Private school to ditch GCSEs, write own exams

I love to see the very West London attitude 😂

@Themagicchair - I'm also a parent and agree with everything you've written!

However, universities ignore this distinction. Partly because they would have to set different sets of entry requirements and partly because they're frightened of private schools boycotting them. If there is a published requirement for certain GCSEs at a certain grade, and no distinction is made between GCSEs and IGCSEs, it sometimes be the case that private school pupils are accepted with lower standards than state school pupils.

But presumably the same standard as the pupils at international schools who have sat the IGCSEs. I would guess they make up a higher proportion of the intake who have IGCSEs than UK private school pupils (although I haven't looked it up).

Your school sounds amazing @noblegiraffe, can you give us any indication whereabouts it is?

I'm an LU parent, I think ti's a fantastic school, with really excellent teachers and pastoral support, two dc have been very happy there. This has been known about for ages as they had to tell parents with children in the prep school who will be affected a while back (some freaked out). It doesn't affect my dc, they've both done GCSEs now (top grades since you ask) and it won't come into force for ages .... but I agree with whoever upthread said this is not about improving results, it's about broadening children's education.

It makes me laugh to see people saying my child's school is nearby and our results are better. That's great!, but it's a very West London attitude That's not why I chose the school, I liked the vibe, preferred co-ed, I like its bursary scheme which means there's a slightly more mixed cohort than other private schools (again slightly it's not perfect), albeit relative and I would point out this year's GCSE and A level results included several kids from Ukraine who've only just arrived in the UK and been given free places. But I do wonder also why do people care so much? It's literally one school and no one is obliged to send their dc there.

I think it is worth highlight the fact that IGCSE are different to GCSE, iGCSE offers more flexibility on sitting date and subject choices. But it is not necessarily to say one is harder than the other. There are no conclusive answer.

https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/blogs/are-igcses-easier-than-gcses-a-response-from-cambridge-assessment/

Worth nothing that it is not a like for like comparison on GCSE results between private vs state schools because of this though.

But for university admission, I think it is nothing new anyway. Standard wi vary but a lot of UK universities are very international outward looking and the way they compare the equivalent qualifications for GCSE level is petty standard.

Interestingly the private school my ds used to go to only offered IGCSE in the sciences, maths & English as they felt them to be more academically rigorous. Then after the 9-1 reforms they wrote to all parents to say that after their staff had looked at the new qualifications they were going to move across to them as they felt they were now better preparation for A level than IGCSE.

There are quite a lot of schools that already offer GCSE equivalents which are accepted by higher education institutions. These are externally moderated and also externally marked in some cases (eg the performance element of Drama). So I guess there is a process already in place to build on?

I think it's very dangerous to assume there are actually any quality controls in place here. For example, Ofqual stopped accrediting IGCSEs several years ago. They had previously accredited some, while others were explicitly labelled as being unapproved for use in UK maintained schools. However, private schools can use whatever qualifications they want, so they often entered students for the qualifications that weren't accredited. Now none of them are accredited and many private schools continue to use them. While the organisations who offer IGCSEs will have their own quality-assurance processes, which will include external moderation, there is no reason whatsoever to assume they are at the same level as the GCSEs that students in maintained schools have to take.

See interesting blog post from 4 years ago: https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2019/04/04/some-facts-about-international-gcses/.

However, universities ignore this distinction. Partly because they would have to set different sets of entry requirements and partly because they're frightened of private schools boycotting them. If there is a published requirement for certain GCSEs at a certain grade, and no distinction is made between GCSEs and IGCSEs, it sometimes be the case that private school pupils are accepted with lower standards than state school pupils.

Newspaper article from the same year: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2019/03/12/private-school-pupils-take-igcses-have-better-chance-getting/

@explainthistomeplease Surely they won't have released this until they finalize their plans? This is very early days.

There are quite a lot of schools that already offer GCSE equivalents which are accepted by higher education institutions. These are externally moderated and also externally marked in some cases (eg the performance element of Drama). So I guess there is a process already in place to build on?

I may have missed the answer to this question - but how will these new assessments be marked, and more importantly, moderated?

I think part of this does miss choice. If you can’t afford private school and all the secondary schools in your area have the very strict behaviour policies you are stuck with that whether or not it’s a good fit.

clever children with motivated parents will do well every where
We may be looking at the wrong end. It’s is children that struggle to get 4 repeatedly that really need an alternative curriculum and exam.

We also need to look at ensuring that curriculum such as course work change doesn’t disadvantage bright children whose parents may not have the resources or time to help them do really well. the schools in a deprived area may not have the resource to make up the difference.

What user said above is how I feel (parent of DC at a selective private). GCSEs seem to be more about exam technique and volume of memorisation. The DC can do it, and do well, but I just don’t see the value in memorising the tick boxes for English lang or the precise phrasing of a top marks Biology answer.

It’s a real contrast to KS3 where they had space and time to explore tangents, and feels like going back to the repetitive Y6 grind towards SATs. If there was a way to make GCSEs better, I’d be keen to see it. Their school has a few school created courses in creative subjects, which seem much more engaging and enjoyable, though I can’t judge on the rigour.

I do think it needs to be a wider movement, and not just one school going it alone, though. For all the reasons set out in this thread.

NC for this post. I work at a school that's at a very early stage of considering this (not LU). I get quite bored of the constant cynicism on MN and elsewhere about private schools' motives about everything, all the time. The reason we're looking into this has NOTHING to do with being disappointed in our GCSE grades. It has NOTHING to do with wanting to stop our pupils leaving at 16. (A new course would need to be fully accredited, externally moderated, and recognised by universities for us to consider it, so our pupils could still quite happily move at sixth form - just as many international students already do, who haven't done GCSEs). It has everything to do with us not liking the GCSE curriculum very much in many subjects.

I totally get the arguments that say that private schools shouldn't be allowed to do this, because there should be a universal qualification at 16. I also take on the chin the argument that it's a bit arrogant of private schools to think they can write a better curriculum than the rest of the country, and that it's unfair that only those with money can benefit. But I would counter that quite a few state schools are also calling for an end or a change to GCSEs, for similar reasons. And that there are benefits to private schools being outside state control - yes, mainly for their own students and parents, because they can choose the education they want for their children, free of the diktats of government, but also because it allows schools to explore the alternatives, look at what works, have the freedom to try new methods etc, which to some extent can then filter out to the state sector (whether directly, though private/state partnership, or indirectly, through published research papers and resources, or through lobbying of government).

We may or may not go down this route. Other schools may or may not follow. The government may or may not decide to radically reform the age 16 qualifications. But if they do, i imagine they'll be looking quite closely at what schools like LU have done, as well as at courses like MYP. But in the meantime can we not at least have a debate about the merits of change, without just going back to the same old 'private schools are purely self-interested' arguments ALL the time? Some of us are actually pretty interested in pedagogy and teaching and learning approaches and curriculum design in principle, not just because we want to keep the fees rolling in. You know, like state school teachers are.

Surely they can’t tell when the preparation started?

School's special new certificate and Eng Lang, Maths GCSEs achieved in 20xx, A levels taken in 20xx plus 3/4 years? What else will they have been doing in the time in between?

Not particularly.

I won't say it is game the system if the system itself is fault or redundant.

One of main objective of these education institution is to fully realize the students potential. If it thinks there is a better way to prepare the students to product a better grades than the current convention why not?

don't some medical schools, at least, specify that A levels should have been taken in 2 years, not longer?

Isn’t this more to do with them all being sat at the same time though? Surely they can’t tell when the preparation started?

Which in itself might backfire - don't some medical schools, at least, specify that A levels should have been taken in 2 years, not longer? Or have they all dropped that?

Maybe that is why they want to skip GCSE and have more time prep for better A levels than other counterparties?

The other way to look at it is LU has a large portion of students 50%+ achieve the same grade as SPGS.

Ah, I did not know it was automatic. That does definitely make a difference.

The interesting stuff is all stuff you can't necessarily see - I mean, I would be fascinated to see what the breakdown is from 11+ entrants compared to kids from the junior school. And I would love to be able to see the breakdown results for top set kids from comprehensives (I don't think what you can see on the DfE website is enough to really understand what's going on).

I honestly was not interested in grades. I don't think DD would have got radically different results in any school (though she has obviously benefited from a good amount of funding compared to a state school) but I do know she would not have had the same curriculum opportunities and I don't think she would have spent quite so much lesson time going off at tangents on stuff that absolutely wasn't in the curriculum. That is what I wanted for her.

Because they want a better IB or a level grades for university which matters more.

No, you have to look at the percentages of 9s, 8s and 7s individually to get a proper comparison. It's a very different spread of results. Very interesting.