Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Flick Drummond MP: I don’t believe that GCSEs are the right way to assess our children now they are remaining in education and training until 18

176 replies

JuliaMumsnet · 29/03/2022 11:29

Flick has been the Member of Parliament for Meon Valley since December 2019. She is also a Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Flick has been a school governor at Milton Park Primary School in Portsmouth and has a keen interest in education.

"I don’t believe that GCSEs are the right way to assess our children now they are remaining in education and training until 18. When young people left school at 16 and went into work then I could see the rationale behind having exams at that age but not now. This is something I am passionate about. I fear too many of our children are being left behind by a narrowly focused inflexible exam conveyor belt that tests memory and does not allow children the flexibility to choose to study what will be useful to them in their careers.

As a former lay Ofsted inspector and school governor, I have seen first-hand how many children are disengaged and set up to fail by high stakes GCSE exams, not to mention the disruption and damage to mental wellbeing that comes from something that is now nothing more than a milepost for young people as they move into adulthood.
Wouldn’t it be better to have a 14-18 curriculum?

I have made these points several times now. In summer 2020, I wrote a report on 4-18 education for the One Nation Conservatives along with Cherilyn Mackrory who concentrated on early years. You can read that report here.

And last week I put the reasoning behind my views further during a debate in parliament. You can see my speech here.

The government is not with me at the moment but I am hopeful this will change. Many in education are starting to take the same view as mine. But most importantly, I would like to take the opportunity to hear the views of Mumsnet users.

I have two recommendations. The first is on the extended school day and the second is a 14-18 curriculum without the interruption of GCSEs at 16.

The extended school day is being looked at by the government and many schools are already doing it within existing budgets. It makes sense because the majority of families have both parents working and childcare is expensive. An extended school day is about bringing in those activities which cannot be normally fitted into a school day. Subjects like music, art, drama and various clubs. It is not to say that music, art and drama are not academic subjects but many young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, cannot fit them into a school day, or their family cannot afford after school clubs.

Enriching the curriculum and school day will have a big impact on the breadth of knowledge and engage those who struggle in other lessons. Where it is already in place, teachers do their marking and preparation time during the day and go home to enjoy family time or other activities rather than school work. It is a better use of school buildings too.

The other area that I would like your views on is assessment. Just over 600,000 young people take GCSEs each year and around 200,000 do not pass at Grade 4 and above - a huge number.

I am not against exams or assessment but would it not be better to have a ‘school leaving certificate’ or portfolio, or whatever we want to call it, which would show whether the young person had achieved the standard in either academic, vocational, apprenticeship or a combination of any of them including a transcript of what else they have achieved like the National Citizen Service or the Duke of Edinburgh’s award?

Any diploma or certificate would include English and Maths until 18 but would make sure that the content is relevant to whatever the young person is interested in to engage them. High stakes exams like GCSEs do not give schools and young people these options.

As I said, these ideas are gaining traction. There are five commissions in the same vein, three have been published - the House of Lords Commission, the Independent Assessment Commission funded by the NEU and the Times Commission - and there are more to come.
Each will come from a different approach and I am sure that we will not all agree with every recommendation but I think one of the areas that we can all agree on is that we need a broad, knowledge-based education system that sets up a life-long love of learning and gives the skills that will help young people tackle whatever is thrown in their way.

It should be a curriculum that engages. I have been impressed by University Technical Colleges (UTCs) which have a 14-18 curriculum that motivates young people who are interested in a more technical education - most go onto read engineering or science at university or go into higher level apprenticeships straight from school. They also have an extended school day until 4.30pm when teachers go home without any work.

The other important point, as the House of Lords and Times commission have found, is that ‘skills gaps and shortages are clearly a major drive of youth unemployment and damage labour market productivity’. The Times Commission’s interim report was very focused on asking employers what they are looking for and they would agree that young people are not coming out of education with life skills that help in the workplace. The Department for Education’s Employers’ Skill Survey’s findings from the CBI and other organisations like the World Economic Forum all point to employers looking for skills like problem solving, communication, self-management, team working, creativity, numeracy and digital skills. These are not soft skills that come at the expense of knowledge. Knowledge is only useful where individuals have the skills to interpret and communicate it.

Lastly, but just as important is the mental health of young people. Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience at Cambridge University, has done a huge amount of research into how teenage brains develop. She says high stakes exams put a huge pressure and stress on teenagers, reducing motivation during a critical time of development. The yearly Children’s Society’s Good Childhood Report raised young people’s mental health as an issue. In 2018, children (aged 15) in the UK had the greatest fear of failure and the lowest life satisfaction in school of children across 24 European countries. The 2021 report found that school, friendships and appearance continue to cause the greatest dissatisfaction in adolescence. And in the Children’s Commissioner’s Big Ask Survey, young people highlighted that high stakes exams or assessment related stress remains a significant concern to them.

It would be great to hear what you think!"

Flick Drummond MP: I don’t believe that GCSEs are the right way to assess our children now they are remaining in education and training until 18
OP posts:
BellatrixOnABadDay · 30/03/2022 15:32

@isittheholidaysyet

Longer school day? It's too bloody long as it is, especially at primary age. Kids come home knackered and ready to have mummy/daddy hugs and crash on the sofa.

I send my kids to school far too early and far too long already. I'm not paying for them to do compulsory after school activities. They do after school activities as they wish and with whom they wish. Not stuck in the bully fest which is school.

Family time is essential, without it kids mental health is wrecked.

As for the getting rid of GCSEs thing. Might work, but how would it work for home educated children. Many of whom missed out on GCSEs during the pandemic.
And how would it work for those children who struggle with school and their teachers, but do a lot of tutoring/work at home and then are really successful at the exams, to the great surprise of the school?

Agree with all of this
jkrfan · 30/03/2022 15:35

[quote user1497207191]@parietal

if there is no formal nationwide assessment before age 18, how will university offers be made?

I thought Unis worked on predicted A level grades? So basically, teacher assessment.[/quote]
I would prefer applications for University to be made post-results as I think state schools often underestimate their pupils' ability and too often disadvantage them by doing so in comparison to the private sector.
Covid was an ideal time to change the start of the academic year slightly to allow this.

Predicted A' Level grades are an unfair method but at the moment at least the Universities can see if a candidate has already shown potential from their GCSE (age 16) results.

Legoisthebest · 30/03/2022 15:58

16 year olds CAN still leave school/education at 16 and get a full time job (see attached information from gov.uk). The requirement to do 'part time' education or training is not monitored or followed up if a 16/17 year old doesn't do it.
There is a lot I don't agree with about GCSEs in the current form so I wouldn't have a problem with them being scrapped but there should be some type of leaving certificate taken at 16 for those who do leave into work.

Flick Drummond MP: I don’t believe that GCSEs are the right way to assess our children now they are remaining in education and training until 18
user1497207191 · 30/03/2022 16:01

@jkrfan

Covid was an ideal time to change the start of the academic year slightly to allow this.

What do you mean by "slightly"? At the moment it takes several months between UCAS submission and offers being made. If you can't even start that process until the A level results come out mid August, you're realistically looking to change the start of the Uni academic year back to January, so there'd forever be a mis-match between the academic year in schools and the academic year in universities which simply isn't going to happen is it?

Alternatively, we bring forward A levels by a few months, but that reduces teaching time, so the scope of A levels would need to be reduced.

As we saw last year, when A level results were better than expected, it was total chaos for Uni admission depts to try to cope with so many applicants through clearing, in such a short space of time.

jcyclops · 30/03/2022 16:26
  1. I agree with the general principle that GCSE/N5 at 16 are a bit "lost" when education almost universally continues to 18.

  2. One problem not mentioned is that up to 16, a pupil may be studying 10 subjects and only 3-4 subjects continue to 18, and in a significant number of cases the 16-18 education takes place at a different institution. Surely something is needed to recognise a pupil's achievement in the subjects discontinued.

  3. Do not abandon A-levels/N6. Make university choices after results are known.

  4. The system used, for example, in martial arts (kyu/dan levels) and in music (grades 1-8) seems to work very well and maybe could be applied more widely to academic subjects such as maths and science. Students can be tested for the next grade at any age when they and their teacher think it is appropriate. An "average" student might obtain grade 1 at 12, and proceed to grade 5 at 16 and grade 7 at 18, whereas another student might obtain grade 1 at 11, grade 8 at 16 and proceed to study for A-level.

  5. Regarding the longer school day, I am surprised no consideration has been given to a later start in the morning for 14-18 year olds. Countless real world studies have shown it to be beneficial for academic performance and health, and there may also be reduced lateness, bullying and dependence on caffeine. Rather than aim for a 9-5 school day, the target should be 9:30 -5 or even 10-5.

jkrfan · 30/03/2022 16:39

2) One problem not mentioned is that up to 16, a pupil may be studying 10 subjects and only 3-4 subjects continue to 18, and in a significant number of cases the 16-18 education takes place at a different institution. Surely something is needed to recognise a pupil's achievement in the subjects discontinued.

This is an excellent point. I mean I have an age 16 qualification in 10 subjects (Not all in the same year) but only 3 A'Levels.

pointythings · 30/03/2022 16:41

I grew up in the Dutch system where you don't take the equivalent of GCSEs if you're on an A level track - this is assessed at 14/15 years of age. There is potential to move between tracks if you're a late developer - this means you finish your A levels at an older age. I had someone in my year who was 20, nobody batted an eyelid.

However, the Dutch system is academically selective, albeit in a different way, which is an issue.

I'd like to see the end of set books. There's no such thing in the Dutch system, just a list of what needs to be included. For English A level the requirement is: 4 works written before 1900 on of which must be a Shakespeare play, 4 written after 1900, 2 British novels, 2 American novels, 2 novels by an author from the Caribbean writing in English, at least 5 complete poems, one of which must be a sonnet. The total list has to be 15 items comprising a total of minimum 3000 pages, but within that framework, the student can choose. And if a teacher hasn't read the book, they will need to read the book!

Similar rules apply for French, German and Dutch literature A levels. Lang and Lit are not separate subjects so alongside this there are requirements for speaking and writing.

jkrfan · 30/03/2022 16:42

[quote user1497207191]@jkrfan

Covid was an ideal time to change the start of the academic year slightly to allow this.

What do you mean by "slightly"? At the moment it takes several months between UCAS submission and offers being made. If you can't even start that process until the A level results come out mid August, you're realistically looking to change the start of the Uni academic year back to January, so there'd forever be a mis-match between the academic year in schools and the academic year in universities which simply isn't going to happen is it?

Alternatively, we bring forward A levels by a few months, but that reduces teaching time, so the scope of A levels would need to be reduced.

As we saw last year, when A level results were better than expected, it was total chaos for Uni admission depts to try to cope with so many applicants through clearing, in such a short space of time.[/quote]
I don't mind how they do it. I think algorithms make most of the decisions from the UCAS application and very few places read the personal statements.
I am sure it does not have to take months if you do it on a post-qualifications basis as there are then far less unknowns about candidates.

Badbadbunny · 30/03/2022 16:47

@jcyclops

2) One problem not mentioned is that up to 16, a pupil may be studying 10 subjects and only 3-4 subjects continue to 18, and in a significant number of cases the 16-18 education takes place at a different institution. Surely something is needed to recognise a pupil's achievement in the subjects discontinued.

Teacher assessments, internal exams, modular assessments, etc are all alternatives to formal external exams.

noblegiraffe · 30/03/2022 16:52

We saw in the last couple of years how incredibly difficult it is to moderate teacher assessment to any national standard.

jkrfan · 30/03/2022 16:54

Having exams at 16 in 7 or more subjects deserves recognition - who wants to study several languages if you only get recognition for the one you keep studying till 18? The same principle applies to other subjects too.
I think on balance post covid it is best to leave things to settle down and not cause more disruption in education with the exception of the university entrance thing. That needs to change on fairness grounds.
How much extra unnecessary work are teachers having to do in allocating predicted grades?
What about the tendency to downgrade pupils who got As at GCSE, at the start of the A'Level academic year because the teachers wish to be able to show some 'added value' as the year progresses; when the reality, especially in Arts subjects, is a pupil who got an A previously is likely capable of getting A at the next level if they put in the hours?

Onionpatch · 30/03/2022 17:51

I do feel the system works better for those who are set to get GCSE passes and go on to A level, than those who arent set for that.

My son will not being doing gcse but functional skills but there only seems to be this for English and Maths. There doesnt seem to be a science, humanities or arts qualification structured in a similar way, with modules with small exams and different ways of evidencing knowledge and skills. So he cant evidence a broad and balanced education at all. I wish there was a much more cohesive plan for alternative qualifications that could be delivered in school. The BTEC (soon to go) doesnt seem to come in until A level and is specialist.

TeenPlusCat · 30/03/2022 17:59

Onion I quite agree.

pointythings · 30/03/2022 18:02

I agree with Onion too. The UK system is exclusively geared to those who are heading towards academia. It's a waste of talent and skills. The new T levels only make that worse, since you need marks in the 6 - 9 range to access them.

NoNotHimTheOtherOne · 30/03/2022 18:20

Absolutely agree national assessments at 16 are unhelpful. However, if they are to go, A-Levels have to go too: we can't have people finishing school having only been assessed in 3-4 subjects, which in most cases don't include maths & English language.

OverTheRubicon · 30/03/2022 18:28

one worry about dropping GSCE - if there is no formal nationwide assessment before age 18, how will university offers be made? either there would have to be a post a-level offer system (which has been discussed many times & never works) or what? If there is only teacher-assessment, you can be sure there will be massive grade inflation in the private schools wanting to get kids into Oxbridge etc.

Do people in the UK not realise that a huge number of other countries don't have a GCSE equivalent? They work faster and post A level result time, it absolutely can work, as clearing already does. It also does a bit to level the playing field for the young people (disproportionately likely to come from underrepresented backgrounds), who aren't projected by teachers to get good results, have a less all round skillset or who have had a less even path through school.

MrsHamlet · 30/03/2022 18:34

My DS's school actually used the CGP workbooks as their text/exercise books so the entire GCSE courses was based around working backwards from past exam questions (using the answers as per marking scheme), rather than actually exploring the subject with "proper" traditional text books
This isn't a curriculum problem. It's a school problem! It's probably also a funding problem. CGP are very cheap.

Thewindwhispers · 30/03/2022 18:37

@borntobequiet

Education works best when left to teachers in partnership with parents, is minimally interfered with by politicians and is regarded as preparation for life rather than primarily as a preparation for university study. The Conservative reforms towards the end of the last century had many good elements (I’m not a Conservative supporter). They introduced a National Curriculum and clear standards. SATs were useful for tracking pupil progress through Key Stages (though initially the system was unwieldy and unmanageable). However it was undermined by becoming a means of assessing schools rather than pupils. This led to detrimental practices in schools, such as teaching to the test, and unnecessary stress and distress on teachers and students alike. Targets added to these pressures. Reintroduce a streamlined “light touch” National Curriculum applying to all maintained schools and academies. (You will know it’s any good if independents start to use it too - many did so with the better elements of the NC). Replace the multitude of (horrendously expensive) exam boards by one, with input from all sectors - HE, business, industry, all those who have an interest. Reintroduce “detoxified” SATs in Years 3, 6, 9 and 11. The Y11 SAT could be the equivalent of the old school certificate, with scores/grades in core and non-core subjects, alike. These SATs should be used only to track progress, not to assess schools. There are many ways to judge the effectiveness of schools other than by (frequently flawed) data. Assess non-core subjects over all stages by short, scheduled exams and extended work. These exams and tasks could be generated by the exam board at various levels and complexities to enable students of any ability to demonstrate what they can do. They could be scheduled by schools to suit. (This already happens with “on-demand” exams used in vocational subjects in FE.) By all means extend the school day, but make it such that schools are civilised places, with lunch breaks actually long enough to eat and do activities. Give schools enough money to supervise these breaks properly so behaviour isn’t a problem. Make sure that transport is funded so that pupils (for example in rural schools) can access after school activities and get home afterwards. There is sense in some form of assessment at 16. It’s an age where young people are often through the major turmoil of puberty and start thinking about the future. It can help focus young people through those difficult years. But it’s true the current system of GCSEs is hugely expensive, unwieldy, stressful and time consuming.
Exactly this. In particular, the biggest problem facing schools (apart from funding) is that teachers are so overwhelmed by targets and assessments that they have little time left to focus on the individual children. The children who are already ‘on track’ to meet targets are ignored by school, as are the children who are so far behind or so SEN that they will never meet the target, while the teacher’s entire focus is on teaching those children who might meet the target with help. Often as much as 80% of the class isn’t being actively educated - because of the government’s obsession with targets and assessments. We had to give up on the stete system and go private because in 5 yrs of state education our daughter had never been taught anything that she didn’t already know.

Politicians need to trust teachers more and get out of the way. Imagine trying to drive down a road while someone walks in front of the car checking how well you are steering and three other people sit in the car complaining and commenting, and others lay out an obstacle course of road cones then keep rearranging it.

I’m a mum, not a teacher, but it’s clear that the biggest problem with schools, by far, is the targets and assessments that pour down from above.

Scrap GCSEs or don’t, I don’t really care, I want the government to address the massive morale problem in schools and stop raining down constantly changing targets.

Devilishpyjamas · 30/03/2022 18:43

Completely agree about binning GCSEs and a portfolio. I think you have a long way to go to persuade the government though. Attempts by schools to do things differently have been disastrous. My son attended a free school that focussed on creativity - very much in a Sir Ken Robinson model of education. It didn’t survive its second Ofsted and is now a bootcamp academy with an ex military in charge of behaviour. Very sad. Parents chose that school for a reason. Bootcamp high put my youngest off education & he left as soon as he could.

I am not against an extended school day. It’s something youngest’s school did when it was focused on creativity - to allow more time for project work and extras. Bootcamp High stopped all that. If the day is extended it needs proper resourcing and a focus on something other than cramming for exams.

MrsHamlet · 30/03/2022 18:44

Today I have been given yet another pointless admin task to do every lesson. Multiple times a week, I have to do something because "ofsted will like it".
I suspect they might like it more if I wasn't so fucking ground down that I could cry.

Neverwrestlewithapig · 30/03/2022 18:55

Yes! @Thewindwhispers
Flowers @MrsHamlet
I am not against the idea of an extended school day as it could provide opportunities for some children that they otherwise wouldn’t get. However, it would need to be funded and organised properly and not left to teachers to deliver. Without this, it will just be childcare and will drive good teachers out of the profession. I think pp have raised good points about the potential negative affect on SEND pupils and that, for many, it is important to be mixing with people from a a different setting.

MiniDaffodils · 30/03/2022 18:57

I am not in favour of extending the school day. Childhood is short. Let them enjoy being at home and playing.

jkrfan · 30/03/2022 19:04

@noblegiraffe

We saw in the last couple of years how incredibly difficult it is to moderate teacher assessment to any national standard.
This with bells on. At least if you sit an external public examination there is some guarantee of standards being uniformly applied.
alwayslearning789 · 30/03/2022 19:46

@jkrfanjkrfan - agreed with your post below.

"Doing well in O'Levels (GCSE equivalent then) at 16 is what made me realise I did have the potential to go to University. Waiting till 18 to do serious exams is too late "

I also agree with all that @noblegiraffe has said.

We are competing with the rest of the world - I think we need to wake up to that fact.

RagzRebooted · 30/03/2022 20:18

Regarding GCSE's, firstly there is already an unequal set up that needs fixing, as some schools are teaching them over 2 years and some over 3. My sons' school switched back to 2 years after finding the 3 year programme wasn't great, my daughter's school only switched to the 3 year programme a few years ago and seems to be keeping it. Cutting down the years of a broader education is not helpful.

Half (at least!) of what is taught at GCSE level English and Maths is completely pointless for most people. Cut that all out, concentrate on getting more children to a functional standard. The curriculum now is ridiculously complex and contains so much stuff that seems to be added in as filler or purely to test the difference between pupils who can get a 7 and those who get a 9.
Having children sit exams where they go in expecting to only understand half the paper (as with maths) is demoralising and pointless. For most people being able to write, spell, understand written texts and make sense of everyday maths and finances is sufficient. I would fully back scrapping these two GCSEs at minimum and replacing with a more 'functional skills certificate' type system. Could keep literature as an optional, but with more choice of texts. Or just give them a reading hour and better libraries (our schools seem to be losing theirs, yet I spent many happy hours in our school library as a lonely teen).

More in depth English and Maths can be offered as an option for those who really enjoy them. The less 'academic' subjects should stop being GCSEs because it ruins them. Let children study things because they enjoy them! They will still learn useful things. BTECs were great (our school brought them in alongside GCSEs a year before the plans to scrap them emerged) and similar things could be offered. Not everything needs to be assessed in the same way or be equivalent to a GCSE, because mostly GCSEs just get you into A levels/the next stage of education and otherwise have little value in life.

Regarding the school day, I have mixed feelings. Would have to drop homework, if the day was longer I think (should be done anyway) and in rural areas having access to a broad range of extracurriculars would be harder, but it could be done. Things like guides and cadets seem to start around 7pm, so a 5/5:30pm finish would still work. But I would add a long enough lunch break to actually eat as well as relax. Maybe put the extra art/music/sport in the middle of the day to break it up a bit. Start a little later in secondary school.
Teachers would still have a lot less work if the GCSE curriculum was scrapped/overhauled and would probably be quite happy working longer days if it means cutting out a lot of the non-teaching work.