To think GCSE are wrong for many kids

When I was at secondary school, there was a BTEC pathway. Invite only. I’m guessing for the lowest achieving. They did GCSE English, maths and I think science…. and then they had a few different level 2 diplomas options to pick between. I’m not sure what they were. But perhaps something like that could be more common in schools?

My mother showed me her old O' level papers from the 1950's. They were not harder. They were actually remarkably similar. Slightly more memorising and slightly less application of knowledge. The were also only pass or fail.

There's a huge range of GCSE courses among which the right options for pretty much every child except this with the most severe learning difficulties exist. The biggest problems are underfunding in schools limiting the range each school can offer, and if you could solve that by having different schools offer different kinds of pathways you'd crash into the thorny issue of how to select at age 11 which kinds of qualifications a child will study for at 16. We used to have a system of CSE exams where less academic children could just show they had basic literacy and numeracy and a bit of general knowledge before preparing for practical and vocational jobs, along with O-Levels that were intended as the first stepping stone in a path towards university. However, with only 10-15% of the population heading for university this system was really unfit or purpose for a huge number of people 'in the middle" who weren't the brainy-academic university types but aspired higher than a practical or vocational career, but would be aiming for midlevel middle-management jobs that didn't really need a degree. For them, the stigma of having CSEs rather than O-Levels made a huge difference throughout their careers and it was difficult for employers to properly compare a school leaver with very high CSE grades with another holding very low O-Level grades, so GCSEs were supposed to solve that problem by uniting the two types under one banner along with the abolition of grammar schools (in all but a few LAs who chose not to). The problem is that schools now mostly focus on getting as many kids as possible through the "O-Level" equivalent pathway where you aim to get a wide range of GCSEs (usually at least 8 and sometimes 11 or 12) at grades of at least 6 and ideally 7-9 with progression to A-Levels being the expected "success". The Idea of instead making a positive choice at age 13/14 to do 5 basic certificates aiming for a maximum of grade 5, along with some practical job-focused courses, which is a pathway that used to be available for non-grammar kids, just doesn't exist or is only granted as a "special arrangement" for those with SEN who can't manage a full academic timetable. It is a good thing to have the qualifications united under thr GCSE banner and it's a good thing to have comprehensive schools so that a child with O-Level/A-Level potential maths skills but no interest or skill at all in essay subjects, or another child whose skills are the other way around, could theoretically thrive. However a comprehensive school cannot fully effectively offer a grammar-school stream, a practical/vocational stream, and flexible pathways for those in the middle, without really good funding, which they don't have.

With adequate funding schools could offer a much wider range of options so that each child can have a pathway that is suited to their skills and will allow them to shine. Instead, with limited resources, the school funnels far too many pupils into the "grammar stream" pathway, with only the bottom set getting the CSE-equivalent couses and those being seen as failures rather than positive choices.

That seems like a total non sequiter. People who decide to go to university in their 20s aren't in school at all.

Why would changing the nature of GCSEs mean 11 year olds are forever losing access to academic courses?

I think due to AI and parental help, it’s time to scrap coursework…. There’s always been cheating with it but it’s getting much worse.

“Very easy”. Don’t be insulting to all those who struggle. And 23+ exams plus coursework is not “easy” by any means.

People also shouldn’t forget that this is the first time most kids have sat anything as intensive as GCSEs. Yes of course they will need to learn how to cope with academic assessments more independent (if that’s the route they want to take), but this is new to them.

We’ve been very involved but in terms of helping them develop the skills and strategies needed for the future - teaching work life balance, reaffirming the importance of good nutrition and sleep, how to work out effectively study plans etc. This is all skill building to help support future resilience

I'd be for making A Levels tougher for this reason (or if not tougher, harder to get A stars), and GCSEs easier/different as they are for everyone.

The point is that they still had access to academic subjects. 11 year olds shouldn’t be told, that’s it you can only do XYZ.

Again, how is what you are describing, putting some kids into vocational qualifications, not already streaming kids?

Unless everyone takes the exams, and everyone does well, it's doing that.

What do you want them to do instead? Employers etc need something to differentiate between applicants and how suitable they are for different roles.

there is still coursework for many GCSEs. PE, Food Tech, DT, Art. Also Cambridge IGCSE English has a coursework component.

But you already do that functionally because some kids don't achieve great, or even good, results.

Isn't that the point, to separate out the "tiers"?

There are all kinds of options for how universities could manage for older people who want to go back into education. One would be to use something like an SAT type test which anyone can add sit if they make the arrangements.

Where I live, universities will often look at what an older student has achieved in their employment, ask them to submit an essay, or sometimes sit a test. Typically late entry students for fairly well so they will tend to give them a chance anyway.

They maybe for you
But lots of kids struggle with them.

GCSEs are very easy though, there are a lot of them, but they’re not the academic challenge the old o’ levels used to be.

But concern about cramming facts is valid, it’s more important to learn how to sift, analyse, discern.

Yes but everyone has to take them regardless of wether they are apllying forca comptetsive univeristy or any university

It's a ridiculous number of exams and a ridiculous emphasis on memorising stuff.

Surely memorisation is the least important skill for the modern world?

Unfortunately our education system is preparing children for a world of work that doesn't exist any more. Then somehow it's young people's fault that they can't find jobs 🤔

If students want to go to competitive universities then they have to be able to cope with GCSEs. Presumably, the reason they want to go to them is because they want the prestige that comes with attending an institution that is competitive to get into.

Yeah that's probably true. My comprehensive was in a pretty middle class area and is now Ofsted outstanding so it was a skewed sample group, admittedly. There probably are too many people going to university.

I still think that having two different classes of exam results creates not just academic stratification but social stratification which is unhelpful and holds kids back unnecessarily.

If kids are absolutely certain at age 16 that they want to do something vocational there are plenty of options for them to do that, via apprenticeships or vocational qualifications. Having a two-tier exam system which clearly marks one set of kids out as educationally less capable but where that lower set doesn't support them in gaining vocational skills achieves nothing except turning the clock back to the 1970s.

Far better to get low GCSE passes, or a mix of GCSE grades, than a set of passes from a class of exam which is acknowledged to be designed for kids of lower academic attainment. With GCSE there is at least the potential to get some high grades. CSE (or an equivalent) consigns kids to the academic dustbin at age 16.

I believe Nat 5s involve an element of continuous assessment, not just exam performance?

I grew up in Easter Europe.
Every day was a new test, exam or questioning at the blackboard.
Everyday you had to be prepared. If you weren't, you got a bad mark and telling off from your parents. Everyday you had to do your homework and study hard.
With this level of work and stress that we were used to, A-levels were nothing (we don't have GCSEs).
I was one of the best students, and I still managed to enjoy myself and wasted a lot of time playing PC games, so it's not that I didn't have a childhood. But there was constant pressure on results and we knew we had to do well at school.

I think the data shows that much higher percentage go to university now than in the 80’s. Did you go to a good comprehensive in a nice area, perhaps a grammar school that had become a comprehensive rather than a secondary modern - if all your peer group went?

I agree there was a stigma about CSE’s for those who were thought to be university candidates. I did O level biology and CSE as a back up as my teacher thought I may not pass the O level. I did, and also got a CSE grade 1 which I never bothered to include on any applications/CV’s etc.

Absolutely agree with you OP. It’s madness how bad it is for our young people.

and the usual points are coming up on the thread:
(1) I had nothing to do with it, my kids did it all themselves — well all kids are different and there are so many kids who need some support given the intensity of the exams and the amount and depth of material now
(2) my parents did nothing to help me when I did it — same. But don’t even try to compare the amount and complexity of content now to GCSEs back then. I reckon my GCSEs were about the level of what kids now do at Y8-9 and maths I think they passed it before that!
(3) they don’t count for anything. Yes they do, if you want to apply for competitive universities they will definitely look at your grades as anything else is just predictions for A level (don’t get me started on that mess of a system either)…

Coursework can’t come back because of online cheating.

The only way to test fairly is to do it under exam conditions.

GCSEs are ok, there is a wide range of grades, if you go into school, keep up with homework, engage with the lessons and do revision for the regular topic tests, mocks and final exams the student will get a grade, what grade might be determined by natural ability or amount of work put in, or both.

There is pressure for a month or two but so what? It’s not like we are preparing students for like after school which has no pressure.

Depending on your age, you may have had a lot less exam than the current kids do. Most subjects don't have coursework. DD had 23 written exams, 1 MFL oral, 2 practical dance exams and 2 practical drama ones.

Totally agree.

My (very dyslexic) daughter did a mix of GCSEs and BTECs at school. The BTECs she did really well in but really struggled to pass the GCSEs. Our local high schools don’t offer BTECs at all now.

She went into college and did a level 3 extended diploma - again, did really well. She’s now at uni doing a degree (which is more along the lines of the BTEC with assignments and assessments and only 1 or 2 exams)

Kids have different ways of learning and GCSEs don’t work for a significant amount of them.