Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

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

79 replies

Cortina · 03/10/2009 07:27

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.

OP posts:
Morosky · 04/10/2009 15:27

"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"

In my subject you need to get in excess of 95% to get an A, I teach top set year 11 and you are unusual if in that set you are not expected to get an A. This is the case across their GCSE subjects. We teach in the state sector and certainly do not have low expectations.

webwiz · 04/10/2009 15:28

DD2 took the Edexcel linear Maths GCSE this year and it certainly looked more difficult than the OCR one. To get an A* you needed to get above 173/200 (two papers of 100 marks each) ie 86.5%. Not that easy really.

Bruffin GCSEs have grade boundaries -its usually around 90% A, 80% A, 70% B, 60% C etc. So everyone above 90% gets A regardless of how many manage it. The A* is technically just a subdivision of the A showing exceptional performance.

Lilymaid · 04/10/2009 15:31

DS2 (possibly only MNer DC to get less than A*/A!) got 79% for his Maths GCSE (can't remember which board) and got a B.

Original poster
Cortina · 04/10/2009 15:32

Are different exam boards 'easier' and 'harder' then?

In my day our school used the London board for O'levels. Their papers seemed so much easier than my sister's Oxford and Cambridge board O'level papers!

Interestingly no one ever asked you which board papers you'd sat for! An O'level was an O'level and the difference in difficulty between the board questions seemed vast.

OP posts:
violethill · 04/10/2009 15:39

Cortina - I think you're right that it's about the critical mass thing. If you pick a school where, say, 75% of the pupils get their A*-C grades, then you're talking about a majority who are at least reasonably capable and motivated. If it's 40%,you're talking about quite a difference.

HOWEVER as I said, do look behind the headline figures. If you have a bright child who will be top set material, then what matters is the results from those classes. If over the past few years, those classes all achieve A*/A, then you have little to worry about.

If you aren't confident your child is top sets ability, then I think it's more tricky, and that's why some people end up paying.

thepumpkineater · 04/10/2009 15:42

I am absolutely positive it is relatively easy to get an A*/A in any subject at GCSE if you are reasonably bright to start with, and if you do all the coursework, and do everything you are supposed to do.

But you do have to be reasonably bright to start with and not all reasonably bright teenagers do all the right things at the right time. Presumably, depending on the sort of school one goes to, there is more forcing encouragement than at other schools.

Litchick · 04/10/2009 16:24

violet - I'm not sure thst all state schools do set with rigour. There was a thread only days ago asking if setting was important and it was very clear that many schools do not set at all and certainly not flexibly and across the board.
I was astonished. But it might account for the lack of good grades in some schools in some subjects because it must be bloody hard to teach a very mixed ability class.

Paolosgirl · 04/10/2009 16:27

I'm not sure that 'many' schools do not set. All the ones round here do.

Litchick · 04/10/2009 16:38

Well I was only going on the recent thread. I'm sure those concerned posters weren't just making it up.
I do think we have to beware assuming every school does exactly what our own does.
Clearly there are schools which do not, or certainly not enough, and it worries parents.

Quattrocento · 04/10/2009 16:43

DSIL's state school sets for maths, english and science and only those subjects. So I'm not sure that setting is the norm and for the subjects that they do set for, they set from year 10 ...

But my point wasn't really about setting - or only tangentially about setting.

Paolosgirl · 04/10/2009 16:53

Would you want them setting in art? Again, we can only go on our own experiences...

violethill · 04/10/2009 17:41

I wouldn't be happy with a school only setting in core subjects and only from Year 10. I am really surprised some schools don't set - certainly the ones in my area, plus every school I've ever taught in, plus those friends of mine teach in, all set by ability.

It's not right that if you live in the right place you get the better deal.

Litchick · 04/10/2009 17:42

Not particularly - but I'd want them setted in maths, english, science, languages,possibly music.
It just makes sense.
I have twins so I can see at first hand how great it is for both of them that they are set with rigour and flexibility. Different horses for different courses.

Litchick · 04/10/2009 17:44

I agree Violet.
I had simply assumed that all schools did set properly until I read differently on MNet.
I cannot imagine it's a great idea to teach, say, someone who is almost fluent in French with someone just getting to grips with the basics. Not fair on either pupil tbh.

Paolosgirl · 04/10/2009 17:47

You won't get comprehensives setting in all/most subjects from the getgo. Pupils still manage to attain good/excellent grades.

Litchick · 04/10/2009 17:50

Indeed some do. But over 50% leave without even 5GCSES, which does make one wonder whether those pupils might have done a whole heap better if they had been taught at the right speed with a same ability cohort.

violethill · 04/10/2009 17:52

My dcs set from Year 7 in core subjects, and then foundation subjects Year 8/9.And yes, it's perfectly possible to attain high grades. I actually went to a comp which didn;t set at all !! That was in the trendy 70s and would be unthinkable now! However, I still did well and went on to University, at a time when half the country didn't go either!

Litchick · 04/10/2009 17:57

But I don't think it's good enough to say, oh well if you're bright you'll be fine.
What about all the middling kids or less able. Don't they count?
They are the ones who hugely benefit from setting.
Take French. If you don't get the basics in the first years you will never be able to build on it. But if you are allowed to take it slowly to begin with, ensure a student isn't overhwelmed and enjoying it, there is no good reason why a lesser able child shouldn't be able to do well.
What happens though, is that most less able students give up modern languages in state schools and I just don't think that's fair.

And I don't have an axe to grind. I don't use state school and my kids both fall well above average. But that doesn't mean I can't see it from the perspective of others.

Litchick · 04/10/2009 18:01

Another example is Latin. My DCs school is not selective, yet every child learns latin ( in four sets ). The lLatin teacher says as that as long as she is able to let the students pick it up at their own pace, they all get there.
No-one gets bored waiting around for others but more importantly imho the less able are not made to feel pressured or overwhelmed.

violethill · 04/10/2009 18:02

Yes, I agree Litchick - the evidence shows that setting is good for all levels. Which is why most comprehensives these days do it.

GoppingOtter · 04/10/2009 20:00

55 % is NOT an A* thatsbollocks

40% of A levels at selective schools are A grade
50% of A levels at private are a grade

Quattrocento · 04/10/2009 21:11

Well we were talking about GCSE rather than A levels.

I don't have any hard evidence other than the anecdotal evidence of one maths examiner that the A* grade was around 55%, despite googling for - oh a whole 90 seconds.

But I did find this interesting article that shows 1 in 5 are getting A and A* grades at GCSE. They're not hard exams, let's face it.

So why is it such a ridiculous thing to suggest that most children would be capable of getting A* if properly taught and motivated?

Morosky · 04/10/2009 21:20

I do think quite a few schools are moving away from setting for some subjects, especially humanities.

We are trialling it in year 8 and I was the sole voice opposig it. I noticed a similar practice at another very good school last week. I am workig my socks of to ensure that each student is taught at the level they need but it is exhausting and has tripled my prep time. It is driving me mad.

choosyfloosy · 04/10/2009 21:28

I would say jumping from 1 in 5 or 20% getting A/A* now to perhaps 4 in 5 or 80% (is that what you'd consider 'most' QC?) would be a change of incredible proportions.

choosyfloosy · 04/10/2009 21:30

What's the reason for dropping setting Morosky? Is it supposed to increase motivation in the less able? I must say it sounds as if it would be incredibly hard work.