Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

22% of students didn't get Grade 4 or higher in Maths or English this summer

120 replies

Itfelloffwithaclunk · 25/10/2023 07:26

Did anyone else see Breakfast News with this item this morning? Over one fifth of students having to retake, because of a 'perfect storm' of high numbers taking them (a high birth year apparently), and returning to pre pandemic grade boundaries.

I'm really shocked. The very eloquent teacher from Greater Manchester was very interesting on this subject.

OP posts:
Angrycat2768 · 26/10/2023 09:00

TeenDivided · 26/10/2023 08:50

No we aren't.
But that is not a grade 4 or 5 question.

Kids have to be able to do the grade 4/5 questions at the end of the paper. The ones where they have to know a trig value off by heart, or know how to find angles in a polygon, or use parallel line rules. And they have to have the time and stamina left by the time they get there.

You may be a 'Neurodiversitydoctor' but you clearly have little understanding of how some children can struggle.

Plus remember at y11 they have to do the maths exams embedded in a whole bunch of other exams. They may be exhausted from the sheer marathon.

Show quote history

Yes I think it's the sheer volume of questions and exams they have to do. They may be able to do the 4/5 mark questions, and have that knowledge, but at the end of 3 papers for maths alone, added to all the other exams they are doing, you are testing their stamina more than their knowledge and ability.

Neurodiversitydoctor · 26/10/2023 09:11

I did say NT TBF, so pythagoras ? Area and ratio are what I have seen. Without SEN I can't see that as an enormous ask.

They may have 3 maths papers, but they are not usually on the same day. Any decent educational establishment will have coached them in exam etiquette and technique. Unless people are suggesting that 40% of 16yo have an undiagnosed SEN ?

Neurodiversitydoctor · 26/10/2023 09:16

I have a yr 12 Dd so well aware of what the GCSE timetable looks like.

Anyway the UK is a bit of an outlier in doing some sort of summative assesmet at 16. Perhaps Rishi is right and we just have exams at 18 giving those who struggle another 2 years to reach the expected standard without feeling lie failures, I guess the question is then what do you do if they don't hit that standard ?

Foxesandsquirrels · 26/10/2023 09:25

Neurodiversitydoctor · 26/10/2023 09:16

I have a yr 12 Dd so well aware of what the GCSE timetable looks like.

Anyway the UK is a bit of an outlier in doing some sort of summative assesmet at 16. Perhaps Rishi is right and we just have exams at 18 giving those who struggle another 2 years to reach the expected standard without feeling lie failures, I guess the question is then what do you do if they don't hit that standard ?

That's not correct. Almost all European countries have a big assessment between the ages of 14- 16 that essentially pick out what your options are moving forward. Whether that's polytechnic type education (UK is one of the few European countries to get rid of these), vocational or purely academic. The expectation is you carry on in education through to age 18 as a min, but what that looks like is decided between ages 14-16. Sometimes even younger (Germany).
What is unique about the UK is that because the leaving age was always 16, GCSEs are seen as the 'final' exams. Other European countries set a % pass mark for each year and it's rare for their final exams to be marked on grade boundaries like the UK.
The other thing that's very very unusual and I don't believe exists outside of the UK, is different exam boards. Final exams are normally set by the government and all kids sit and are marked the same one.

Angrycat2768 · 26/10/2023 09:25

Neurodiversitydoctor · 26/10/2023 09:16

I have a yr 12 Dd so well aware of what the GCSE timetable looks like.

Anyway the UK is a bit of an outlier in doing some sort of summative assesmet at 16. Perhaps Rishi is right and we just have exams at 18 giving those who struggle another 2 years to reach the expected standard without feeling lie failures, I guess the question is then what do you do if they don't hit that standard ?

I think we should have maths and English assessment at 16 so that support can be targeted up to 18 to those who need it to reach the standard and those who don't can continue working on it, looking at higher level study or just more practical uses like personal finance and practical English. We don't need these huge swathes of exams at 16. Just streamline at 16 into different areas and have exams for 5 or so subjects at 18.

puffyisgood · 26/10/2023 11:20

Going back to the immediate aftermath of the school leaving age being raised to 16 in the late 70s, the splits in maths were vv roughly [i've rounded a lot] as follows:

sat O level - c 30% of kids
sat CSE - c 45% of kids
didn't sit either - c 25% of kids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Secondary_Education

Today's results look pretty similar to me - these days we're way more serious about 'academic' education for all, but the underlying ability distribution won't have changed one iota.

Certificate of Secondary Education - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Secondary_Education

Justbefore · 26/10/2023 11:22

What a shocker

the pandemic massively disr

Justbefore · 26/10/2023 11:25

What a shocker. The pandemic massively disrupted their learning, then when they finally got back to class loads of their classmates had behaviour issues as a result of neglect etc during lockdowns, then many of the most experienced staff quit the profession, then there were strikes etc, and now children have lower grades? Colour me surprised.

Hedgehogtunnel · 26/10/2023 11:27

I thought the national average was around 50% achieving grade 4 or higher, so that sounds very good, only 22% not achieving it?

noblegiraffe · 26/10/2023 11:31

Justbefore · 26/10/2023 11:25

What a shocker. The pandemic massively disrupted their learning, then when they finally got back to class loads of their classmates had behaviour issues as a result of neglect etc during lockdowns, then many of the most experienced staff quit the profession, then there were strikes etc, and now children have lower grades? Colour me surprised.

That’s not why they got lower grades than 2022. It’s decided in advance which proportion of students will get a 4+ for each subject and in 2023 it was decided that this would be lower than 2022, roughly the same as 2019.

It has nothing to do with students’ performance, whether that was affected by covid, strikes, the collapse of the teaching profession or whatever. It was decided before they even sat the exams.

SilasMarnerJekyll · 26/10/2023 11:38

22% is standard. The school system is designed for a quarter/fifth of students to fail. Exams have always been this way, it's set up that a certain percentage (that only varies slightly from year to year) are put in each grade band.

Foxesandsquirrels · 26/10/2023 11:41

noblegiraffe · 26/10/2023 11:31

That’s not why they got lower grades than 2022. It’s decided in advance which proportion of students will get a 4+ for each subject and in 2023 it was decided that this would be lower than 2022, roughly the same as 2019.

It has nothing to do with students’ performance, whether that was affected by covid, strikes, the collapse of the teaching profession or whatever. It was decided before they even sat the exams.

Show quote history

I will always be shocked that people who went through the English education system don't know this. I can understand parents who didn't grow up with this but this has been in England forever. And even those, I don't understand why people don't get this after its been explained time and time again.

SoIRejoined · 26/10/2023 11:42

@Neurodiversitydoctor your characterisation of the maths foundation paper is way off. Yes it includes percentages and basic operations, but it also includes difficult maths which I don't think most average adults could do. I'm talking about simultaneous equations, solving for x, nth term, confidence intervals, finding the area and volume of different shapes, calculating probability .... What makes it difficult for many isn't even the maths, it's the complex structure of the questions which often have multiple steps requiring you to use different types of maths within the same question.

I agree that the more academic and intelligent students should be able to do this, but there's a large minority who are totally flummoxed by some of these abstract concepts which they will never use during their working lives.

These students are then prevented from progressing to level 3 courses in subjects like childcare, hairdressing or farming because they can't understand algebra. It's a ridiculous waste of the skills of these young people.

Violinist64 · 26/10/2023 11:59

Surely this proportion should not be a surprise. If everyone passed then it would render the system useless. Exams are, by definition, pass or fail. If someone does not reach the required standard then they should not pass. I am from the old O level generation. O levels were originally designed for grammar schools and the most academically able candidates. Grades A-C were pass grades. A grades were not given out lightly. Later on, CSEs were introduced with grades 1 to 5 being the passing grades. A grade 1 was the equivalent of a C grade at O level. Exams should be difficult and an achievement, otherwise what is the point of them? For those whose talents are not in the academic field, there should be other options and more practical courses. If there is one lesson that really needs to be learned, it is that academia and exams are not the be-all and end-all. There are many disaffected youngsters who are failed by this system. One size does not fit all.

Neurodiversitydoctor · 26/10/2023 12:27

SoIRejoined · 26/10/2023 11:42

@Neurodiversitydoctor your characterisation of the maths foundation paper is way off. Yes it includes percentages and basic operations, but it also includes difficult maths which I don't think most average adults could do. I'm talking about simultaneous equations, solving for x, nth term, confidence intervals, finding the area and volume of different shapes, calculating probability .... What makes it difficult for many isn't even the maths, it's the complex structure of the questions which often have multiple steps requiring you to use different types of maths within the same question.

I agree that the more academic and intelligent students should be able to do this, but there's a large minority who are totally flummoxed by some of these abstract concepts which they will never use during their working lives.

These students are then prevented from progressing to level 3 courses in subjects like childcare, hairdressing or farming because they can't understand algebra. It's a ridiculous waste of the skills of these young people.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this, understanding probability is vital to so many areas of life, you need to understand area and ratio for building, sewing, gardening and DIY. The algebra is the same as what is tested in the 11+.

Just because a large proportion of the adult population are functionally inumberate can't be a reason not to educate our children.

SoIRejoined · 26/10/2023 12:33

@Neurodiversitydoctor I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be taught. But we need to accept that not everyone can do it. Have you ever actually seen the GCSE foundation paper? The questions are mostly not things that people are going to come across in real life. Unlike the Functional Skills qualifications, which are based around real life maths which many people would use at work.

TroubledTide · 26/10/2023 12:45

Why can't there be Maths and Advanced/ Further Maths at GCSE- so everyone takes a more general functional qualification which will be relevant and useful to all and informative for employers.
Then anyone who has Maths as their thing can choose to take a Further Maths or Advanced maths with all the theoretical stuff that tests those who achieve 7s, 8s and 9s who may want to continue studying maths or physics at A level

Neurodiversitydoctor · 26/10/2023 12:51

SoIRejoined · 26/10/2023 12:33

@Neurodiversitydoctor I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be taught. But we need to accept that not everyone can do it. Have you ever actually seen the GCSE foundation paper? The questions are mostly not things that people are going to come across in real life. Unlike the Functional Skills qualifications, which are based around real life maths which many people would use at work.

Yes I have they are freely avaible online. TBH they remind me of the 11+ work books I did with the DCs in yr 5 and as such seem a perfectly reasonable " minimum standard". As I said SEN excluded.

noblegiraffe · 26/10/2023 12:55

Kids with SEN also sit maths GCSE. Lots of them.

greengreengrass25 · 26/10/2023 13:02

artemis9 · 25/10/2023 10:38

What's so sad about this too is that many kids are being dragged through repeat English language GCSE several times post 16. There is even less hope of them passing at that point. Thanks to Mr Gove, the recent English language qualification requires them to read lots of literature. Yet the basic premise of them being required to pass at grade 4 is that they need it prove they have basic reading and writing skills for the workplace or further quals. That is simply not what this exam is now testing. GCSE English Language is currently testing whether they can jump through odd hoops, in tightly timed conditions, about how literary devices are being used by writers and also reading unseen nineteenth-century texts. It is not testing the level of their fundamental literacy skills for life. Different exam boards have all sorts of daft methodologies of how they want young people to answer these questions too so they have to know the method not just answer in the way any normal logical adult might respond to the given question. Literature is tested in GCSE Literature. There is simply no good reason for making young people answer on that for GCSE Language where what employers need to know is that they're can basically read and write. Very sad for so many young people. And I say this as a big promoter of literature in my working life. But the exams for language are simply wrongly focused. The language exam content needs changing to test the skills for life that they are purporting to examine. And needs to be marked by people who are thoroughly checked and know what they are doing... which is a whole other story.

Yes its ridiculous

So glad they can now do functional skills post 16

Neurodiversitydoctor · 26/10/2023 13:06

noblegiraffe · 26/10/2023 12:55

Kids with SEN also sit maths GCSE. Lots of them.

Indeed noble and there are SEN and SEN as I know you know. I have no doubt that this isn't the right qualification for some of these children and it certainly isn't fair to force them to resit over and over. However for most NT 16yos the material in the GCSE foundation paper should be totally acessible and I would suggest appropriate as a prerequisite for futher study. PP suggests irreverence for hair dressing, but actually ordering stock, taking out loans, doing payroll quite apart from mixing colours in the right ratio are absolutely vital to running a successful salon. Similar arguments could be made for plumbing or building. The only career I can think of where you might escape for example understanding compoind interest might be in thr army or the church where your pay is more of a living allowance, where your employer provides bed and board.

Neurodiversitydoctor · 26/10/2023 13:08

Sorry auto- correct irrelevance not irreverence.

EarthlyNightshade · 26/10/2023 13:09

Violinist64 · 26/10/2023 11:59

Surely this proportion should not be a surprise. If everyone passed then it would render the system useless. Exams are, by definition, pass or fail. If someone does not reach the required standard then they should not pass. I am from the old O level generation. O levels were originally designed for grammar schools and the most academically able candidates. Grades A-C were pass grades. A grades were not given out lightly. Later on, CSEs were introduced with grades 1 to 5 being the passing grades. A grade 1 was the equivalent of a C grade at O level. Exams should be difficult and an achievement, otherwise what is the point of them? For those whose talents are not in the academic field, there should be other options and more practical courses. If there is one lesson that really needs to be learned, it is that academia and exams are not the be-all and end-all. There are many disaffected youngsters who are failed by this system. One size does not fit all.

Why would the system be useless if everyone passed it? Isn't that the idea?
It should be the aim to raise everyone's (where reasonably possible) standard to a pass in GCSE maths and English.
The higher grades are there to challenge high achievers.
This system means that no matter how well a particular cohort were supported, no matter how good they were as a group and no matter what score they got in the exam, 22% of them were going to fail it anyway.
The grade boundary on AQA maths in 2022 was 135/240 for a 4. This year it was 158/240. Was last year's exam harder? Or are there other factors?

noblegiraffe · 26/10/2023 13:34

This system means that no matter how well a particular cohort were supported, no matter how good they were as a group and no matter what score they got in the exam, 22% of them were going to fail it anyway.

Not exactly. If an argument can be made that a cohort are brighter, better prepared and just, say, better at maths than previous cohorts, then that would be picked up by the national reference tests and the grade boundaries adjusted to allow more of them to get higher grades.

The grade boundary on AQA maths in 2022 was 135/240 for a 4. This year it was 158/240. Was last year's exam harder? Or are there other factors?

Covid. Grade boundaries were lower in 2022 to allow more students to get higher grades to provide a step down from the massively inflated teacher assessed grades of 2021 before returning to the pre-covid grade distribution of 2019 in 2023.

EarthlyNightshade · 26/10/2023 13:42

noblegiraffe · 26/10/2023 13:34

This system means that no matter how well a particular cohort were supported, no matter how good they were as a group and no matter what score they got in the exam, 22% of them were going to fail it anyway.

Not exactly. If an argument can be made that a cohort are brighter, better prepared and just, say, better at maths than previous cohorts, then that would be picked up by the national reference tests and the grade boundaries adjusted to allow more of them to get higher grades.

The grade boundary on AQA maths in 2022 was 135/240 for a 4. This year it was 158/240. Was last year's exam harder? Or are there other factors?

Covid. Grade boundaries were lower in 2022 to allow more students to get higher grades to provide a step down from the massively inflated teacher assessed grades of 2021 before returning to the pre-covid grade distribution of 2019 in 2023.

Ah ok, that's good to know about the national reference tests.