To think GCSE are wrong for many kids

[Mountainsuccess]

I see the level of parental involvement and stress many parents go through when the kids are doing GCSES.

I think if there is so much parental involvement needed surely GCSES are not the right thing for many kids. The number of exams and pressure is completely crazy for a 15/16 year old. Do they actually remember anything after the exams? Or is the UK education system just an exam factory?

The government put so much pressure on schools and schools on teachers, parents, kids. It is just all about results. I feel there is so much micromanaging from the government. Why is this? Why the Government doesn’t trust teachers and parents? Is this ever going to change? Isn’t this supposed to be an advanced country?

Please enlighten me. I am not English but raising kids here.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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*.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.