Choosing school - ideal % of grades A* and A at GCSE?

[Cortina]

Just musing and looking at possible schools going forward.

What % of grades A* and A would you look for ideally at GCSE?

I know that there are many other ways of judging schools and that statistics can be skewed, plus it also depends on subjects taken & numbers of pupils taking exams. But if you were just looking at this first in isolation as an academic yardstick.

They are 60% at A/A, 87.8% A/A, 51% A*/A.

Two are selective schools, the school with 51% A*/A is non selective.

Interested what % would ring alarm bells/worry you possibly?

It seems to me if you love the school and it fits the bill for your child you'd want to put your child in the school that had the best academic track record?

It's a few years yet for us - secondary school - but I am surprised by how much the numbers/pass rates etc vary.

Thanks.

dancing so much on eggshells they're doing the hippy shake!

My friend's son, who has Aspergers, is a maths genius actually

Thanks. A friend has just told me her daughter was asked not to stay on for the sixth form as she got largely Bs and a few Cs at GCSE?

In my day these were good grades? Seems I need to understand a lot more going forward.

Interesting to get stats 100% A-C and 75% A-A as a 'bar'. I just want my children to achieve their potential at school, whatever that is, academically as well as otherwise. The school that's closest to us and non selective & independent has a 74% A A & B pass rate.

Obviously all children at a selective school (whether private or state) are capable of getting A*s.... whether they actually achieve them is an entirely different matter. Fast forward a couple of years from starting and they turn into teenagers, I can assure you, you cannot guarantee anything, least of all 'top' exam results, especially if they themselves do not want to put the work in, regardless of how well they have been taught.

I've been thinking about this thread carefully. I genuinely believe that most children could achieve an A* in the maths paper I saw. So either I am unrealistic in my understanding of children (quite possible, given that the DCs have always attended selective schools).

Or a substantial proportion of children aren't actually realising their potential for whatever diverse sorts of reasons. Perhaps to do with peer groups, perhaps to do with parental expectations, or perhaps to do with the school.

Having gone through the GCSE process twice, I'm astonished that anyone could suggest that "most children could achieve an A* in the maths paper" unless the poster was looking at the Foundation or Intermediate level papers.
Some people are not particularly able at Maths, some are poorly taught (one of my DCs didn't have a permanent Maths teacher for the whole of Y9) and it really isn't that easy. (Thinking back to the olden days of O Levels, one of my friends scraped a pass at Maths, taking the "easier" syllabus, but had no problems getting into Cambridge to read Classics).
Only 50% of the pupils at DS1s highly academic, one of the best in the country at Maths blah blah school, got A* at GCSE in his year.

Quattro - you usually talk sense but I think you're wrong in this case.

Some pupils would not be able to obtain A - not because of any identified SEN, but simply because their brain doesn't work in such a way as to get that particular score in that particular way in that* particular time limit. They may, however, have exceptional skills and abilities in other areas.

I'm going to turn this around actually - I would worry that a certain type of teaching might enable a child to gain a grade which is over inflated and doesn't accurately reflect their true, innate ability.

I came across a few such types at Uni - and they tended to be from private schools! (Dons hard hat!)

I think some parents don't try hard enough 'persuading' their children to study. It's easy for me to say as mine are not teenagers yet .

I've seen my friends kids come home, tell Mum there's no homework that night, and go upstairs and spend all evening and night on MSM, Facebook or similar. Surely you have to supervise, intervene, take an interest, talk to them and if necessary prevent the use of MSN, Facebook etc?

I know that can't be easy, especially if you have other family commitments and work for example.

In my own extended family I've seen the kids underachieve at GCSE. Bs and Cs when they are capable of A*s etc. Asked to leave after GCSE or go to a less academic school. When they've gone to less academic schools they'll fallen in with teenagers for whom studying is not a priority, etc. A few have ended up in dead end jobs at 18 with no obvious route out. Not what I'd want for mine.

Quattrocentro can you post an example of a couple of questions so we can see where you are coming from?

Personally I just didn't understand maths at all, it just didn't make any sense. This was partly because I hadn't got the proper foundations at primary level that I think you need going forward.

If you've not got the basics by 11 you will really struggle going forward. It doesn't help that the bottom sets at secondary schools generally get (and least in my experience) the weaker teachers. The schools are more interested in turning Cs into As rather than concentrating resources on those that look a dead cert to fail anyway.

I had a cookery teacher for Maths for example! The top sets got the Cambridge graduate, stand no nonsense, stellar teachers.

Agree, Riven. It's the old adage, isn't it - you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can encourage them, support them, give them the right environment to study, ensure that you monitor their homework as much as possible given your own work commitments and the needs of your other children - but there comes a point as teenagers where it becomes very hard to force them to want to learn, or to become interested in a subject that is not remotely interesting to them. That applies equally to private or state pupils - the desire to learn has to come from within.

Totally agree with that point riven.

Until you have teenagers you have NO idea. Even if you were to lock in their room and remove their phone/internet etc (very bad idea btw) how would you MAKE them learn?

I think there are two points here, there are children who are actively not being stretched, who probably could gain an A* in Maths if they put their mind to it.

And there are children who, with all the will in the world and the best teachers available, and surely there must even be some of these children in the private sector (erm Prince Harry comes to mind), who are never going to get an A* in Maths because they are simply not bright enough, whether the exam has been 'dumbed down' or not.

BTW I think you will find the biggest test, Quattro, will be when the A* Maths GCSCE recipient starts to do A level Maths.

Here is a OCR Higher Tier paper (the only level at which you can get an A or A*) from 2008. NB the questions at the end of the paper are more difficult usually than those at the beginning. And when you have done that, try the non-calculator paper. Answers and marking scheme are here

It doesn't look that hard, and I failed my Maths 'O' level, a long time ago.

But it still depends on whether they have been taught properly in the first place.

Your earlier post was spot on - it doesn't matter how well some children are taught, there will always be some who are not going to achieve an A. If everyone achieved that score it would become worthless - and rightly so. It should only be the very brightest who achieve the top score. I also agree with you re GCSEs/standard grades versus A levels/highers - they are miles apart, and yet another reason for not mocking those for whom an A is not attainable.

A cookery teacher for Maths, eh Cortina?

A lot of independent schools now do IGCSE Maths because it's more challenging than GCSE.

Not a ringing endorsment for GCSE.

Interested to read comments on teenagers! I knew it wasn't going to be easy but quite scary that a teenager can decide they won't study or revise etc and there isn't much you can do about it.

From what I'm observing the more actively interested you are in DC's studies and if you can encourage a curiosity and a love of learning in DC you stand a better chance of a teenager that is more committed to their studies.

That said I did much better in O'levels than A'levels. I had no real way of going out when I was studying for O'levels - none of my friends had a car for a start! Boys also came on the scene about then .

"It doesn't look that hard, and I failed my Maths 'O' level, a long time ago.

But it still depends on whether they have been taught properly in the first place."

See, that's my point. And you don't have to score highly on the paper to get an A. In the olden days, when I were a lass, you only had to score over 60% to get an A. My information (and do correct me if I am wrong) is that you only have to score over 55% to get an A.

So why can't everyone get one? I think part of it must be down to teaching and peer group pressure, but part of it also must be down to parental expectation, mustn't it?

This thread is all about benchmark expectation. And part of the reason why I don't want the DC's in non-selective schools is because the expectations are simply too low. I don't want my DCs underachieving. Come to that, I don't want anyone's DCs underachieving.

gcses are easy nowadays bear that in mind

When I did o'levels (1979) only a set percentage got an A ie something like the top 5 or 10% scores. It was impossible for everyone to get an A.

How do they award the A or A* today?

If everyone did get an A* for Maths, what would be the point of the exam?

Is no part of achievement down to the individual him / herself, Quattro? Parents , teachers and the dog all play their part ( maybe not the dog) but if little Johnny isn't motivated and / or capable then forget the A*.

I was thrilled for one of my pupils when he got an E at GCSE as no-one thought he'd get even that ( privately). He wasn't short of help and encouragement at home or school and he tried hard but did seriously struggle with things academic.And there are many like him. For the record he now works in a sports centre, doing well.

Some schools and parents do have low expectations but most don't. The results should reflect the intake so have a look at contextual value added scores to judge how well a school is performing. A school which has apparently high A*-C grades can just be coasting and ones lower down may be actually doing a lot more for each child.

Quattro - every comprehensive i know is selective when it comes to actual teaching groups. They set by ability.

In my ds's school, every one in the top two Maths sets got A*/A grades last year. That is the expectation. I think I'm correct in saying that the next set down from that didn't get anything below B. However, the bottom set may well have pupils getting low grades. That will affect the overall statistics. What matters to me is having my kids in a teaching group with children of similar ability. Sounds to me like what you feel you're having to pay for.

Just looking at results for an non selective school where 60% of pupils got A* and A. It seems that if DC's peer group are motivated to achieve academically then DC is likely to do well also. It's peer pressure and school pressure to study that gets these results rather than the parents? (Thinking back to earlier musings about teenagers - 'you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink'.

Our children are going into a very competitive world. Kids in our family are in dead end jobs with no easy route out because they didn't work for GCSEs. If they'd been in a more highly motivated school they would have been much more likely to achieve their academic potential and do better in life.

Interesting that 55% is an A*.