To think GCSE are wrong for many kids

It's curious how you only think O levels in the 1980s(?) A levels in the 80's(?) and presumably a degree in the early 90s were the most difficult in history!!

This is simply untrue. O levels were before my time but my Mum went to Grammar school in the 1960s and passed 6 of them with high grades. She was unable to help my eldest with his top set maths GCSE homework a few years ago.

I also didn’t experience the UK education system and I strongly disagree with GCSEs. In my schooling, I was assessed throughout the year in all of my subjects. This gave me plenty of experience in studying for regular tests and in completing coursework and homework. I was graded on these results and had a clear understanding of what I was good at and what I wasn’t good at. This regular assessment is far better aligned with the real world where regular output is valued,
instead of one off high stakes exams. I did well at university and have had a professional career in the UK, so none of this held me back in life. GCSEs should be scrapped.

Exactly - AI means coursework in anything other than practical subjects is ridiculous. Controlled Assessments were also a nightmare to facilitate and hopelessly unfair between different schools. The ease of using AI that’s built into everything (CoPilot, Gemini, etc.) will also make Controlled Assessments impossible to police, unless they’re all writing with pen and paper only. Exams are now the only way to ensure fairness. I’d sooner scrap any kind of assessment at 16 than add in more coursework.

I prefer the structure of GCSEs when I took them which was a mixture of coursework and exams - it does feel like waaaay too many now. Oldest DC sat about 23 papers, I probably sat about 10 or 11 papers (plus oral/listening exams in two languages and music performance) for the same number of GCSEs.

I get why they do it how they do, but I think quite a lot of kids, boys especially, aren't really ready for them. DS is summer born, has ADHD and won't even be 16 when he finishes them - he'll basically be more like a 12 or 13 year old in terms of maturity sitting GCSEs. He's a bright lad but he's just not going to be quite ready so his results won't really show his potential, which is a shame.

Yep. They also used to have Foundation and Higher levels for all GCSEs until Gove, in his infinite wisdom, decided that was not rigorous enough and made every child sit the same exam even if it meant they could only answer 5 questions because the questions need a reading age of 17+ and the only way to get full marks is to write like you’ve done a year of A Levels already.

I would have liked to have seen DT/Technology do the same as Art, product design and the various food exams where the pupils are alloted time off timetable to make a product and have it given a decent percentage of the marks.
As a lot of the portfolio work is done with much more help than it should be.

Of course and all power to your DS.

It's just that sometimes position entrepreneurship as if it were an alternative to getting an education, people like Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Jamie Oliver etc are held up as "this is where you can get without finishing education". In fact it's a misleading example because only a vanishingly small proportion of people manage to achieve this. It's not open to everyone and for the vast majority of people finishing school and getting qualifications under your belt is the most sensible approach and it doesn't preclude you from going on to be an entrepreneur.

Who mentioned dropping out? My DS is dyslexic so will probably struggle to get a string of GCSE’s despite already revising hard in Year 9 off his own back. His challenges have no bearing on his intelligence and his work ethic is off the scale. He will be ok but will have to work harder to get there.

UK has a quite punitive culture - exams are part of that. We are kind of keen on making stuff as difficult as possible and take a morbid pride in it.

Also it’s tough for anybody who has had to do that level of breakdown inducing pressure to have younger generations do less. Embittering.

UK is out of step with everywhere else but you will notice our government is locked into punishing private schools not fixing exams.

What followed 18 year old exams in the system you were in? Choice of leaving education or uni? Interestingly UK education ends up in the same situation at 18 but the GCSEs separate out who gets that “high school education” equivalent.

Yes but these people are outliers: a tiny percentage of the population will go on to be a Richard Branson or Jamie Oliver. A huge proportion of businesses fail.

I'm all for encouraging people to take risks and build businesses but dropping out pre exams and starting businesses without experience or qualifications is a crazy risk.

Hmmm some of our most successful entrepreneurs have SEN of some description. Both Richard Branson and Jamie Oliver spring to mind.

Nope. But given that a grade 4 or equivalent in English and maths are essential to apply to shelf stacking jobs and the like, their main purpose for the majority of kids is a hurdle to get over.

The current situation of schools and colleges having to resource resit classes (yes, they get funding but there's a shortage of esp maths teachers) for exams with an 80%+ failure rate certainly has room for improvement.

That's more or less what I'm saying. Going into vocational training after you've completed a standardised set of exams (post 16) is different from having two parallel sets of standardised exams at 16.

If you decide you want to take an apprenticeship as a plumber at 16 but have five GCSE passes under your belt and then five years later change your mind and decide to apply for university you're in a much better position than someone who has five sub GCSEs (let's call them CSEs). There's parity in the system of academic appraisal up to 16 so it's possible to move forward with academic education at a later date if you choose to, without having to resit the whole shooting match.

That's leaving aside the whole question of the social stigma attached to a sub-class of academic qualifications. I remember how people used to talk about kids who "only did CSEs" as if they were written off for life.

Even if you poorly in your GCSEs, you can still say you "got your GCSEs" and augment them as you need to.

Nothing good will happen before education is removed from the political sphere, decisions are based on evidence rather than ideology and someone is brave enough to make huge changes. I think new labour had some ideas back in the 90s but it caused too much mouth frothing so nothing came of it.

I did all or nothing exams all the way through from O, A level and university. In this age of AI and targets - coursework and assessment will have to be ditched.

I never said they were easy in the 50s, I’m simply saying I can’t comment on old papers of your mothers and you do not in any case know the marking scheme.

You can’t really tell from the questions: GCSE questions on my kids’ papers required much less detailed, less sophisticated answers than they did in my day.

From my parents’ old papers and essays - the standard is more akin to current AS level. My dad’s grasp of Latin at O level was roughly on a par of my son’s standard at A level and he still got an A*.

In the youngster’s state comp school there are a small selection of BTEC options, there isn’t the rule they have to take a language, they can take whatever subjects they like if it fits the timetable and they will try to accommodate everyone’s choices.

Triple science is discussed based on ability.

There is after school, or lunchtime or both options for any subject extra lessons or just homework sessions.

The school/teachers have out everything in place to help all students regardless of ability or accommodations at home to succeed to the best of their abilities.

All the students need to do to exploit all this effort is turn up and want to learn. That bit is up to them.

And yes of course some pupils have circumstances they miss school. These are the exceptions, the vast majority of secondary school pupils are capable of taking the courses and sitting GCSE exams.

People are suggesting more of an 11+ model. Coursework is problematic. When I was at school, some parents did it for their children. When it was controlled assessment in class there was so much pressure on teachers to meet targets they would bend the rules.

Yes I know but they are practical application subjects which can’t be AI-ed

IGCSEs are made slightly easier hence why private schools take them, the grades look good.

Still stands if you keep up with work, homework, topic tests throughout the school year, revise for end of year exams and mocks, GCSEs are not too bad.

Young brains can take in a lot of information.

Obviously if a student hasn’t really engaged or worked for the best part of two school years they are going to come as a bit of a shock. But it would be a complete mockery of any exam system if a pupil could do sweet naff all and waltz out with a set of decent grades. They would mean nothing then.

Is it true that a lot only take five? What do they do during lessons that they are not taking?

I only know one person who took five, someone who missed most of Year 10 due to his mental health.

At DC bog standard comp, most kids were doing 8 or 9 minimum.

I couldn’t agree more with you. I must be a similar vintage to you and remember when GCSEs were first brought in. At the time, they were sold as everyone taking the same exams regardless of ability and every grade from an A to a G, as it was then, was considered to be a pass. The reality, of course, was that only A-C grades were considered pass grades - the equivalent of the old GCE O levels. It did not take long before different tiers - higher and foundation - were introduced to suit different abilities. In the meantime, the syllabi in general were less academically rigorous - more like the old CSEs - than the old O levels, which had the knock-on effect of widening the gap between GCSE and A levels. GCE O levels were meant for the most academic sixteen year olds and grade one at CSE was the equivalent of an O level pass. One size can never fit all and academic exams are simply that - tests for people who are academically gifted. Other people are gifted in other ways and the system should allow for achievement and celebration of their strengths. Basic literacy and numeracy should be tested in whichever way works best for each student.

In conclusion, l think exams are the best way of ensuring that standards are upheld and sixteen is plenty old enough to take basic exams in order to guide a future pathway. I do think, though, that the system needs to be updated to suit as many people as possible.

So they were easy, then they got hard for your generation and then they got easy again. Funny that!

English and maths are the only compulsory ones. A lot of children only take 5. There are also foundation papers in some subjects with less content to learn.

The 50s were a long time ago. In any case you cannot tell the marking scheme from the paper.

I did the last year of o-levels in 1987, and it was a shock to the school when the new GCSEs came in with significantly decreased academic content.

That was intentional as GCSEs were a merging of the old more academic exams - o level - with the less academic CSEs and had to be applicable to everyone.