1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice


Discussion in 'Mathematics' started by DM, Aug 21, 2012.

  1. DM

    DM New commenter

    So the new Edexcel Linear 1MA0 grade boundaries are about to be released and will show candidates only needed 26% on the Higher Tier for a grade C.
    Fit for purpose?
  2. Well it's fit if the purpose is to get a negative headline in the Daily Mail!
    Didn't EdExcel have a similar 'pass mark' a few years ago and got ripped apart in the press?
  3. Thats ridiculous if you consider that the grades covered are from E to A*
    Should be
    0-15% U
    16-30% E
    91-100% A*
  4. DM

    DM New commenter

    6.5% for an E.
    Why do people still do Foundation?
  5. Are these official and do you have a link to the foundation ones as well? Would be greatly appreciated.
  6. DM

    DM New commenter

    C 130
    D 106
    E 82
    F 59
    G 36

    A* 164
    A 128
    B 90
    C 52
    D 26
    E 13
  7. Thank you very much for that :)
  8. hammie

    hammie Lead commenter

    should they remove the E grade to try and prevent obviously unsuited candidates taking the higher paper?
  9. adamcreen

    adamcreen Occasional commenter

    The E grade is compensatory, none of the questions are on E grade topics. Maybe it's because students are put in for Higher when they shouldn't be, and they have got something (7%) right!

    If 35% of the questions are D or C, then needing 26% for a C is in the right ballpark.
  10. Thanks for the numbers DM.
    Back to the original question, No not fit for purpose.
    IMO two tier can work:
    Higher - A*/A/B with not holds barred. Real, challenging maths that is not inclusive.
    Foundation C/D - with the idea you either pass or you don't and a culture in schools where you have the opportunity to make it. (Easier said than done in many establishments)
    All those who will be shooting below this can run one of the many functional qualifications on offer.
    I see no point in obtaining an E grade in GCSE maths. I understand for some who were predicted a G its progress (and well done to them) but TBH an E grade (or below) justs says you are inept.
  11. I don't see how you can make these judgements just from a required percentage. It would be very easy to set a difficult examination that most candidates failed. Is that what folks are advocating?To me, that would be not fit for purpose.
  12. Not fit for purpose. Unless the purpose is to persuade <strike>voters</strike> parents that the education system is working when it obviously isn't. I concure that, if an E grade is possible at 6.5%, why bother sitting a Foundation paper. Simply drill kids through a few D grade topics (Or even stuff like trial and improvement / stem & leaf), and they will ALL get at least an E grade. Which, for some of my students, would be an improvement on what they are currently achieving.
    Does a C grade mean the ids are able to access FE/HE? I wouldn't be happy with such innumerate kids going to university. Or into employment that requires even the most basic of number skills.
    As for preparation for A-level... 45% gets you onto most A-level Maths courses. 45% in any A-level papaer might just scrape you an E grade. Does this mean that we will have to make an A grade GCSE the minimum requirement for starting AS Maths?
    Also, if 35% of the questions are at D and C grade, that means you only need to get about 40% of the C grade questions correct (assuming 100% on D grade) to get a C overall. Which is as pathetic as getting a SATs level 5 without needing to answer ANY level 5 questions correctly.
    We need a sensible 2 tier system. A basic numeracy qualification that can be taken at any time from year 7 upwards, covering all the Foundation tier stuff in NUmber, Statistics and some shape. This can be a pass/fail eam and be the one that Goviot wants all the achieve by the age of 18. Then the better kids can do a GCSE in Maths that STARTS with C grade questions in algebra/shape and goes upwards from there, with some properly challenging questions in a Section B needing to be answered to achieve the top two grades.
    cyolba, awaiting results analysis with a lack of glee :)
  13. tony
    The grade boundaries for each paper reflect how the cohort sitting the exam did. The C is not fixed at 26%.
    The issue (for me anyway) is that after 6 years in primary school, 5 years in secondary school you can get the 'accepted standard' of education by scoring 26% in an exam. To me anything that gets handed back with 26% would automatically say I haven't got a clue.
  14. MathsMum5

    MathsMum5 New commenter

    So only 64% for an A grade - this also seems absurdly low. The whole qualification is becoming more and more worthless.
  15. Maths_Mike

    Maths_Mike New commenter

    Not fit for purpose clearly IMO at least and something I have long held a view on.
    Firstly Grade E such not be an option on a higher paper - there is absolutely no justification for it - if you can't get 25% on an exam you have been studying for for two years then you have failed.
    Why do we have a no failure culture - does this really prepare kids for the real world?
    Secondly I agree with above posts that we should have a top tier aimed at A* to B and second tier aimed at B to E and then a lower foundation/numeracy exam.
    Hang on isn't that what we had - a three tier system - call it what you like ie two tier with something else for those that get lower than a d if you like I don't care.
  16. Maths_Mike

    Maths_Mike New commenter

    <font face="Arial" size="2">MPC2 MATHEMATICS UNIT MPC2 75 - 51 46 41 36 31
    How about A Level with a different exam board (AQA) 51/75 68% for an A - How can universities possible hope to sort the wheat from the chaff ? The A* award helps I guess and the fact it is necessary emphasises how easily the other grades can be achieved.
  17. Maths_Mike

    Maths_Mike New commenter

    If the top grade can be achieved (as it is on foundation) with around 65% then I suppose the exams boards can claim that thet have satisfied demands to make the exams harder - but equally someone can do 35% better and get the same grade which is blatently ridiculous.
    Ther two tier is (and I said this before they ever chnaged it - UNFIT for puprose and always will be. We need a return to three tier and we need it NOW!!
  18. Just reading on the AQA site it says "Around half the marks on each paper are targeted at the bottom two grades so less able students should be able to access a number of marks and have a rewarding exam experience". If this is the case for Edexcel, then those grade boundaries are shocking.
    It was the case that they scrapped the intermediate paper because the grade boundaries on the higher paper had become too low (less than 20% for a C with 20% of the assessment being coursework!) Now in order to maintain current pass rates they are having to have a lower and lower grade boundary, the whole system is becoming a bit of a joke! No wonder employers have no confidence in the current system, it is easy to believe it when they say that they take on staff with good qualifiactions and they can't do basic number work.

    Totally agree with Cyolba, how can you think you can succeed at A level if you have got a grade B which you could have got by just answering the D & C grade questions!
  19. Mike
    I see the issue to be with the cohort we are dealing with at the moment in the UK.
    These are the poor kids who have been through the whole edutainment era. They are the ones who have been pampered, told they are winners and often not had any sanctions or expectations.
    When it comes to asking them to be able to obtain high grades they can't as they have had it easy for so long and had a poor education. They were never taught number until they were fluent, there was never the expectation and the facebook/z lists celeb culture is the only thing they strive for.
    The whole idea of multiple resits doesnt help either.
    I will see some of mine tomorrow and to think the C grade they need will get them into primary school teaching will sicken me and is one of the reasons I will not send my kids to state primary schools.
  20. Just looked at the OCR numbers for the Linear paper.
    The scandal is on the Foundation paper:
    110/200 gets a grade C (just 55%). ***!!!!
    I'll have a lot more passes than expected with those boundaries.
    Onto Higher (out of 200):
    A* = 157
    A = 125
    B = 93
    C = 62
    D = 31
    E = 15
    So, you don't even need 80% to get an A*. Wow.
    My results will be better than expected. I'd feared some really tough grade boundaries.

Share This Page