Exam data nerdery

[noblegiraffe]

I'm fairly sure that there are other nerds on this site so I thought I'd post some stuff I'd collected in case anyone else is interested. Also, if you see something in the data, maybe we could chat about it.

First offering is this widget from Ofqual. You can look at the grade distribution for various subjects, or you can see how grades in one subject affects grades in another subject (the link between maths grade and computer science grade is quite pronounced, for example).

https://analytics.ofqual.gov.uk/apps/GCSE/9to1/

What I noticed is that the grade distribution for English language is weird. And there are far fewer top grades awarded than for Maths. Why? (This is with the resit data stripped out). It's the same cohort that sits both so it's not about prior attainment.

Yes, similar story I suspect. Ver content heavy and tricky concepts,eg aesthetics now at GCSE when it used to barely be in A level, applying a critical reading of a film to the film itself : they don't have to do that is GCSE Lit! They also have to make all choices of suitable moments or scenes for themselves in a very tight time frame. What it does create, however, is good independent thinkers.

We used to set from top to bottom in in English. You inevitably ended up with boy heavy bottom sets which were, essentially, the behaviour group.

Maths teacher failing to see the issue there!

It's like Lord of the Flies, and no one does very well!

They weren’t going to do very well anyway… and they’re not Lord of the Flies-ing around my lovely borderline kids who are in with a chance.

But if they're spread around 8 classes instead of chucked in one, the effect of them trying to kill the pig is greatly diminished. And no teachers are harmed either.
I taught the bottom sets a lot. I have the mental scars.
Roger still ends up in my class, but he's much easier to deal with when there's only one or two of him. And because he's with Piggy instead of just the other boys, he gets taught the skills Piggy needs and he might just do a bit better.

Incidentally, in my school, English, Maths and Science all have independent grouping, so our maths dept does set.

@noblegiraffe & @MrsHamlet What would you think about teaching / entering the bottom set kids into Functional Skills instead of GCSE? The FS English at least looks to me as a non teacher as much more relevant and accessible.

We do enter some students for FS but alongside GCSE, unless they're in Alternative Provision - in which case, that's decided elsewhere.
It's taught outside of English and Maths time by the SEND team.

It doesn’t count for the league tables/progress 8, so won’t happen.

We do entry level certificates with our bottom set as well as GCSE.

And because he's with Piggy instead of just the other boys, he gets taught the skills Piggy needs and he might just do a bit better.

Maths has to integrate differentiation, doesn't it?
I wonder if the crowd control aspect of setting is different because of some girls still being given the idea they're not meant to be good at maths so the bottom sets aren't so boy heavy?

I do love an education thread and I love data and so this is my ideal.

Why do boys perform lower than girls at English?

Where I live, the independent and grammar schools study Christmas Carol and the comprehensives all choose Jekyll and Hyde. Is this a coincidence or is one perceived to be easier for an average pupil? (Personally, I don’t like either)

In my experience, the "easier" texts tends to get lower marks because they just churn out the same stuff...

I'd say Xmas Carol is easier. And it has the muppets. Nothing happens in j and h for aaaaaages.

There was always an interesting phenomenon We used to see that boys, in general, couldn't be arsed with English. But if you got a good one, they were really good, with very little in between. And then you hoped that boy would do A level.

I do find that boys tend to write less. Mind you, I'm noticing MOST kids write less these days and hardly any read.

I don't want to generalise and say it's because boys are lazier, but they do tend to be more vocal about not wanting to have to write much. Their handwriting also tends to be worse (anecdata bears this out in my house). Maths tends to give quicker rewards, so you can move on to something else.

Thank you for replying. I still don’t understand. Can anyone explain the answers to my questions please ?

Whoops

I teach boys. There are many serious deep rooted issues with English Language GCSE. It's unseen literary analysis NOT language with some timed writing. The writing is ridiculously hard to reach the top levels on. The non-fiction task could be on absolutely anything but the boards acknowledge that 'cultural capital' has an impact on performance. But the themes are often skewed towards the middle class.
There is also an issue with marking. Even on AO6 (technical accuracy) where it shouldn't be subjective I have seen some awful examples. Students getting full marks on one paper and then less than half on the other (if you look at the descriptors that is an extreme difference). It is difficult/expensive to appeal.
As it happens our results bucked the trend and we had around a third get a grade 9 in Language (with another large clump on the boundary) this isn't bitterness. The GCSE Language needs to go back to the drawing board starting with deciding what it's actually meant to assess.

@GrammarTeacher To me the problem with English language GCSE is it is trying to serve too many purposes.

It seems to be a 'subject' in itself, as in can you name and use language techniques, can you write good quality arguments on a subject you may know nothing about etc. but also it is seen as a 'measure' for 'good enough' English skills for employability. And it is marked on a curve, so the government is (almost) saying that 1/3rd of kids aren't employable. Plus it is a test of stamina - the exams are just so long!

In the same way that Wales split basic numeracy from 'maths', I'd split English at least into tiers and have the lower tier be more akin to the 'Functional Skills' spec or something.

English Lit is awful for black and white thinkers. I was a very literate teenager, read a wide variety of books, was talked to by my parents. I just couldn’t work out how I was meant to know what the writer meant when he said X, why did she use this technique, blah blah blah. English should be a test of functional skills, not mind reading!
Can you tell I’m still bitter about my awful GCSE grades? I now teach Science, a subject with (mostly) right and wrong answers.

Why should English be functional? No one says this about eg history or music or art . English teachers love their subject; students do better if they are engaged and inspired. Students who are capable of grades 1- 3 can still really enjoy learning and some of the books and texts in particular many of them enjoy. They just have specific weaknesses. In my non core subject some of the keenest, loveliest students are those who struggle to write coherently. There are ways of teaching them to improve visa the subject itself, not bolt on 'functional skills'.

You really are going to have problems retaining English teachers if you reduce their subject to a function...

I agree there are huge issues with the Eng Lang GCSE- and it's about time the cultural capital thing raised its head although this year's issue was less about class and more about the knowledge an urban dweller would possess- it badly needs an overhaul. A previous iteration with a Spoken Language unit was better. I preferred it when we had a bit of media analysis and some NEA ( that divides opinion but it's a good way of helping students of all abilities to learn skills of editing, refining,heeding feedback which school leavers are now dreadful at. Teacher Tapp showed English teachers were most likely to welcome a return of coursework, incidentally).

Besides which , bringing in a two tier system rears the setting issue again. One of the reason tiers went in English was because so many borderline decisions ended up with kids not achieving their potential or falling off the bottom of higher tier.

The biggest porblem with the English GCSE in its current form is how formulaic and dull it has become. This, in my opinion, is because it's been reduced to an exam only qualification. I mean who really writes an excellent piece of creative writing, for example, in a mere 37 1.2 minutes?

lobster , surely that just means that subject doesn't suit you? I was shit at science (well, chemistry) and maths. Different strokes and all that. I don't hold maths responsible.

Yes, I've done various iterations of it over the years, but the English lang gcse used to be more fun. Especially with coursework. Things the kids used to like:
Writing film/TV reviews
Writing stories- War stories used to be good for boy heavy groups and could be linked to films
The time when we did the spoken language element. They liked learning specific terminology and it fit nicely with the a level lang.

Things I liked:
Actually giving them a percentage of their overall grade for speaking. If it's that important, bloody well reward them for it. For some kids, that's harder than the written exam.

There are perfectly competent readers and writers of English, who fail because they can't read dense texts, analyse, compare and write creatively in a short space of time. They just give up after the first couple of questions, as my lovely spreadsheet demonstrates.

@Piggywaspushed You asked 'why should English Language be functional'.

The answer is because currently that is how employers use it.
I don't care whether English language GCSE is functional or not.

What I do care about is that Covid & 'the system' mean that my 18yo has left college with no 'acceptable' English qualification because apparently she had to retake the GCSE rather than do FS.

If employers have a base level qualification they like to see, then students should be given the chance of obtaining it. (And don't get me started in the fact that apparently now no-one will teach her as she isn't an adult but also isn't doing a full time college course..., and EHCP should unblock it but hasnt managed to so far. Sorry rant over.)

@TeenDivided - i agree with this. I really feel that the gcse english is used to mean 'employable' but im not sure the gcse measures what employers want anyway. Access to a more suitable qualification should be easier earlier.

I also have a slight issue with the name 'functional skills' because my son has SEN and people are always talking in quite a dehumanising way about how he functions so it has a negative connotation to me.

Same. Older DS has an ECHP. He didn't pass maths or english on the 2nd try then burned out and abandoned college for a while. Now 19 he's expressed an interest in getting maths and english again and is going back to college to do a supported employment course.

Problem is they dropped functional skills for the course a while back and you have to be full time to fit maths and english around your study (this is 3 days)and then only if it fits with the timetable. He initially wanted to just go back and do the 2 GCSEs for a year, nothing else alongside but just focus on those, but you can't actually do this.