Why is there such a big difference between English GCSE results and all other subjects

[Cobwebs5]

This is a super selective grammar. Good results for sure. What do you think of the English results ? I have a feeling that this pattern isn’t specific to this school. What is so different about English ? I have a friend whose daughter got 9 grades 9’s and a 6 in English language.

The English department might be a bit worse than the others. I’d be so stunningly thrilled to get an education like that for free - just top up with English tutor.

Look at the number of entries…..all pupils have to take it. Other subjects are nearly almost chosen and so therefore the pupils in general prefer them or better understand the content.
Additionally, it could be linked to a lack of reading in children as screens now dominate free time…

I do thinks it's hard to get an 8 or 9 in English. In a subject like maths / science / geography, if you get the answer right you get full marks, whereas English is more subjective.

These results kind of mirror my child's results. She got 9s in the sciences, maths, further maths and French, 8s for History and PE and 7s for the Englishes and Art. Her school is in no way selective so perhaps it's easier for a generally bright kid to well in sciences or that what school considers to be intelligence maps well onto a science/maths brain.

I'm not sure it necessarily means poor teaching but my daughter's class may not have got the best as anecdotally the second tier class seems to have done better in terms of 8s than the first. Maybe asking questions about individual class results might help here?

Is it an area with high rates of English as a second language?

Its an unusual spread as clearly the whole year took all rheee separate sciences rather than double science which is really unusual and speaks to a very high ability so those English results are low.

That argument doesn't hold, look at maths and physics.

Can’t speak for all schools but results at our school are strongest in lit and lang with all students being entered. Not at all selective. No progress measure this year but last year we were well above national average and results this year were even better in terms of attainment. Perhaps the focus is on breadth in this school as results are so strong across all areas. History, RE and geography are outperforming English which is an indicator that essay based/longer answer responses can be stronger.

I think it is often about department, quality of teaching and curriculum, time given to the subject on the timetable, school priorities. We know English is a gateway qualification so are unequivocal about our focus on it. Our kids might not perform as well in other subjects but we need to get them maths and English to keep doors open/social mobility. These grades indicate cohorts leaving with outcomes ready for oxbridge/Top uni baseline grades and perhaps that is the schools focus.

It isn’t an argument just an offering of opinion. There is also a second point that I have given which could offer some small explanation/opinion.

I just looked up my children’s’ non selective comprehensive school results in an area with v high rates of English as a second language. The results show their highest scoring subjects are sciences and maths. The lowest are subjects like PE, music tech and photography which I think less academic kids are steered towards. Geography is also lower but that’s because you have to go geography or history and geography definitely has a reputation for being the less academic option. English is the lowest after those subjects. So not quite the pattern you have but maybe it would be if the less academic kids were filtered out as they are in your school.

I have to say the results you show overall are stunning.

This would be my bet

I think your suggested explanation makes a lot of sense. My DC attended an averagely performing comp where English (and Maths) results were relatively strong (compared with other subjects) because of the school recognised their 'gateway' importance, as you say. The English dept also has chockablock with longstanding, very experienced teachers.

English was not my younger child's first love and they were in one of the sets below the top sets and said a lot of support was given to understanding what was required to maximise marks as, with Eng Lang in particular, it is not as obvious how to demonstrate aptitude within the exam itself. The teaching was not just about the exam but there was clearly an accurate understanding of what was required.

So the super selective school may have taken its eye off the ball. In addition, I notice, on MN ed threads, a heightened concern about Eng Lang and whether lower grades in English in particular compromise offers for very competitive uni courses, even if in unrelated subject areas - so I sense there will be a 'strategic correction' of emphasis by that super selective school at some point.

The English gcse curriculum got changed in 2016 under Gove and made significantly worse. Lots of kids now hate studying it and so a level numbers have dropped off significantly as a result. It’s harder to do well in something you don’t enjoy.

I don’t think those results are stunning at all for a super selective grammar tbh - you’ve already got the top 1% (if even that) coming from families prepared to tutor. I’d expect nothing less.

I think the English result is perhaps more of a reflection of natural ability - it’s harder to tutor for.

one thing to check would be if they take English Language a year earlier. My son’s school tried that and results dipped a lot.

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/novice-examiners-lead-to-huge-rise-in-queries-over-grades

Don’t super selectives attract a disproportionate number from certain groups where English may be an additional language? If so, that would explain it. I’d like to know where it is.

Possibly the entrance test selected more on mathematical ability. The super selective grammar near me (Tiffin) also has significantly lower GCSE scores in English lit and language than maths and science.

This is a years data, is it a trend? Is English always lower?

could always be a blip due to teaching. One of my best friends is head of English and had a year where one teacher went off with pregnancy illness much earlier than expected, someone else on long term sick after an accident, someone off on long term bereavement and someone due back from long term sick resigned. They struggled to recruit because it was all short notice and the results were shocking for that cohort or Y11 because they just didn’t get the specialist teaching.

A number of very good schools near me (think Times list level) have noted a significant drop in English results in the last couple of years.

One has started doing remedial lessons for boys doing well in maths but with a significant asymmetric disparity in their English.

Another, a grammar school with 11+ entry, has started doing phonics classes. This is a girls school.

It's been noted by government too. They announced this last month:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2dj1g9d4yo
Year 8 pupils in England will have to sit reading tests at school under government plans due to be released this autumn, the BBC understands.

The mandatory tests, first reported by Schools Week,, external would aim to check their progress two years into secondary school.

It comes amid concern that a quarter of Year 6 pupils are not meeting expected reading standards and the English GCSE pass rate has slipped.

There's a few potential reasons for this. COVID is one of them - these kids missed a huge proportion of primary school when building blocks for reading are formed. DS is yr6 and his year were reception. They never learnt to sit still and were plonked with devices to manage behaviour from an early age.

When COVID started I was helping read with the then yr5s. DS year group are way behind that. From everything I've heard this years Key Stage 2 results are going to be interesting on a national level too.

Locally too, there's been a significant migration of kids to the area who have English as a foreign language. A lot of Ukrainians and Hong Kong Chinese were attracted to the area and that's had a big impact on house prices and school places.

The Hong Kong Chinese group are particularly interesting as they were desperate for good school and are affluent so a large number were tutored within an inch of their life to pass tests, but still can't actually speak English or write as well as you think. They have a good basic grasp of English in terms of being able to learn by rote and answer questions well enough to pass a test but not necessarily fully understand (particularly speaking). They become completely unstuck at words they've not been exposed to previously whilst those who have done phonics can ultimately word out the word. These kids in particular do a lot better in maths and science and English based subjects where a lower level of understanding English is sufficient and they aren't judged on spelling and punctuation.

I suspect there are pockets around the country with notable different patterns of migration which are impacting on English in particular.

It's not something I'm surprised by.

Nor would I look at an individual school based on results and go 'shit they are failing'. I'd be looking at the area and whether something in particular has happened and being aware this is something of a national trend anyway. This potentially something you aren't going to avoid by looking at other schools. Indeed a school with 'bad' English result might actually be doing exceptionally well given the local demographics, in terms of progress.

The texts in GCSE Language are completely unseen, the pupils don’t know what they’ll be asked to read and respond to until they open the paper. They know they’ll need to analyse language and structure for example and to write a descriptive narrative but unlike other subjects revising is about practising the knowledge and skills needed to analyse and respond to texts. You can remember techniques to use in the exam but there isn’t any ‘content’ in the same way as other subjects. These results simply show that pupils are not as strong when responding to unseen texts. This isn’t unusual and happens in lots of schools. Eng Lang is one of the only exams that genuinely tests the skills that pupils have not just what they have remembered or rote learned.

There could be lots of reasons. This is one year group I infer and a relatively small cohort.

It could be that this group of students is in general stronger at STEM; it could be as PPs note, a period when there was a weaker teacher in English for whatever reason (maternity, sickness, someone leaving suddenly for family reasons and a struggle to recruit); it could be that the school switched lit texts and it was a poor choice; it’s true there has been a struggle to recruit good English exam markers in recent years, which is a real real concern as it has led to anomalies; yes it could be high rates of EAL.

English is often flagged as subjective in marking terms but in fact it is not. It is more than possible to gain full marks in the Eng lit GCSE (and I know YP who have done this) – it’s not the case that the essay is marked out of 30 but the marker will never give more than 28.

Actually more people got 3s and 4s in other subjects, looking at the table (certainly proportionally more) eg MFL, chemistry, CS – so maybe the school focused its English attention of getting students to a 5/6/7 grade rather than 8 or 9?

I've just had a look for a few of the Grammar Schools in Trafford.

I couldn't find GCSE results for 2025 for all of them by subject.

Those that I did find all follow the same pattern.

This. It doesn't look like a super selective grammar.

Do some googling.

You'd be surprised.

Well, this is HBS as a benchmark, they do have an odd low score but that may be due to illness. Generally their results reflect the ability of the intake.

I'll look at some others as I'm surprised to see that called a super selective. Their Physics is as bad as English, and Bio and Chem are only marginally better.

Not everything is about the grades of course.