Is grade 9 the new a*

[nowinhouse]

I know when they first changed the grading to 1-9 people said that 7-9 was an A. Does this still hold true? I can see more students are getting a grade 9 now so has that devalued 8's and 7's?

DD is year 10 and just sat her end of
Year exams that in her school are graded like the real thing. She got 5 9's and 5 7's. No 8's interestingly!!

She wants to be a vet so will need the highest grades and i was wondering if the 7's would be enough.

The grade boundaries have changed so much it's a bit ridiculous. Dd has just done end of year 12 exams and got what would have been a B in 2019 for one subject and same marks would have been almost an A star last year.

Her school is telling them this as well which I think is very sensible of them as they are using these exams to award predicted grades.

Her school never predict 9s at gcse (a good few got plenty last year but 8 is the highest they predict)

That's really good. Our school do that too.

Three years of inflated grades is going to be tough on this cohort when they see their own grades.

I've noticed a few uni courses that weve been lookimg at have dropped their published entry grades for 2024.

To be fair that is getting 7 or more 9s. A lot of pupils might be hoping for 1 or 2 9s in their best subject, which might be marginally more achievable.

Foggie
I wish schools wouldn't do that as they're not fair comparisons and it's no wonder parents and students get confused.

The grade boundaries are issued based on the performance of the cohort in the year the paper was taken.

It's done for fairness. If nationally performance is down X% and the whole bell curve is slightly lower scoring then the grade boundaries will reflect that. If nationally the performance is higher then the grade boundaries will be higher.

When staff say "but in X year it would have been an A" they're not helping students in my opinion because that isn't the case.

An A in 2019 means that the candidate who sat 2019 papers in 2019, with the 2019 cohort was at X position in the bell curve so achieved an A.

A candidate sitting a 2021 paper or a school created mock paper might get the same raw mark as a student who got an A in 2019, but they're not comparable because this student is not in the 2019 cohort, sitting a 2019 paper.

It's the main reason the stronger performing schools I've worked in have been very cautious with what we say about grades and tend to stick with "this is what the grade boundaries have looked like the last few years, but what really matters is you continue to read your feedback, act on it and aim to do the best you can".

I wish schools wouldn't do that as they're not fair comparisons and it's no wonder parents and students get confused

It's not confusing at all - quite the opposite. It shows very clearly how grade boundaries change. Dd understands it as do I.

It's the main reason the stronger performing schools I've worked in have been very cautious with what we say about grades and tend to stick with "this is what the grade boundaries have looked like the last few years, but what really matters is you continue to read your feedback, act on it and aim to do the best you can"

I think I may have missed some nuance in your post because this is exactly what dds school has done? But you said you wished schools didn't say what the grade boundaries were in different years?

They have to come up with a grade as these are the beginnings of predicted grades for uni applications next September.

Does this help OP? It's referring to the NI examination board but the comparison table is useful, if you based the "old" CCEA grading to the 9-1 structure.

It's not confusing at all - quite the opposite. It shows very clearly how grade boundaries change. Dd understands it as do I.

I'm not against saying "grade boundaries change year on year" and explaining to pupils that the grade boundaries change based on national performance. Most sensible teachers do that.

I do think it's wrong to tell students that in another year their paper would have got an A as if grade boundaries change at random and it's luck of the draw.

Hypothetical example, there might be a student who is roughly a B grade attaining student. Obviously people have good days and bad days but roughly speaking that's probably where their attainment fits on the bell curve. I could say to them "but in 2016 you'd have got an A", but that's not actually true. If the grade boundaries were lower in 2016, it means the whole bell curve was probably attaining lower, so compared with the national cohort, the position in the bell curve wouldn't have changed. If they sat the 2016 paper with the 2016 cohort, the likelihood is it would have been a B. Me telling them that it would be an A in another year doesn't help them.

I'm not against saying "grade boundaries change year on year" and explaining to pupils that the grade boundaries change based on national performance. Most sensible teachers do that. I do think it's wrong to tell students that in another year their paper would have got an A as if grade boundaries change at random and it's luck of the draw

I think you are nit picking a bit. Students can easily look up the grade boundaries from year to year and check themselves anyway.

Oh yes that's much more achievable.

There was a poster upthread whose son felt he would be letting them down with 8s. School have done him no favours in realism there.

I think you are nit picking a bit. Students can easily look up the grade boundaries from year to year and check themselves anyway
I'm not nit picking. I think as teachers we have a duty to be very clear and honest with students.

It's important that students have it clearly explained to them and there is a difference between:

1. Grade boundaries change year on year based on the performance of the national cohort. Grade boundaries are based on a particular cohort sitting particular papers. Let me illustrate the changes over several years so you can see the impact. If the national cohort scores highly, the boundaries are likely to be higher. If the national cohort performs lower, the boundaries are adjusted downwards. When we grade we use this information to the best of our ability but you need to be aware how your papers are marked and graded.

And

1. Grade boundaries change every year, so those of you who've got X% might only have a B in this exam, but in another year that would be an A.

The first is clear and factual. It explains to students how the grades are generated and explains the variability.

The second is the sort of thing I've heard said with good intentions, but it's misleading. It leaves students under the impression that in another year they'd have got an A if they sat an exam in a different year . It doesn't explain the reasons for the changes in grade boundaries and leaves pupils to draw their own conclusions, which could be against their best interests (e.g. "if I get lucky on the grade boundaries I might get an A")

It isn't coming from a place of nit picking. It's coming from a place of wanting my pupils to do well.

I hate this system. It's awful for kids.
DD1 got 7's, 8's and mostly 9's last year. She was really upset! I couldnt get my head around her reaction as they are all A's of varying quality in old money (or B+ for the 7's-I'm yet to see a consensus) but she regarded them as rubbish.

Why oh why change something that has worked fine for years?

I'd be irritated if my dcs thought nothing less than a 7 was rubbish. Tell her to grow up!

if I get lucky on the grade boundaries I might get an A

That is true though! Of course they all need to keep working hard.

If you think a 7 is a B then I can see why your dd is being unrealistic and unreasonable about her results!

I was a bit irritated at first. Then I realised how much she and all her friends had conflated 9's with the old A or A* and seen anything below accordingly. And she felt she had worked hard enough for straight A's-which she didn't understand that she effectively got, or not far from it.
And that's the issue.

For heavens sake. Where did I say I thought a 7 was a B. I said at worst it was an old B plus. And I've seen no consensus on it-this thread being an example of that.

I couldn't have cared less if she got 5's and 6's as that's all she needed. They are still great grades (and in fact what dd2 is predicted this year) She, and to a degree her school put the pressure on, not me.

It's A**

I think that there's a lot of kudos attached to a full set of 9's. A couple of kids at DD's school may well achieve this.
I get the impression (we're in GCSE year) that these kids don't think in terms of A/B equivalents. They do think in terms of these grades and understand that the boundaries shift.
I actually don't think it helps a very able student who has got 7 to be told it's a A in the old system as it does feel like they've fallen short by getting something 'lesser'

She’ll calm down. I was amused last week to realise that DD, now 20, couldn’t actually remember which of her subjects came out as which grades at GCSE. She similarly had a mix of 7 to 9 (plus a random A* for a subject that hadn’t switched over yet).

Its all-consuming at the time, but then they move on.

Kudos?! For whom?

Universities don't care and nor do employers.

The only people that care are the parents of the straight 9ers!

Dd is in the first year of 6th form and couldn't tell you who got loads of 9s at gcse last year as its totally irrelevant!

@FlyingSquid she did. She's fine now-doing her A levels and as I said to her at the time would happen, she doesn't give it a second thought.

She did ruin her exam results night dinner by being a total stropper though