GCSE: is it true they're graded so that ca 1/3 must fail? How are boundaries decided?

[ParentOfOne]

I understand that grade boundaries can change from year to year and from exam board to exam board. E.g. a 4 in Maths can be 40 points out of 240 one year and 45 out of 240 another year. That I get.

What I don't understand is:

• what, exactly, is the statistical methodology to adjust the boundaries from year to year? Is it even publicly disclosed? How much of a subjective, qualitative assessment is it?
• Is it true that the exams are graded on a curve in such a way that, by design, ca. 1/3 of the kids will fail?

On the last point, there are many mumsnetters who hold very strong opinions that it's true, but I have not found official confirmation.

If it were true, it would mean that the bottom third would fail regardless of score; e.g. one year the bottom third could score 40% of the points, another year 55%.

If we look at Maths Grade boundaries for Edexcel, we see that a 4 has ranged from 51% to 60% of the total points in the foundation paper, and from 17% to 22% of the higher paper. These are not percentiles, but percentages of the total point. https://mathsbot.com/gcse/boundaries

This doesn't seem to me like a system that's designed to fail 1/3 of the students regardless of score.
If you get less than 50-60% of the questions right in the easier version of the exam, and less than 20% in the harder version, it seems pretty clear to me that you have not even mastered the basics of the subjects. In many countries 60% or thereabout tends to be the threshold for passing.

This is also why I don't understand those who say that 1 to 3 are also passes. You pass if you get 10% of the points? What is the definition of failing then?

Or am I missing something?

TES explained that in the first year the % of grade 9 was set equal to a certain % of those achieving >=7, but how it changed after the first year is unclear https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/secondary/gcse-and-a-level-grade-boundaries

It also requires it being noticed, and the intervention agreed upon and encouraged

Failing to get a 4 doesn't mean getting that question wrong.

You seem to think that not getting a 4 means that they can't answer any question on the paper.

@noblegiraffe You seem to think that not getting a 4 means that they can't answer any question on the paper.

That's a strawman. I have commented multiple times in the thread how getting a 3 means scoring something like 40-50% of the easier (foundation paper). Sometimes even less.

Again: grade boundaries are here: https://mathsbot.com/gcse/boundaries

Getting a 3 at the OCR 2024 Foundation paper would have meant 31%
A 4: 44% So no, not "every single question"
Past papers are here: https://revisionmaths.com/gcse-maths/gcse-maths-past-papers/ocr-gcse-maths-past-papers

@Owlbookend I would think about how you are discussing low attainment. How do you think your comments make the parents of low attaining children feel?

There's only so much one can or should sugar coat reality.

If I had a 16 year old struggling with fractions and percentages, my top concern would be what they will do in life, not what random strangers may or may not think.

If you would rather pat these parents on the back and tell them that it doesn't matter, you do you, but I think it's counterproductive.

DS1 needed teaching that too. He calls those questions stupid. Because Janice is right. You can fill 11 boxes. Being able to also fill more boxes doesn’t mean you can’t fill 11.

DS3 needed teaching that they don’t want a long spiel about how Janice can fill 11 boxes but would have 108 pens left so could also fill another 9.

But, let's be realistic, how many?

More than you seem to think!

That's a strawman. I have commented multiple times in the thread how getting a 3 means scoring something like 40-50% of the easier (foundation paper). Sometimes even less.

Yes, but then you've gone on about 30-40% of kids being unable to answer a question about pens. Even though you admit that they could score 50% on the paper and still get a 3, you're saying that they were all flummoxed by the pen question.

The maths my dc have done seems to bare little similarity to the maths I did at gcse. It’s worlds apart and much more complicated. It’s not just the fractions and percentages you talk about.
if they are being taught extra stuff they don’t necessarily need maybe they can’t spend the extra time some children need on the day to day maths e.g fractions and percentages

Are you talking about the higher, not the foundation, version?

"If you would rather pat these parents on the back and tell them that it doesn't matter, you do you, but I think it's counterproductive."

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I can't see anywhere I have patted anyone on the head or said that improving maths and english skills isnt important. However, I went to an average comprehensive and my DD attends a similar comprehensive. I am aware of the many barriers some students have to attainment. I am also aware that there are avenues to sucess when young people dont achieve a 4 in Year 11. Some students have parents who for many reasons cant help.at home. Some students even with substantial parental input dont achieve that 4 8n Year 11. I wouldn't refer to their efforts as 'putting lipstick on a pig', but that's just me i guess.

I want a better funded education system and for standards to rise. I have seen some of your previous threads & thought we shared some views on education. However, i do think how students who are lower attaining are discussed matters.

If I had a 16 year old struggling with fractions and percentages, my top concern would be what they will do in life, not what random strangers may or may not think.

You assume that ALL parents care about their children's education. We live in the real world here and you would be surprised at how many DC have little to no support at home. The issues are way more complicated, then you throw in SEN and now days more mental health issues, broken homes ect. I'm surprised that as many children do so well.

Foundation paper contains trigonometry, Pythagoras, solving quadratic equations and so on.

It's certainly not all questions about pens.

It is easy for detractors to pick out an easy question on the foundation tier and go 'these are simple, it's worthless'.
They conveniently ignore the harder questions, or that fact that high pressure exams freak some lower ability kids out so they need a run in to build confidence.

Both. All throughout their secondary their maths has been wildly different to mine. With differing techniques being taught which meant I couldn’t help them a lot of the time.

and I was academic and passed mine.

Especially goves change to more exams and less coursework. Some very bright students struggle with the exam side of things and the coursework percentage helped support them.

granted maths wasn’t one of the coursework exams but it means there’s more exams and more pressure overall.

Foundation paper contains trigonometry, Pythagoras, solving quadratic equations and so on.

They conveniently ignore the harder questions,

Someone seems to be "conveniently ignoring" that you don't need to answer all of that to get a 4

@MigGirl You assume that ALL parents care about their children's education. We live in the real world here and you would be surprised at how many DC have little to no support at home

I know, I know that's an issue. I don't know what the solution would be.

Some older European colleagues tell me that, decades ago, in their countries kids would fail a year and have to retake it if they didn't meet the expected standard by the end of the year. I am not sure that's the best solution.

In some countries (I think Germany and Italy) there are secondary schools for the more academic kids and other schools for the others. But I am not convinced that classifying children at 11-13 is a good thing to do.

@Owlbookend I see. I suspect we probably agree on more things than we disagree on.
Simplifying, for me the toughest challenge is finding the right balance between the shallow approach of worrying too little about results and lowering everyone's standards, and the opposite extreme of ignoring context, of basically implying that if you live in a broken home it's your fault, and that military discipline is needed to achieve academic results (see schools like Micaela, Mossbourne with its scandal, Ashcroft etc)

Completely agree. Not all children’s lives are equal.

Isn’t it cited as one reason statistically children of immigrants perform so well in exams. They’ve generally got engaged supportive parents.

The easier questions won’t be the higher marking ones. You dont get one mark per question answered.

grammars still exist in some areas so we do still have the “academic schools”. I’m in one of those areas and see many of the issues with deciding children’s paths at 11.

children in this country are also expected to retake maths and English until they pass or leave education at 18.

I've got lost as to what your point is.

Is it to write off kids age 16 who don't get the 4s as hopeless? To say if they can't get 60% on 3 x 1.5hr papers (normally amid a whole host of other exams) then they are thick?

Or do you have something more constructive to say about how you can teach lower ability children maths from 5-16 to really embed skills and give them confidence? If so I have lost that message, so please repeat it.

We also need to remember there is a non calculator paper. Kids like mine struggle with instant recall of times tables, so she can easily know what she is doing but make a 'basic' mistake to lose marks. Which is why they do need to be able to do harder questions too as they won't get full marks on the first ~48 marks.
(We 'solved' this for DD this year by getting her to write out a times tables grid in the first 5-8mins of the exam to then refer to it).

Someone seems to be "conveniently ignoring" that you don't need to answer all of that to get a 4

You are certainly conveniently ignoring that kids getting a grade 3 or 2, or possibly even a 1 will be getting the pen-type question correct.

Yet you are claiming that 30-40% of kids would struggle with it.

GCSEs aren’t „easy“, far from it and it’s very competitive at the top end. So if the OP is complaining about the 11 plus being „difficult“, I think they will be in for a shock. We found the 11 plus a breeze for all 4DC yet 10-11 subjects at GCSE, some with a huge amount of content, have definitely not been easy. Mine have a high IQ but GCSE requires application and effort etc and it’s a very tiring process even for kids with a high IQ.
DD has a close friend who is an award winning junior author and was awarded a 6 in English language (1 mark off a 7 and still under review)!

The year 1 phonics test with the fake words isn’t „easy“ either, nor is the Year 4 timetables test as doing it in 6 seconds really requires knowing it really well and KS2 SATS require real fluency in reading and speed! To gain full marks or near full marks in all of these tests isn’t „easy“ even for the highest ability children. Same applies to GCSEs. All these National tests now are very rigorous. So no surprise that plenty of children fail especially those whose parents don't read with and to them and practise with them. And that is not even taking into account SEND.

I think it’s the claim that 30% of English kids are thick as mince, and not even good enough to work in the local chicken factory.

30 per cent are clearly not thick and the tests are just inaccessible for them.

To gain full marks or near full marks in all of these tests isn’t „easy“ even for the highest ability children. Same applies to GCSEs.

There is a difference between getting full marks on the higher paper and getting less than 4 (I won't call it 'fail' or people get triggered...) in the foundation paper.
Two things can be true at once: it can be difficult to get the highest marks, but not incredibly difficult to pass with a 4.

@TeenToTwenties My point is that failing to get a 4 in GCSE maths is likely to signal the kind of struggle with basic numeracy that can be a huge hindrance in life, regardless of the profession. I am saying "likely to signal", not "confirms with 100% certainty", because I understand there are loads of factors affecting the result.

And no, I do not have a silver bullet, I do not know what the magical solution is, nor which system does it better.
The UK is maybe more transparent than other countries in publishing its GCSE results but this doesn't mean that functional illiteracy is necessarily lower elsewhere.
And I wonder to what extent countries like Finland do better mostly because they are less unequal societies with fewer broken homes etc

I remember that, when I started working, I couldn't understand why recent graduates were subjected to online reasoning and text comprehension skills as part of their interviews. I then came to agree with the explanation that it was necessary because there are simply too many graduates in scientific subjects who struggle with text comprehension, and too many humanities graduates who struggle with basic numeracy.