As part of our recent investigations, we’ve been exploring Level 2 qualifications in maths. In particular, we’ve been exploring teachers’ views on GCSE Maths and how they vary.
First, we explored teacher expectations. The most common response from secondary school teachers is that 11-20% of young people will not be able to achieve GCSE Grade 4 by the age of 19, no matter how much support they are given.
The reality on the ground has changed in the last few years and, of course, this has been complicated by GCSE assessment changes during the pandemic years. But, for example, in 2019/20, around 69% of students achieved a grade of 4 or more in maths by 19. By 2022/23, at age 19, this had risen to around 81%, on average, i.e. 19% do not achieve the GCSE Maths grade 4+. But this hides significant variation, with the following percentages by income quartile [view source data]:
Q1 (most affluent quartile): 10% do not achieve by 19
Q2 (upper middle): 15% do not achieve by 19
Q3 (lower middle): 21% do not achieve by 19
Q4 (most deprived quartile): 28% do not achieve by 19
As can be seen from the median line in the above chart, teachers in the aggregate clearly have a pretty accurate picture of the students’ potential to achieve a Grade 4 or higher by 19 in the current system. Interestingly, teachers in the most deprived areas are, if anything, slightly more optimistic than the achievement data would suggest.
However, both in teacher views and the real achievement data, there is a pretty linear relationship between deprivation level and grade 4 achievement rate.
What do people think should be done about this?
We polled teachers through TeacherTapp and found the following:
In the aggregate, nearly 3 in every 5 teachers (57%) think that a more applied or ‘real world’ GCSE maths would help more students achieve a Grade 4.
The least optimistic teachers when it comes to young people’s ability to reach Grade 4 by 19 (those in the most deprived schools) are also the most in favour of this more applied GCSE. Of the other statements that we polled, the linear relationship between school deprivation level and agreement with the statement was not as clear.
Dr. Laurie Jaques from the UCL Institute of Education contributed to our investigation on this topic. She said “If 40% of Y11 students are not accessing the mathematics required of them at age-16 then maybe there is something wrong with the system rather than students. Alternative pathways might begin in Y10 to enable students to experience purposeful and relevant mathematics that are equivalent to a level 2 qualifications but do not need to lead to level 3 study of mathematics. A level 2 Core Maths qualification that includes data skills relevant to future employment and life needs could serve these students better.”
What are your views on these data and of teachers’ views on what to do in order to help more students achieve a good GCSE grade in maths?
If you would like to contribute your views to this investigation, as Dr. Jacques has done, please do so here.
Comments