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

The test isn't even inaccessible to them. Grade 3 students can correctly answer up to 60% of the paper. That's not 'struggling with basic numeracy'.

If you are interested the oecd did publish a report on gcse maths.

Its quite interesting, with an idea for replacing gcse resits with something better.

It had a few points in it, one being we sit our maths test after 2 years at a young age, wheras mamy other countries go for a test after 4 years at an older age.

I think I have a different understanding of what basic numeracy means to @ParentOfOne so we will never reach a conclusion. But my view remains that a level 1 pass requires basic numeracy to pass and if you dont have basic numeracy you would fail. Mine is based on what my son did in level 1 and it was the things I keep being told he cant do. I also think qualifications are about showing what you can do, not just what you cant and grade 3 gcse shows you can do more than a grade 1.

Graduates struggling with numeracy will likely be because they have had 5 years off studying any maths. Almost all would have passed GCSE maths 5 or 6 years before. Skills go rusty. I have a maths degree. I would struggle with most A level maths if you face me a paper to do right now.

There are a lot of jobs where you only need a defined subset of foundation tier maths. If you are doing something regularly you can be proficient.

@TeenToTwenties I am not talking about A level maths. I am talking about fractions and percentages, not derivatives and integrals, i.e. about basic concepts which should be part of daily life.

Same for text comprehension. I don't expect a graduate who hasn't studied literature to be that familiar with Shakespeare. But I would expect any graduate to have basic text comprehension skills. I would expect them to be able to read a press release, a newspaper article, a social media post and to understand what the text means, why the author said that, to question if the conclusions are reasonable, etc.

I do not know if you have ever been involved in graduate recruitment, but trust me when I say that many graduates lack these basic skills.

My last involvement in grad recruitment was 20+ years ago.
All were highly numerate as we recruited those with good quality STEM degrees.
There were some I wouldn't have writing user guides but who were invaluable for their analytical and systems design skills.

It might be that we need IB in place of A levels and/or uni degrees with a wider skills base supporting the core degree.

None of which has much to do with grades 1-3 at GCSE.

This is starting to sound like a failure at your work in your recruitment process

@FallingIntoAutumn why a failure?

Read again what I wrote : I didn't say we are hiring graduates who lack text comprehension skills or basic numeracy. I am saying we use tests when hiring graduates to filter out the (many) who do.

And by the way it's not just my company - many employers use similar methods, for the same reason.

This is particularly true if you do the kind of blind recruitment whereby the interviewer doesn't see, when looking at a CV, what university the candidate graduated from.

@TeenToTwenties the problem with IB is that on one hand the education is more well rounded, on the other this means penalising those who may excel in one area but do less well in another. I don't have a solution, I don't know which system would be best.

CSE grade 1 was equivalent to an O Level grade C. I was quite shaky on chemistry so I sat both CSE and O Level in that subject.

You didn't get a CSE if you got an O Level at D or E but you could get an O level on an A Level paper because they were both GCEs, Ordinary Level and Advanced Level.

O Levels were for the top 20% academically, CSEs were for the next 30% and 50% left school with no qualifications.

Oh and when I was sitting them they also had AO Levels which were O Levels for more mature students.

And 'Special' papers for the most academic to sit alongside A Levels.

This is particularly true if you do the kind of blind recruitment whereby the interviewer doesn't see, when looking at a CV, what university the candidate graduated from.

Surely the degree matters more than the university? A History graduate will have done less maths than a Science graduate.

Back to your original point. You have no idea how difficult some people find it to learn, use and retain information. Your child aiming for the 11+ is in the top percent of children nationally. You interact with graduates at work. You don't see those people who struggle. One of the hardest working students I have ever taught got a grade 2 this year and I was proud of them.

This is very interesting. Having had a look into it, it seems maths and english were the most popular papers but it looks like 20% of people just left school not having sat a paper at all.

@Hercisback1 Surely the degree matters more than the university? A History graduate will have done less maths than a Science graduate.

The point is that the graduates from the best universities are more likely to be well rounded, ie it is easier to find a humanities graduate with decent numeracy skills and a science graduate with decent text comprehension skills.

With blind recruitment, subjecting graduates to basic tests becomes more important because you can no longer assume they'll have those basic skills

Back to your original point. You have no idea how difficult some people find it to learn, use and retain information.

You misunderstand. I was not trying to belittle anyone, but merely to point out that having poor numeracy skills is likely to be an obstacle in life, regardless of the path chosen. I am well aware that some people struggle and some people may work very, very hard and only get a 2 or a 3 at GCSE - but this doesn't change my point.

to point out that having poor numeracy skills is likely to be an obstacle in life,

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this really.

Agreed. What’s to disagree with? Yes, having poor numeracy skills is likely to be an obstacle in life, make life harder, potentially underpin some unwise choices. There’s not going to be a perfect correlation between those who get 1, 2, 3, 4 etc at gcse, and those who will encounter difficulties. But there’ll be some match. Yes it’s a problem.

but merely to point out that having poor numeracy skills is likely to be an obstacle in life

This isn't a controversial statement. Of course it's an obstacle. Otoh there's no magic wand of understanding we can wave over people. Some people will always find things hard. GCSE grading is a reflection of that.

We aren’t worse than similar countries. Our PISA scores are good, are education system is rigorous.
What I have learnt from this thread is to respect all effort and achievement and avoid any language around „failure“. It doesn’t help that the press continues to use words of KS2 standards not met/GCSE resit failure. I think the system we have works well overall just the language around the standards needs changing.

Agreed. Not sure what the poster is trying to say here.

@Hiptothisjive there were, when my trio attended when i attended and when nephews attended (various provinces) there were provincial exams. sat by everyone with everyone achieving a grade. at the time broadly set by the canadian governenment with some provincial leeway. things have changed as pointed out.

Maybe we are from different provinces because no one I know wrote a provincial exam including myself or anyone I grew up with or knew.

i wrote provincial exams in quebec one for each hs subject in 73-74.
my trio wrote provincial exams in bc years 2000-2001-2003 again in grade 12 one for each high school subject
nephews in alberta.
so old old history, looks like bc changed the exams in 2016.
can't imagine why to me it seemed like a good system.

I have a friend who is a maths teacher in Vancouver, his students sit provincial exams, or at least they did, they have something different now but a similar idea.

I think it is sad that a lot of kids are just set up to fail, not every child is ready to sit GCSE at 16, some would get better grades if they simply didn't take the exams at 16, just waiting a year or two longer would mean they would get higher grades. My nephew is severely autistic & has taken maths & English twice now & not got a grade 4, but is being forced to take them again next summer. Our education system is too rigid, forcing square pegs into round holes, some kids would benefit with longer in primary school & starting secondary school maybe a year or two later instead of being forced to take exams at 16 & failing them, if kids are supposed to be in education or training up to 18, let them use the extra two years to have some flexibility & learn at their own place.

some would get better grades if they simply didn't take the exams at 16, just waiting a year or two longer would mean they would get higher grades.

What, exactly, happens to those who fail to get a 4 in English and Maths? I understand they must retake the exams, but are there dedicated courses / colleges for them? Or are they basically abandoned and asked to study alone at home?

I suspect one reason these kids are not given the chance to take their GCSEs later is the cost and admin challenge of organising: higher paper for those taking it at 16, foundation paper for those taking it at 16, and foundation paper for those taking it at 17-18. BTW, I am not commenting on whether it's a valid reason or not.

I also suspect that some people would not like it and would complain that we'd be creating a two-tier education system; but we already have a two-tier system because we effectively abandon and kind of write off anyway the kids who don't get a 4 at their GCSE

What, exactly, happens to those who fail to get a 4 in English and Maths? I understand they must retake the exams, but are there dedicated courses / colleges for them? Or are they basically abandoned and asked to study alone at home?

If you don't get the 4 in y11 then when you go to college you do resits alongside your main college course. There is around 3rs of lessons weekly for maths and the same for English as needed.

However pass rates for resits are low, for various reasons:
. you didn't pass last time with all the help from school, so less likely to pass anyway
. more focus on the main college course
. disenchantment / feeling a failure / lack of confidence
. may change exam board, which can impact for Eng Lang as question styles are different
. teachers won't chase for extra / home work, it is up to the student

There are a large number of colleges that allow maths and english resits alongside their level 3 studies (or level 2 if thats more appropriate). Its a condition of funding for those courses.

They shouldnt be just abandoned. They should be getting lessons. I dont thinknadmin costs come into it. The students are resitting in great numbers because they have to. Its just only something like 17% of resitters nationally get that 4 or above.

They oecd report suggests that a different maths qualification should be developed to replace resits as they clearly arent that successful. That said a college local to me gets 40% through thier resits.

They also get a chance to sit functional skills instead if certain conditions apply. Level 2 is equivalent to a 4.

Anyone retaking who is on any kind of 16 - 18 pathway (vocational courses, apprenticeships etc) must be enrolled in retake English and / or Maths alongside their other courses. Those getting 2 or below can be enrolled on Functional Skills GCSE; those with 3s must continue to study for and retake the standard GCSE.

There will be lessons in each student’s timetables for English / Maths, though colleges do find engagement harder in these lessons than in the student’s main course in plumbing / carpentry / fitness / catering or whatever.