.

As far as I am concerned , 4 and 5 were always 'C' grades ( we really do need to stop talking in old money). The disdain which the governemnt were prepared to treat the 4 grade was appalling : I had a class full of students on the 3 -4 boundary at the time, for whom a 4 was life changing. I was glad when they announced a 4 was all that was needed. However, many employers and sixth form colleges have not stepped into line (but universities have!). It is so disingenuous for the government to continue to measure schools against grade 5s and is part of their ' pushing up standards ' agenda, which continues to make students think a 4 is not enough, as (some) schools now bully them to within an inch of their lives to get (generally unneeded) 5s. However much the measure is not as important as Progress 8, the GCSE measure is much better understood by parents selecting schools : my school has a decent % of grade 5+ at GCSE , for example (second highest in the authority) , but has the second lowest P8.

It is also not true in the two subjects I teach that a 4 is easy to achieve. In English, students who would once have perhaps scraped Cs are routinely coming out with 3s and even 2s.

To be honest, the standard to get one is low. Some of those on a low 4 wouldn't have got a C in old GCSE.

Nope. It's linked to the standard of the old C now. Half of all kids will get less than a 4, so I'm not sure 'low' is an accurate description- 'average' seems more helpful to me.

While I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, does all this have a nasty whiff of Gove about it?

Not a whiff or a conspiracy theory, this was the last step of his grand plan. He's probably had more effect on education than any secretary of state in 40-50 years, despite his limited time in the role.

OP - well done on fighting around the Ebacc rubbish. It is so much more important to focus on the interests and abilities of the child. We refuse to consider schools where Ebacc is compulsory, likewise GCSE RS. The grading switch is causing headaches for us in terms of a bar for sixth form entry which has moved a lot and is less favourable to our son.

I hate this terminology. A grade 1 is a pass! A grade 4 is now a "good pass". A grade 5 a "strong pass". We should reserve the word "pass" for achieving a grade, and thereafter just refer to the grades themselves. I get furious for kids who work their socks off for a grade 3, only to be told it's a fail.

I think Level 1 pass for grades 1-3 and Level 2 pass for grades 4-9 is fine, and it makes the progression to college courses clearer.

That's what we use at our school because we also do Functional skills, level 1/2 BTECs and Entry level English, Maths and Science. So Entry Level (below GCSE), Level 1 (GCSE 1-3) and Level 2 (GCSE 4-9). It works really well with our kids. Very clear, very motivating, easy to discuss in terms of progression.

We have found some adults (including education people) really resistant to that though. Apparently having numbered grades and Level 1/2 is just too complex

'Some of those on a low 4 wouldn't have got a C in old GCSE.'

The new GCSE English Language is far more challenging than the old GCSE.

The same percentage of kids who got a C now get a 4, it’s not about pegging standards, but pegging percentage pass rates.

It doesn’t mean that the same kids who would have got a C would now get a 4 as different skills are tested. Resilience and endurance over 3 maths papers instead of 2 actually makes a difference.

They announced it as grade 5 is pass, and admitted at the time that it was ahigher level than C.

But the uproar at raising the level, and the realisation that it was not achievable by many made them reduce it to 4.

But at the same time they said that was temporary, and they expected it to go back to a 5 after a year or two.
Now there doesn't seem to be a timeline for a change to 5.

But according to the original tables released, a 4 is lower than a C, so I can see why they wanted a 5.

I looked at the Eduqas Maths which is only two papers as there is always a risk that our kids won't turn up for one of the papers (happened last year!). But most of our kids also find it really hard to stay in the exam room for more than 30 mins tops, no matter how long the paper is, so 90/270 is better than 30/270 in terms of coverage...

60/270. Maths teacher

fallen : I so agree with you! Massively grinds my gears, too.

Okay, I'm happy to admit an error in saying some who get a 4 wouldn't have got a C at old GCSE. It isn't right, plus it's very hard to tell when the specifications are different with different content.

Doesn't the point stand though, that if the government want to raise standards, the level required to be considered a 'pass' or whatever you want to call it must be higher? Isn't it harder to now get 100 in KS2 SATS than old L4 and likewise a 5 is harder than a C. The fact that lots of children don't achieve a 5 or any particular grade isn't the point, if it is decided the pass standard is a 5. Of course whether a 5 should be the pass standard is a another question. And I know that for lots a 4 or 3 might be a big achievement, but that doesn't mean it has to be apcategorised as a pass for statistical purposes which are measuring attainment. It also doesn't mean that colleges or universities should have to accept the lower grade if if doesn't show suitability for the next course.

I think the issue is about providing suitable and useful courses for those who can't/don't get the 5 or 4, rather than wanting to include lower grades in school data which measures attainment.

And incidentally, although the he headline data is L5 in Englaih and Maths plus Ebacc, the government pages for each school also DO show the figures for L4 and above, plus all the info about prior attainment is there too, along with Progress 8, so it is possible to look at the value a school adds and not just its raw attainment.

I realise that for the children and teachers who get a 4 or a 3, being told they haven't passed is demoralising. So was being told you hadn't got a C and that a D was a fail.

For those who think a 4 should be used, I'd be interested to know why that is - is it because you think a higher % of the population should be passed, or is it becaue you think a 4 demonstrates a skill level which is pretty decent and warrants a pass, or is there another reason? Just interested.

Again, grades 1-3 are passes. This is the problem with the whole "good pass, strong pass" thing.

Universities and colleges can easily tell the difference between a level 1 and a level 2 pass, and do, because you have to give your grade, not just a pass/fail. And they can set their own admission requirements. Where it really matters is GCSE resits, which does use the grade 4 cut off. But level 2 pass would suffice for that too.

And the performance measure on which schools are ranked (progress 8) uses all grades. A level 1 pass (eg a grade 3) could still give a positive P8 if it is a higher grade than the average achieved by children with the same KS2 starting points. Similarly a grade 6 could give a negative P8 if lower than the average from that starting point. Do you think attainment rather than progress should be the focus?

Mind you, I have noticed that local papers tend to go for attainment rather than progress when they report on "best schools".

I think schools should show progress and attainment, which they do on their websites and the government also shows, with a stronger focus it seems on Progress 8.

The thing is, lots of people don't understand Progress and everyone can understand basic attainment if expressed clearly. Some parents will look beyond just raw results when choosing schools, but others won't or can't. Looking at the Progeess 8 figures and looking at the data under Prior Attainment is really useful for giving a rounder picture of a school, but lots of people don't know that exists, aren't interested or don't know how to interpret the data. It's good that more data is available, but many people only want something very simple and raw results or no.s gaining 5 5-9 r 5 5-9 or gaining maths and English at 5-9 are simple to udbertsand. Showing progress will always be difficult for some people to understand.

I think the 4 should be included wombat because it is a 'standard pass'! It is the grade required to porgress in life to college, apprenticeships, employment and even university. So, why are schools - and only schools, being measured against a higher standard?