Some interesting news about today's GCSE results....

So there are record results in the GCSE results released today. Why aren't I surprised? Without trying to be cynical, don't the results always seem to be "record"? A blogger can get blase...

But here are some other interesting things about today's results that you may have missed:

Firstly, I'm not sure what this says about our education system, but if a ten-year-old can get a GCSE without doing any revision, it may well suggest that not everything is as impressive as the optimists suggest......

Secondly, End Child Poverty give us a new, and rather interesting, league table. It reveals, surprisingly, that poorer students in London are likely to do better in their exams than those out of London. The reason, of course, is money.

Their table shows that different education authorities boast very different GCSE results when it comes to the disadvantaged. And there are some surprises when it comes to those who have done appallingly.

In the worst areas, fewer than one in four of the poorest students achieve five good GCSEs.  Meanwhile areas where there has been more investment in the education of the poorest students (using initiatives such as the London Challenge) show significantly better results.

Kensington and Chelsea are top of the table, with 59% of the poorest students (those who receive free school meals) achieving five A* to C grades in their GCSEs.  Bottom is Nottinghamshire, where only 22% of children on free school meals achieved five good GCSEs, compared with 59% of students not on free school meals.

Nine of the top ten authorities are in London, where an average of 45% of children in poverty gain five A* to C grades. The average for East Midlands, the worst performing region, is just 29%.

This is fascinating news, and good news for London, whose inner-city teachers often have a torrid time in the classroom. Fascinatingly, the biggest success story of all is Tower Hamlets, second in the league with 55%.

See below for this "league table".

Thirdly, Civitas have released a report suggesting that because some schools are desperate to increase their standing in the government's league tables, they are pushing pupils into poor quality 'vocational' or 'vocationally related' qualifications at GCSE. This, say the think tank, "locks" these pupils into second-class status, which they can can't escape. Interestingly, this ties in with the End Child Poverty league tables, as author Anastasia de Waal says that it is all linked to New Labour's failure to decrease the achievement gap between poorer and better off pupils. She claims that it is the more disadvantaged children who are being "pushed" into these exams.

Using more vocational qualifications, such as BTECs and applied GCSEs in subjects from animal care to performing arts, to boost results is nothing new. Teacher Francis Gilbert points it out in his excellent book, Parent Power, warning prospective parents to check league tables properly and confirm what kinds of exams are being taken. It's good advice. 

The percentage of poorest children gaining five good GCSEs (table from End Child Poverty)
Top 10 local authority percentage on free school meals achieving 5 A* to C

Kensington and Chelsea 59.0
Tower Hamlets 54.5
Rutland 53.3
Kingston upon Thames 53.3
Redbridge 53.3
Hammersmith and Fulham 50.4
Brent 50.4
Bromley 49.5
Westminster 48.4
Newham 48.3

Percentage of poorest children gaining five good GCSEs

Bottom 10 local authority percentage on free school meals achieving 5 A* to C

Warwickshire 24.8
Coventry 23.9
Oxfordshire 23.8
North East Lincolnshire 23.5
Northamptonshire 23.2
Reading 22.4
Bournemouth 22.3
Milton Keynes 22.0
South Gloucestershire 21.9
Nottinghamshire 21.7

Attainment of poorest by Region

Regional percentage on free school meals achieving 5 A* to C

London 44.6
West Midlands 38.2
North West 34.9
North East 33.4
East of England 32.6
South East 31.2
Yorkshire and the Humber 30.0
South West 29.2
East Midlands 28.7

Read our post on which A levels to beware of in case they're seen as too "soft" and also find out about the range of post-GCSE exams. We explain IBs, diplomas, Pre-U's and the rest...

Comments

[Rhamdar]

I wasn't impressed by the other article suggesting that children who have free school meals are labelled as "poor". I recieved free school meals and i achieved 4 A*s and straight As in the 2008 GCSEs, all in top subjects too. I have to agree with Cambridge, too much of the schools budget is wasted on 80 kids running round school filming each other ! Support the core subjects !

[J]

Lisa, dont know about that school, but Magdalen College school in Oxford got 98% A and A* GCSE grades (75% at A*) and 99.6% A levels at A or B this year. They dont teach a single "soft" subject.

[Lisa]

There are indeed some amazing results. According to the Times' own GCSE listing, Gt Sankey High School attained 458% A* and 1529% A&A*. Wow! I wonder how many of those were in Maths?

[SA, GCSE Student]

I have to say, it is slightly frustrating the way this article hints - and other articles over the years have more openly suggested - that the GCSE examinations are getting easier.

Firstly, the ridiculously simple questions that are often exhibited in newspapers or magazines are found only in foundation papers, where a perfect score of 100% will only gain a student a C mark. The examples newspapers chose to highlight would be the easiest on the papers - though this is still a legitimate reason as to why more and more students are passing every year. Contrary to what the media would have us believe, I do not think this is such a bad thing!

Secondly, ( and I promise this comment is drawing to a close), while a large majority of the subjects are stimulating and encourage individual thinking and learning, some syllabuses encourage expect word-for-word memorisation, where a suitable explanation cannot gain full marks if it fails to hit key words. A wave of 'application' questions will ironically only provide marks for questions if the terms 'accurate' and 'precise' meet the textbook definitions and are used in the correct places (and a literal distinction between these word is clear). An intelligent student could easily lose marks this way - and this system doesn't encourage critical thinking at all - rather, taking and accepting everything at face value.

I haven't dwelled on the positive attributes of GCSEs and I feel it is only fair to be thankful for the many skills I have acquired and strengthened through some of my most challenging subjects, as well as the confidence and overwhelming happiness which comes from succeeding at something you could never do before. But when even teachers are moaning about marking schemes and exam bodies its quite disheartening to be bombarded with infomation which 'proves' we have not been working hard.

[R Mason]

Our system is so appalling that almost any freeing of schools to be more responsive to children's needs and aptitudes will improve results but the most important freedom, that would transform education into one that steadily improves performance and the happiness of our children rather than destroys it is the one that all political parties are agreed must never be allowed; the freedom to specialize. Now, with no specialization all children of all abilities and dispositions are taught in the same class by the same teacher, with the same content to the same timetable. This means that the teacher must aim the lesson somewhere below the middle so that the brighter are held back and the dim struggle to keep up. Those in the middle find that he teacher’s horror of alienating and provoking the disruption of the least able and least confident leaves them short changed so that no child gets the education that is right for them.
The sole solution to this is specialization, ie, allowing schools to focus on particular aptitude groups. Fortunately, nature distributes ability conveniently, ie, a few very bright, a few very dim and most distributed neatly in between. Thus, allowing schools to select would result in some schools for the super bright, some for the super dim and most in the middle with little to choose between them but crucially no pupil would be held back neither by the slow, nor intimidated and shamed by the quick. The teacher can teach one class, one level, challenge everyone with no child left behind, efficiently, effectively and enjoyably. New more appropriate tests should be devised. Then, at last we would not be having vast numbers failing KS1, 2, GCSE and A level at the same time as vast numbers sailing through them easily. All could get the education that is right for them. Fears about gaps expanding are unfounded; the opposite would happen. When dim people get an education that is specific to them they do better not worse and the inspiration of having stronger people with them is exaggerated because they are just as likely to be disheartened. This whole scenario is anathema to The Left because they imagine that all differences are environmental and all-in teaching will end them but this is false. 100 years of research has shown us that ability is largely inherited and 50 years of comprehensive education is time enough to demonstrate that it has not brought people together but driven them apart. Comprehensive education has been a collossal waste of money, time and childrens lives. It is time for a revolution, and one of liberation not enslavement.

[Ollie]

Reports of record GCSE results put me in mind of reports of increased tractor production in the Soviet Union.

[D Gregson]

I wouldn't say that the fact the young lad didn't have to revise says anything at all about the difficulty of the exam; rather, it simply reveals his individual learning style. Many students at all levels are able to understand and engage fully with material on first encounter, without any need to obsessively revisit them. I cannot think of any occasion where my own personal learning took the form of 'revision'. I now lecture at one of the UK's top universities. The idea that a last-minute cramming of facts is to be preferred over a comprehensive digestion of information throughout the period of study is a persistently damaging attitude brought to education.

[robsdad]

No revision? That really can't be right. I don't know why, but I'm finding all this rather worrying (although that may have been the point of your post).