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.

I think what PP means is that crudely 23% of GCSEs were Grades 7-9 and grammar school kids are meant to be in the top 25%.

I dispute it because of the number of GCSEs the kids take, the fact that the system incentivises early specialisation from an early age so you can get those A stars in Sixth Form and often the Ebacc means kids are taking some subjects they do not like nor especially want to take. Clearly English itself is compulsory, but then grammars insist on doing both Lit and Language so less teaching time potentially too on Language, as well as less revision time.

@Cobwebs5 - actually most interesting to me on that list is that 98 did Business Studies for their social science. Not history nor geography so clearly business is something they are interested in as a year group.

Well, our definitions of health obviously differ but that's OK, it would be splitting hairs to discuss clinical definitions here. I certainly don't consider someone dyspraxic "healthy" even though technically it's not called illness but disorder. It doesn't really matter what it's called if a person struggles with everyday functioning because of it.

Why do I need to have a think about what I'm saying? Anyone can have a look at English syllabus and required standard and see what it's like.

There is no "fixed quota" for lower grades and if you look at Ofqual stats they don't necessarily display normal distribution. Latin grades for example are mostly 8-9, there is no requirement to cut off 30% and "fail" them. Lots of subjects have two spikes so not normal distribution either.

Anyway, I was talking about syllabus requirements, they are not rocket science for grade 5 and should be easily attainable for selective grammar pupils. If a large portion of school leavers are grade 3-4, then we have a real problem with the workforce entering the market as basic literacy and numeracy is a pre-requisite for the vast majority of jobs, including some manual ones.

Having said that, someone on another thread said some grammars do phonics lessons these days... so we probably ARE in trouble already.

How would you explain Michaela's results with 33 Eng Lang entries vs 53 Eng Lit entries at grade 9?

Genuine question, I'm puzzled by this stats.

My daughter does Business because she didn't like History or Geography and hadn’t done Business before. They don’t do Business in years 7-9.
Surprise, surprise she doesn’t like Business either !

@Ubertomusic I agree that students at a selective school should all be gaining a 5+in English language. But you said that grade 5 in English language was a basic standard – and it was not clear that you were talking solely about selective schools. In fact you have since said grade 5 English should not be a problem for a healthy child which makes it clear that you think that any YP who is “healthy” (I will be charitable as that is a very odd word to use – someone who is ND would probably not describe themselves as unhealthy – and take it that you mean a YP with no SEN) should be able to gain a grade 5 at GCSE English language – no reference there to grammar schools.

I was a classroom teacher for many years and am still a tutor, working mostly in MFL but also in English lit and lang, so I am very familiar with the spec and what it asks of the candidates.

And I can tell you that a significant % of 16yos, even those without SEN, find the exam inaccessible and will not achieve a grade 5.

I actually think (and have said before on MN and many agree with me) that there should be a foundation tier or a standard offering in schools of a more accessible English lang exam so that some of the lower-ability students in a comprehensive do not feel that they have failed.

In any given year, approx. 30% of 16yos taking GCSEs will get a grade 3 or lower in English language. Actually, because of the large numbers taking it, and the standardisation of difficulty of the exam from year to year, that figure does not need to be rigged by massive adjustment of the grade boundaries.
It may be that most Latin GCSEs are graded at a higher level, but that’s probably because it is mainly offered in selective and private schools, so the cohort is self-selecting as being of higher ability.

It’s hard to say how many 16yos in school have SEN but figures suggest around 15-18%. And of course many of those will achieve well and gain 5+ in their exams (my DD is ND and her lowest grade was a B). So actually, there must be a considerable number of GCSE students who have no SEN but are still not gaining a grade 5+.

If you really think Not attaining a grade 5 English means you are more or less illiterate then that’s not a very pleasant attitude to those YP. That’s what I mean when I said that you should think about what you were saying.

Sorry for the long post – this is something feel strongly about and I think should be challenged.

@Ubertomusic - I hope this link is correct for Freedom of Information
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/gcse_results_by_subject/response/2894671/attach/3/Results%20by%20Subject%20Jan%202025.xlsx?cookie_passthrough=1

Not much triple science at Michaela? Only 3 students in 2024? RS for social science primarily? So the teaching focus is on Maths and English. No denying they do very well there.
However, how can you compare with the school OP linked where the curriculum offered is broader (more options) and most are doing the triple science.

The school OP linkes suggests a year group around 180 to me, most doing 10 GCSEs, all doing triple science (more content). More arty subjects at GCSE available and no old fashioned focus/strong suggestion of History or Geography like in some grammar schools. Hence lots doing Business.

@clary If you are a teacher and say that a significant % of 16yo find the exam inaccessble, then I can only repeat that we are in trouble as our future workforce is illiterate.

Here is an example of AQA English paper, it is very basic, the texts are short, there is no advanced vocabulary and the questions are straightforward too: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/p28bar15/green/d61b58edb75fbdf468d30fb455b51be6f033b2e9.pdf

I was going to say it's because English language is probably one of the easier subjects to do well in. Then I remembered that when I was at college many years ago,my class of 20 girls were asked who had passed their GCSE English language at a grade C or above. Out of 20 of us,only 7 had. We got to choose whether we had accounts or French lessons 3 times a week. The other 13 had to go to English classes to prepare to retake the GCSE, hopefully getting a grade C or above. So maybe it's not as easy as I thought!

Yes I am aware of the content of the English language paper.

You can look up the figures if you don't believe me. It’s not because I am a teacher that I say it – each year about 30% of 16yo GCSE candidates (all fo whom have to take Eng lang) will score a 3 or below.

And they don't get that grade for fun, or because they could do better but choose not to. A grade 4 is not accessible for them. I don't think that means they are illiterate btw. My DS couldn't pass English lang but he can read, thanks, and he works in a useful and practical job that requires a certain standard of literacy.

Really – please think about what you are saying. I mean here is an anonymous forum but I hope you don’t repeat these thoughts IRL.

Yes, that's what I was looking at.

I was more surprised by the discrepancy between Lang and Lit, I think it would be logical to expect lower numbers of 9s for Lit, more in correlation with Lang. If you're not fluent in the language, you would struggle to analyse literature texts, that was my reasoning but their data do not support this.

What exactly is inaccessible in the past paper above? Assuming you don't need 9, just 5 so roughly half the answers correct.

I think the threshold for 9s in Lang/Lit were high this year, and anecdotally one of the Lang papers was a bit of a curveball.
My daughter was the only one in her year to get both 9s (not that I'm proud/bragging 😊)

Here is a distribution for Latin.

And here is for English, with a spike at 3.

I know it is hard to understand, as I imagine you yourself would not find this paper difficult. Neither would I.
But my DS would.
Just as one example: "How has the writer structured the text to create tension?" He would be daunted by this. Where does it say what the writer has done? He would not be able to see the correct answer. He would not be able to think of and name the techniques the writer had used.

Yes you can learn what sort of techniques are looked for in this question but then it's not easy perhaps to see which ones to talk about. One of my form spent most of a year trying, with me, to grasp the difference between a simile and a metaphor. I am not sure he ever got there.

It's not always easy to see the challenge in something we ourselves can easily do. I can look at an Olympic gymnast and think, wow, I could never do that. How do they do that? But if you can add 153+569 and spell definite it might be difficult for some people to imagine that someone else cannot.

Maths is actually harder, with the distribution shifted to the right but at least looks more normal.

I am now obsessing over why Barbalsingh has her students doing RS GCSE not history? So is it more facilitating for English arguably? Than history? The number of 9s she churns out are astounding for a year group of 120. But then I would have never signed up to my kids not doing triple science as a normal matter of course. Just not in my DNA.
I wonder how many extra hours are spent doing English at Michaela and also whether they are doing debate clubs etc to support the ability to make arguments successfully in spoken word too.

I agree with @clary- I find it depressing that we have a system that writes off 30
per cent of students in the two key measures of Maths and English and that the retake success rates are so dire.

Yes I can see you take it personally and got offended but as I said previously grade 5 could be a huge achievement for someone with SEN but we were discussing grammar vs comp intake, not special needs that can vary too and not necessarily affect attainment in English or affect it in different ways like dyslexia vs dyspraxia vs adhd lead to very different issues in learning and exam performance.

I don't believe that comps intake population wide is 30-50-70% pupils with SEND to explain the proportion of low grades.

It doesn't write off 30% in Latin though or in Sciences, see Biology for example.

Do they use different methods for grade distribution in different subjects?

Triple Science aka biology as a subject is self selective and so is Latin.

I think History is a very difficult subject that requires much more complex analysis and extended reading and writing than even literature.

Birbalsingh probably doesn't want to risk it.

It’s also why Labour cancelled Latin and the IB, they want the clever state kids channeled into fin tech and maths economically productive Slave Labour.

Yes but the distribution method should be universal?

But why would clever kids keep doing “clever” subjects then? Especially if elite unis still insist on top GCSE grades. Then they will all just opt for the easiest subjects with the least competition.