Skinners' Grammar - Can this be right?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: Skinners' Grammar - Can this be right?
[quote="salsa"]This is a clear example of why a school should not be judged by league tables.
I couldn't agree more, league tables never show the full picture, IMO I find them misleading and take them with a pinch of salt ...
I couldn't agree more, league tables never show the full picture, IMO I find them misleading and take them with a pinch of salt ...
Re: Skinners' Grammar - Can this be right?
It could be related to the maths that some boys took early, but it might also be that they have simply taken the final column from the Skinners table and not all the 4/5-9 results. The 81.2%, 65.3% and 80.2% in the Skinners results table relates to boys who got 7-9. The table in the link is looking at those who got 5 or more (strong pass) or 4 or more (pass).
If you average the three percentages above you get just under 76%, which is likely to be what they did and how they came up with that number. However, from the Skinners results table, only 1 result out of English Lit / Lang and Maths scored below 4.
If I was the head, I would probably want to get in touch with Kentlive and ask them to update their table!
[The final column in the Skinners table just looks at A*/A, so all the subjects are affected in a similar way, including RS]
If you average the three percentages above you get just under 76%, which is likely to be what they did and how they came up with that number. However, from the Skinners results table, only 1 result out of English Lit / Lang and Maths scored below 4.
If I was the head, I would probably want to get in touch with Kentlive and ask them to update their table!
[The final column in the Skinners table just looks at A*/A, so all the subjects are affected in a similar way, including RS]
Re: Skinners' Grammar - Can this be right?
Please read my post - the school messed up by entering students early for Maths.
Schools were told not to do this - they are treated as having NO GCSE in Maths as they did not take the new GCSE.
Schools were told not to do this - they are treated as having NO GCSE in Maths as they did not take the new GCSE.
Re: Skinners' Grammar - Can this be right?
Why do you think the school did this? Do you think they put the children first (if they thought it was beneficial) at the expense of their league table position?Guest55 wrote:Please read my post - the school messed up by entering students early for Maths.
Schools were told not to do this - they are treated as having NO GCSE in Maths as they did not take the new GCSE.
Salsa
Re: Skinners' Grammar - Can this be right?
No, it was foolish for the students too. They now don't have all their GCSEs taken at the same time and it's obvious to unis because they have a letter grade.
Re: Skinners' Grammar - Can this be right?
But why is this detrimental to the students?
Yes it will be obvious to Unis that they took Maths GCSE early - but assuming they got A* how is that negative? If anything doesn't it show that they were able and put in early gives evidence of that.
The only time I think this harms is if they get an A when they could get A* a year later.
I suspect the school did it because the old GCSE was a known quantity. The school could predict success with greater accuracy and perhaps thought it would be easier to get A* under the old system than the new. Yes it hurt their league table position this year and those who don't dig deeper won't realise why, but for the kids themselves, surely it has been a benefit if under the old system they got a top grade and under the new system if harder, might not have got the top grade? On paper, don't these individuals look better than they might have done if they took the exam a year later and did not reach a 9 for example?
Yes it will be obvious to Unis that they took Maths GCSE early - but assuming they got A* how is that negative? If anything doesn't it show that they were able and put in early gives evidence of that.
The only time I think this harms is if they get an A when they could get A* a year later.
I suspect the school did it because the old GCSE was a known quantity. The school could predict success with greater accuracy and perhaps thought it would be easier to get A* under the old system than the new. Yes it hurt their league table position this year and those who don't dig deeper won't realise why, but for the kids themselves, surely it has been a benefit if under the old system they got a top grade and under the new system if harder, might not have got the top grade? On paper, don't these individuals look better than they might have done if they took the exam a year later and did not reach a 9 for example?
Re: Skinners' Grammar - Can this be right?
Universities prefer to see all GCSEs taken at the same time - to take a core subject early is particularly worrying. Schools have been told not to early enter Maths or English.
Re: Skinners' Grammar - Can this be right?
But loads of independent schools enter early for Maths and continue to do so. It only disadvantages students if by entering early they achieve a lower grade than they would if they had taken at the end of Yr11. If they get the A* at the end of Yr10 the grade doesn't disadvantage them and in fact this time round it will be clear from the fact it's not a number but letter, that they were able enough to achieve it a year early.
Isn't it non-selectives who the advice not to enter early is aimed at? In some Comps, weaker students were out in early to give them more chance if scraping a C by having more goes at it, or if they would never get a C, they could get their D or E early and then not have to focus time on maths in Yr 11 but devote the time to areas which might give a grade useful for the school league tables. This doesn't apply to the selectives.
I suspect Skinners have assessed the advice and decided their kids won't be disadvantaged but advantaged by their actions and it wasn't a mistake at all.
Isn't it non-selectives who the advice not to enter early is aimed at? In some Comps, weaker students were out in early to give them more chance if scraping a C by having more goes at it, or if they would never get a C, they could get their D or E early and then not have to focus time on maths in Yr 11 but devote the time to areas which might give a grade useful for the school league tables. This doesn't apply to the selectives.
I suspect Skinners have assessed the advice and decided their kids won't be disadvantaged but advantaged by their actions and it wasn't a mistake at all.
Re: Skinners' Grammar - Can this be right?
It depends on whether a Uni will favour those with L9 over those with an A* especially if the DC is applying for a maths degree.Choco wrote:But why is this detrimental to the students? Yes it will be obvious to Unis that they took Maths GCSE early - but assuming they got A* how is that negative?
Is is safe to assume that a DC with an A* in maths would have gained a L9 a year later?Choco wrote:If anything doesn't it show that they were able and put in early gives evidence of that.
Depends on whether they are up agains other DCs with L9 when applying for Uni.Choco wrote:On paper, don't these individuals look better than they might have done if they took the exam a year later and did not reach a 9 for example?
Re: Skinners' Grammar - Can this be right?
I think Sinners have judged (and probably correctly) that the uni won't discriminate against A*.
What about if because the new GCSE is harder an old GCSE A* might actually only be a 7? These are not precise comparisons are they - a 7 maybe obtained by the same student because it is a new exam and the teachers and unfamiliar with preparing students for it, have fewer past papers etc etc. I think it was a calculated decision designed to advantage the students, not a mistake which will end up costing them.
In the end, Unis are highly unlikely to say 'no' on the basis of a student having an A*. This grade will still be extremely highly regarded. Unis will not be turning away students just because one grade is from the old system - this is paranoia to think they will.
They will offer as always, based on students having a great range of subjects at top grades. An A* will be included within this range and where students don't get an offer, it will be because they are let down by other features of their profile.
Unis may have recommended schools don't do this (prob for the reasons about Comps I mentioned earlier) but won't be able to discriminate against individual candidates who have sat earlier. Those candidates have to go with whatever system their school chooses and it is hardly as if Skinners picked a method which led to poor results.
If anything, Skinners choice to sit them early this time round will advantage any very marginal candidates who scraped the A* but may not have got a 9 or even 8 under the new, untried system. The school were playing it safe and going for the tried and tested method for getting the top grade available while there was still a choice of system.
What about if because the new GCSE is harder an old GCSE A* might actually only be a 7? These are not precise comparisons are they - a 7 maybe obtained by the same student because it is a new exam and the teachers and unfamiliar with preparing students for it, have fewer past papers etc etc. I think it was a calculated decision designed to advantage the students, not a mistake which will end up costing them.
In the end, Unis are highly unlikely to say 'no' on the basis of a student having an A*. This grade will still be extremely highly regarded. Unis will not be turning away students just because one grade is from the old system - this is paranoia to think they will.
They will offer as always, based on students having a great range of subjects at top grades. An A* will be included within this range and where students don't get an offer, it will be because they are let down by other features of their profile.
Unis may have recommended schools don't do this (prob for the reasons about Comps I mentioned earlier) but won't be able to discriminate against individual candidates who have sat earlier. Those candidates have to go with whatever system their school chooses and it is hardly as if Skinners picked a method which led to poor results.
If anything, Skinners choice to sit them early this time round will advantage any very marginal candidates who scraped the A* but may not have got a 9 or even 8 under the new, untried system. The school were playing it safe and going for the tried and tested method for getting the top grade available while there was still a choice of system.