9-1 Grade Distribution

[TheFrendo]

I found this:

www.bstubbs.co.uk/gcse.htm

It looks like 25% of those doing physics, chemistry and biology will get an 8 or 9. 41% will get a grade 7 or more.

These are quite high proportions and I was unaware how much easier it is to get a 9 in physics, say, than, English Literature.

Those taking physics will be the higher ability science students as they are those entered for triple so it isn't comparable to a subject most students take.

@OddBoots that's not true; if you do double science, confusingly you still do 3 sciences, the triple kids just have longer exam papers and presumably a more in-depth curriculum

@OddBoots apologies, I see what you mean now, ignore me

You don't get a a Physics GCSE if do combined, only if do higher. So grade boundaries are v different

There has to be an element of being able to get absolutely correct answers in the sciences, whereas English is much more subjective.

I meant English Language rather than Literature for the 2% who get a 9.

OddBoots, I think you may be right.

683, 838 sit English Language & ~13,500 get a 9
156,720 sit physics & ~19,000 get a 9

Unless your school ignores all logic and makes all kids do triple regardless of ability.

But it's ridiculous how low the grade boundaries where last year for science, even the teachers where surprised I mean 66% for a 9 on the higher paper with AQA.

It’s not only higher ability kids who do physics. My son’s school only offer single sciences and at my daughter’s school combined (double) or single sciences (triple) was a completely free choice as it was an option block.

What's interesting is the difference for say history for those taking old grades last year vs those taking new grades...old style grades for higher marks??

In my DS's (state comprehensive) school, the only kids allowed to do triple is the top set, because they cover the syllabus for triple in the same time that the other kids are doing double (triology). To be in top set, they have had to be achieving at a level that should at the very least be a 7-8 (the school tests biannually, and moves kids up or down depending on the tests, until the middle of Year 10). ie every one of them ought to be getting top grades. I suspect many other schools are similar. If they didn't give those kinds of grades, it would encourage the top set to try and be put in lower sets so that they could do double and cream of the top grades that they would otherwise not achieve.

Even with free choice option blocks it will still be biased towards the higher ability scientists because you choose to study what you’re good at in general.

Our school has said the boundaries for all subjects this year will be higher and to not expect any 9s at all. As a parent it's almost impossible to navigate your way through the ever changing system and for kids to be able to predict, and work towards, the higher grades. Everything keeps changing and the teachers don't want to commit to any predictions.

That table is skewed. 7 is equivalent to an A and 8 and 9 are A*s. The Us should be aligned. The whole point of a 9 is that they should be very rare.

There is a lot more judgement involved with creative type subjects as it's more than just formulae and buzz words.

Also only 3 subjects now have tiered papers, so on the higher papers the grade boundaries will be much lower as the questions are much harder.

Nothing to do with a cleverer year I'm afraid. Grace boundaries are set after exams are taken to make it fairer. Last year was the first year of teaching for most GCSEs and teachers had to suddenly fit in the larger curriculum with little warning. Some schools struggled and so kids were not as prepared as they could have been. Hence lower marks overall and therefore lowered boundaries. This year we knew a bit more what we were doing and how to get through it on time and we managed to tweek things so kids are more prepared so therefore they should score higher, therefore higher grade boundaries. Next year we should have perfected it and I imagine boundaries will settle down again - until they throw another massive change at us !

Nothing to do with KS2 SATS ! Predicted grades can be and the government sets our targets using them, but nothing to do with grade boundaries. And it's not to do with 'cleverer' years. It's to do with easier papers (some so far this year have been dream papers unlike last year when a few were truly hideous) and teachers having a better knowledge of how to manage the new curriculum. Last years students had a really tough ride and so some did not do as well as they would have done had teachers had more experience with the curriculum (or more time before being told it was happening). Grade boundaries even this all out. Maths last year had grade boundaries 10/11 points higher than the previous year, because it was the 2nd year of teaching it, I imagine something very similar will happen in other subjects this year.

You’re wrong, mums.

Grade boundaries are set so that roughly the same proportion of kids will get a particular grade as in previous years - this is to avoid grade inflation. Kids who would have been bright enough for a grade 9 last year should get one this year too.

BUT only roughly the same proportion. They use KS2 SATs results to determine if this year’s cohort is weaker or stronger than the previous year, and adjust the proportions based on that.

They have in the past couple of years introduced national reference tests in Y11, sat by a representative sample and will use the results of these in future to determine the strength of the cohort for grade boundary tweaking.

Think that's what I said ! Grace boundaries are set after exams are marked exactly so the same proportion of students receive the same grades each year. I should know, I help set them 😂😂.
And some students currently sit reference tests in year 11 too so benchmarking can be done between exam boards. It's a huge science behind it all but it's designed to make it as fair as it can each year. So a 9 student should always be a 9 student regardless of year and peer group. Think we agree !

And I have never looked at a KS2 result ever. As a teacher or a marker. Hate the stupid things as have little relation to senior school.

Noble you're a maths teacher. Doesn't it drive you crazy that primary schools sometimes teach things wrong ? I've just retaught multiplication to year 7 & 8 as they were using some stupid snowman's button method to multiply decimals. So were getting the wrong answer - couldn't figure out why to start with then looked at their books and saw lots of lovely neat columns of decimals. Took me a while to convince them it was me wrong as that was what lots of them had been taught. At lots of different schools ! Was told by a primary teacher friend that's some teachers just teach them what they need to get through SATS even if it will cause issues later. Why I hate SATS (that and the fact they will never use most of the grammar ever again - prepositional clause ??)

I don’t think that table is accurate. A 4 is an old C, not an E as it looks in the table. Also I understood 8s were only given to the top 3% of people who got an 8 (so not 3% who took the exam in total) - is this not correct?
I also looked up the source of this table and the table the JCQ have doesn’t go up to 8 or 9 just gives the results for A/7 C/4 or G/1. That’s how they write it. And the amounts don’t tally. Only 7.6% got a 7 in 2018 for science double award.
However it’s not easier to get a top grade in physics than English lit, though one must remember these are statistics. Over four times as many kids did the English lit exam than did physics, one can assume those taking physics are generally good at that subject, whereas the majority of kids take English lit whether they are good at it or not.

exactly so the same proportion of students receive the same grades each year.

No, they don’t! That would be ridiculous, as entry patterns change. When they changed the league tables so that English was double counted if the student also sat English Lit, weaker kids who previously wouldn’t have been entered for Lit were, to boost progress 8. This would mean that if the proportion of grades were doled out exactly as the previous year, as the cohort was on average weaker, weaker kids would have got better grades than the previous year.
Keeping exactly the same proportions also wouldn’t make any allowance for education improving. KS2 SATs results are used to benchmark the cohort against the previous year and amend the proportions accordingly.

I went to a talk by Ofqual where they explained this.