GCSE and Alevel exams in England

[SmileEachDay]

Should they go ahead?

Given the wildly fluctuating attendance levels at school at the moment, the continued possibility of whole year groups having to isolate and the very different teaching experience this years Y11 and 13 are having?

YABU - Keep going! Exams! It’ll be fine! Tally ho!
YANBU - Cancel exams and use externally moderated assessment pieces, plus teacher assessment.

Wales currently having this discussion, England isn’t...

@noblegiraffe

Most schools finish their GCSE curriculum in year 10

What?! No they don’t.

My Yr 11 finished her curriculum by the end of year 10.

It's a school that provided good quality online teaching throughout lockdown, so they kept up with where they had planned to be with no detriment to students. They had online exams at year end too, using past exam papers.

Year 11 is a year of consolidation and revision. Lots of practice questions, lots of assessments and filling any gaps.

I thought that was fairly standard? When do the children revise and practice if they're still learning new content in year 11?

When do the children revise and practice if they're still learning new content in year 11?

Throughout Y11. Most courses aim to finish before Easter.

What learning are your kids missing out on earlier in school if they free up the entirety of Y11 to go over old stuff?

I'm genuinely worried for my year 11 DS he's got 'mild' SEN and although very intelligent has difficulty communicating. He works so hard but I've found teaching styles and communication between staff to be so hit and miss throughout his whole school career that I feel next year will be catastrophic for his results either taking exams or not.

My DD missed a place at her first choice uni this year because she was graded by a teacher who had never taught her (maternity leave) Teacher bias is rife.

All these pps saying curriculum is often finished in year 10 Try to remember that our kids missed half of year 10! So even if that’s true (it’s not) your point is irrelevant except for the vanishingly small number of children privileged enough to have had live lessons every day during lockdown.

As per my previous post I believe the examined content should be cut by half.

I disagree with the recent trend of 3 year KS4 as I think KS3 needs three years

It’s not that recent. A grammar school I was teaching in introduced a 3 year KS4 about 15 years ago. I think this is wrong because students don’t get a broad and balanced curriculum.

I know of no school which aims to finish the course before Christmas of Y11. The vast majority aim for Easter of Y11. Many don’t meet that target.

I start my GCSE (Science) at the beginning of Y9. My Y11s are the first cohort to do this since taking this HoF job. It’s pretty easy to finish by Christmas, even giving most spreads two lessons. We were actually tracking ahead of the SOW during the summer term, so switched to revision after a while, given than online teaching was new to us.

Pearson/Edexcel have a 5 year POS for Science, which enables a 3Y KS4.

@PostItJoyWeek do you think (for example) doctors aren’t re-examined on basic biology post-GCSE? Your argument is ahem a little peculiar and out of touch.

Would it really be impossible for exam boards to organise standardised assessments?

Last years unused exam scripts sent out to be used as a “mock” then moderated by teams of markers? Schools could be given a window to complete with tight regulation around not seeing the papers beforehand. Rather than whole centres it could be a demand for a particular list of papers in order to lessen the moderation load.

I’m not sure when you’d do it though - maybe towards the end of the January term?

I know there would be logistical issues, but it would give a solid set of results to predict on, should it be needed.

Would it really be impossible for exam boards to organise standardised assessments?

Nothing is impossible, but would you be trying to achieve by this. What are the advantages and disadvantages? What happens if you do nothing?

And what happens if significant numbers of students and teachers are out of action at the key time?

The bell curve thing is just stupid and was part of the cause of the debacle in the summer (x% got an E last year so the same % have to get am E this year) - it's a nonsense. When I did my GCSEs and A levels there were clear grade boundaries for each subject and you knew what you needed to do to get which grade.

Nothing is impossible, but would you be trying to achieve by this. What are the advantages and disadvantages? What happens if you do nothing?

All good questions. I’d be hoping to achieve an externally moderated grade that could be used should exams need cancelling.

And what happens if significant numbers of students and teachers are out of action at the key time?

That’s why I wondered about a window for completion 🤷🏻‍♀️

[quote NameChange2PostThis]@PostItJoyWeek do you think (for example) doctors aren’t re-examined on basic biology post-GCSE? Your argument is ahem a little peculiar and out of touch.[/quote]
Yes of course people's knowledge is re-examined if they stay in the field.

When you study for the higher course, if you have not learned the lower material then you are going to have a problem. The exams are supposed to be evidence that you are ready for the next level. If the exam results are bollocks that is worse for the children's future than making them take the exams later.

I am surprised anyone finds that to be peculiar and out of touch. You said ahem which I think means you are not saying what you actually mean. This is MN. Spit it out.

@noblegiraffe

When do the children revise and practice if they're still learning new content in year 11?

Throughout Y11. Most courses aim to finish before Easter.

What learning are your kids missing out on earlier in school if they free up the entirety of Y11 to go over old stuff?

Not missing out on anything!

They have great exam results, so clearly not missing out academically. DD is top set in maths, so is spending yr 11 studying for Further Maths
which I understand is a very useful bridge should she choose to take Maths at A-level (reasonably likely). In some subjects where there is coursework, I think in Year 11 putting together the final submissions is also done. Certainly I know there's been more practicals this year in Music and PE than were done in year 10.

I genuinely do struggle to see how you could revise and deepen your knowledge successfully in 10 or 11 subjects if you don't finish the courses until April, with exams starting in May. Presumably that means that some students go directly onto study leave after finishing the curriculum and so get virtually no support at all from the teacher going through any gaps in understanding etc.

mrsm43s

Is this a state school?

I'm hoping for an education reset, we live in hope.
There are far too many degree courses and of course as they exist employers ask for them.
We all go to uni now, getting into thousands of pounds debt.
Taking the pressure off A levels and future investment in Further Ed and alternative assessment seems the way to go.

They have great exam results, so clearly not missing out academically

Generally a three year KS4 means dropping subjects in Y8 and so a narrower curriculum in Y9. They’ll be missing out on an extra year of subjects they don’t take an exam in.

Weren't O-levels and the corresponding A-levels marked using the bell curve method? I seem to remember my first assembly in 6th form college (in the 80s) being told 10% of us would fail, so if we didn't want to be in that 10% to start working straight away.

SmileEachDay last year's papers are being used for A Level and GCSE resits this Autumn so exam boards would need to use new papers. Schools will have access to past year's papers (with them being locked to the public) to use in their own mocks if they want to.
There is a lot of admin that goes into making exams happen in schools so selfishly I hope we get more notice this year, so I don't have to waste months doing all the prep again this year for nothing and then have to spend weeks working out new CAG admin sites and then several weeks doing results again.
Won't hold my breath though!

@noblegiraffe

They have great exam results, so clearly not missing out academically

Generally a three year KS4 means dropping subjects in Y8 and so a narrower curriculum in Y9. They’ll be missing out on an extra year of subjects they don’t take an exam in.

They don't drop subjects in Yr 8. My understanding is that they start to cover GCSE material in all subjects in Yr9, giving the children a good taster of the GCSE content before they do their options. They then go into Yr 10 having already covered some GCSE material in both the subjects they are continuing with, but also in the subjects that they drop. So I'd actually say they have a deeper, broader education across the board, not a lesser one. I think they cover content quicker in Yrs7 & 8 to facilitiate this.

If I were running the country, I'd have required the exam writers to chop up the 2020 and 2021 papers and publish them as unit assessments. These would be sat in exam conditions as and when each class had covered that unit before being sent away to be externally marked. That way, each student would have the opportunity to be assessed on material they'd been taught. Those assessments would be 'banked' and by the summer, the only exams needed would be for units that hadn't been assessed earlier in Y11/Y13. For the Y12s, I'd advocate a similar approach to ensure they had some externally marked grades to inform predictions. Home educated candidates would be able to access the unit assessments too although an independent external invigilator would have to be employed for each unit in order to ensure exam conditions were adhered to.

Students that have repeated periods of isolation may end up not sitting an assessment in a specific unit so I'd base the final grade on percentages, disregarding missing units. My approach would not permit retakes of individual units in order to improve the final grade but may include a magic formula to give additional resilience marks to students whose schools did not offer full days of live teaching during the 14 weeks of lockdown. This would be a way of levelling the playing field a bit.

I've not quite worked out how students who sit no unit assessments will be graded but as I'm not in charge, it probably doesn't matter.

I seriously hope that a solution can be found as soon as possible, at the moment its setting up those is high level covid area's to fail :( my Y11 DD missed 2 weeks of last half term and some of her school friends have missed 4 weeks (of a 6 week term!). Home learning sent home from school is crap! Im home and can support her learning, but that wont be the case for all the kids.

Home learning sent home from school is crap!

This ^^ is the issue. Schools should be providing high quality remote learning, they've had since March to work out how to do this. If they were, there would be far less disadvantage for schools who do have to isolate for a fortnight here and there.

My children's school have provided high quality provision from the first day of lockdown. Being in school is preferable for social reasons, but teachers, who are professionals, should be able to provide high quality remote education, whether that is via online lessons or via paper packs or whatever medium the school thinks is best for their cohort.

Any school who is not providing a full education to their students, using cohort appropriate high quality remote education when necessary is severely letting them down.

Most schools, I am sure, are doing a great job. But we shouldn't take exams away from students because a few schools (across all sectors/geographical areas) are not.

Any school who is not providing a full education to their students, using cohort appropriate high quality remote education when necessary is severely letting them down

This is certainly the ideal. Could you expand on how this can happen for:

Students with no appropriate tech
Students who have nowhere to study
Student who don’t have enough to eat
Students who are young carers
Students who have significant literacy issues
Students who have ADHD
Students who have are not engaged or motivated to learn.
Students with no parental support.

There are other issues, but these are some of the primary barriers with my current KS4.

@PostItJoyWeek

Yes of course people's knowledge is re-examined if they stay in the field.

Well then we agree there is no risk of future bridges falling down because a pupil is awarded say an A at GCSE physics rather than a B.

Of course this cohort will have catching up to do if they wish to continue their studies. But it would be grossly unfair to penalise them based on your false premise.

Hence my saying your argument was ‘peculiar’. I said ‘ahem’ because I am trying to remain polite. As I will continue to attempt.

[quote NameChange2PostThis]@PostItJoyWeek

Yes of course people's knowledge is re-examined if they stay in the field.

Well then we agree there is no risk of future bridges falling down because a pupil is awarded say an A at GCSE physics rather than a B.

Of course this cohort will have catching up to do if they wish to continue their studies. But it would be grossly unfair to penalise them based on your false premise.

Hence my saying your argument was ‘peculiar’. I said ‘ahem’ because I am trying to remain polite. As I will continue to attempt. [/quote]
Of course I mean a 9 rather than a 7 (old school)

I avoided A and B for that reason

My point is that the student needs to learn the material at some point.

We normally know that having a 7,8,9 in chemistry GCSE is an indicator that the student knows the GCSE chemistry syllabus pretty well. Therefore the student can take courses or do work that assumes this knowledge. The next level is designed with this in mind. Any brushing up on the topic will be brushing up not teaching anew.

In 2020 we have broken that expectation. Having a 7,8,9 in chemistry is not an indicator of the student knowing the syllabus pretty well. They could have a 7 on the basis that if their teacher believes they would have been capable of achieving a 7 if they had had normal teaching. We are here debating whether whole swathes of the syllabus should be ignored, so you get a 9 marked on half of the syllabus and the rest is ignored.

I do not think that serves children well.

They will go into courses designed assuming prior knowledge which they will not have. Yes, we can in theory lengthen, say, the A-level or foundation years to catch up but I don't see this being argued for.

What I am seeing is an assumption that somehow during the two years of A-level chemistry they will manage to first teach parts of GCSE chemistry while still managing to get the pupils through the A-level material in time after that. Same for foundation years and first years at uni, they will somehow manage to cram in teaching A-level too.

Why?

Why not let students continue to study and take real exams (or modules as a SE13Mummy suggests) as and when ready?

Thus the exams will continue to have meaning in the world. The students will progress at the right level of knowledge. Thus the chance of them succeeding in life is increased.

I think this fake GCSE process will be damaging to the children who need to know the material and use it in their lives. I feel it is educators / government copping out of making sure the children get the education for real.