“We were told this summer that it was a “mutant algorithm” that had caused the anguish of the exam fiasco. COVID may have exposed the failings, but in truth, something more profound is going on, and it has been brewing for years: we have a mutant exam system”.
This was the introductory salvo in an open letter to The Times written by a rainbow alliance of school leaders from the maintained and independent sectors and also Lord (Kenneth) Baker, former Secretary of State for Education. The present focus of their ire: GCSE exams.
The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) was first taken in 1988, replacing the CSE (Certificate of Secondary Education) and the more ‘academic’ GCE (General Certificate of Education) O-Level qualifications. Aged 16 with a mop of badly (barely) styled blond hair, I was in the second 1989 cohort that sat new and shiny GCSEs. Mr Woods, our curriculum leader at BGS, was trailblazing one year ahead of me. At that time, these exams represented an end point in the secondary education journey of many young people, something to show for your time in school and a passport into the world of work. Advanced Levels and other post-16 qualifications provided onward access into various specific niches, including university. But the GCSE represented a last word in the school careers of many. Since then, much has changed (and my hair has fallen out).
GCSE subjects have been added and altered and in 1994 the A* grade was brought in to differentiate attainment at the highest level. Modularity increased and controlled (meaning: under exam-like conditions) assessment replaced coursework in various subjects after 2010. Former Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove removed the January series of examinations as an option in most subjects, before going on to fiddle with syllabus content for most subjects, as well as the structure of qualifications and the grading system. With a history of continual modification, you might wonder whether GCSEs have ever been entirely fit for purpose? This is the backcloth against which renewed challenge to GCSEs is now forthcoming – a qualification with a chequered history, a leaving exam for sixteen year-olds surviving now at a time when compulsory education or training extends to at least age eighteen.
Under current GCSE arrangements a third of young people every year do not achieve at least a grade 4 (the ‘standard pass’) in English and / or Maths, thus labelling them as failures, it is argued. Moreover, the newly reformed ‘Govian’ GCSEs are heavily weighted towards subject knowledge and reflect less well than they might on the developing capabilities of young people. Add to this the high stakes of league table positions and Progress 8 metrics and it is not difficult to imagine that some schools might be discouraged from prioritising a well-rounded programme for their children when the pursuit of success in knowledge-rich exams is the prescribed goal. Which provides an opportunity for me to share a favored quote: “Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful”- Dr Samuel Johnson.
And then there is the issue of accuracy and fairness, brought to the bubbling surface of debate by the summer exam fiasco. Uproar over the now defunct Ofqual algorithm and political string-pulling that contributed to its failure, short-lived reliance on mock exam results and then a late swing to adopt Centre Assessed Grades (CAGs) as final outcomes have left us all feeling bruised. However, the public now has a clearer understanding of marking accuracy, an issue that potentially undermines confidence in UK qualifications, and GCSEs are no exception.
Dame Glenys Stacey, acting Head of Ofqual, told the Commons Education Select Committee that GCSE results “are reliable to one grade either way”. So, if a young person achieved a 4 at GCSE, the ‘standard pass’, it could equally have been a 5 or a 3, the latter a ‘fail’, through no fault of the student in question. Ghosts in the machine. According to 2018 Ofqual analyses, a worrying 50 per cent of GCSE results may have been inaccurate in some subjects. Scanning a wider horizon, the probability of being awarded a definitive grade at component and qualification level for GCSE, AS and A Levels can be equally problematic with some arts and humanities subjects experiencing similar issues, the sciences and mathematics less so (see here for example). This information has been in the public realm for a while, but it now grabs more attention with GCSEs becoming the focus of growing dissatisfaction.
So, what next?
Clearly it remains imperative that schools and students do all they can to get themselves into a position where a positive and representative grade is more likely to be achieved than not. Old school rules still apply, and effort invariably pays off, accepting that there is a degree of play in the marking system currently. Additionally, school choice is an important decision in this arena and a quick scan of historic GCSE performance can, for example, be instructive and reassuring.
In the short term I hope that current debates do not distract us from the vital business of avoiding another results debacle, the like of which we experienced recently and are still pulling through. If public exams are going to take place in 2021, we need to hear some reassuring noises about this without delay.
And finally, a broader cross section of teachers and educationalists, in all kinds of schools and settings, eagerly look forward to contributing positively and creatively to the GCSE debate about what a reformed, possibly competency or baccalaureate based, assessment might look like. This issue is not going away any time soon, I suspect.
“Clearly it remains imperative that schools and students do all they can to get themselves into a position where a positive and representative grade is more likely to be achieved than not”.
Be Social!