Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
clopper · 30/03/2022 20:30

teencat
Plus - why not let schools put everyone in for L2 functional skills in maths & English and only then go for GCSEs if these are passed?

This ^

Rummikub · 30/03/2022 20:48

Agree with @noblegiraffe

The utc’s I’ve worked with are awful- pupils disengaged and leaving to go else where.

OverTheRubicon · 30/03/2022 20:55

[quote alwayslearning789]@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.[/quote]
'the rest of the world' are not all having to sit public exams at 16. Some are, but a very large number aren't.
It's absolutely possible to be globally competitive without the obsession with tests and measures from primary onwards that is normal in the UK.

Rummikub · 30/03/2022 20:57

There are more than enough qualifications available. We don’t need anymore.

What would make sense is a step up approach.

As pp mentioned get students to take functional skills first.

BTECs are a great qualification. allowing step up from level 1 to level 5. What I would say is to look at more cohesive BTECs or ask schools to perhaps offer BTECs that are equivalent to 2-4 GCSEs.

You can even get into medicine from a BTEC route.

Education should be removed as a political football and a long term plan involving cross party collaboration would be a good start,

Saltyquiche · 30/03/2022 21:07

I agree!

As the parent of a disengaged child I like the idea of 14-18 learning technical subjects. My 14 year old has so much potential but is uninspired and disinterested in most of the school curriculum. GCSEs seem very dry, writing based and high stress. GCSEs also miss vital living skills and relatability to life.

Devilishpyjamas · 30/03/2022 22:26

@pointythings

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.
Yes agree. I don’t think the government has a clue about non-academic options. Always the poor relation. When I looked at T levels they seemed quite narrow as well . They weren’t available near us when my 6-9 son refused to do A levels (see my earlier post about the impact of his school going bootcamp), but I did look at them as an option for a college an hour away by train. But they seemed to want him to know exactly what he wanted to do already when he had no idea. I couldn’t find one he would have wanted to do even If they had been available closer. He is now doing an extended BTEC - taking it all quite seriously and doing very well. It leave his options open for the future as well. I have no idea whether it will even exist in the future or be replaced by BTECs and obsolete in a few years.
TeenPlusCat · 31/03/2022 07:40

In my opinion, the new GCSEs are just too much for the less academic. e.g. The amount of theory in Food Tech, plus the fancy experiments etc.

My DD2 would have been better served by 4 or 5 core GCSEs plus say 3 BTECs but because they have been downgraded at not valued by progress 8 the school has stopped offering them.

Although I agree the coursework side of GCSEs needed reform, the new GCSEs aren't fit for purpose for the less able (which was the whole point of merging O levels with GCSEs). The amount of exams now is ridiculous and turns it into a test of stamina as much as a test of memory or ability.

You can't have an education system that is OK for the top 50% and stuff everyone else. This is what is happening with the reformed GCSEs and T levels.

Badbadbunny · 31/03/2022 08:20

The education system is still set up for the more able/academic, which is exactly what the scrapping of the grammars 50 years ago aimed to avoid. Despite all the "changes" of the past decades, nothing has really changed. Go into a comp today and it's just like a comp of the 80's - same subjects, same content, same exam structure. We've had decades of farting about with modest changes that have created a lot of stress/work but not actually changed anything fundamentally, yet the World (especially workplace) has changed massively. We either need to just leave it alone and accept the weaknesses or revolutionise it with proper change - what we shouldn't do is any more "re arranging deckchairs on the Titanic" with the seemingly constant stream of change for changes sake which doesn't improve things.

WarmWinterSun · 31/03/2022 08:49

I agree it is time for GCSEs to go. Other countries do not put students through this unnecessary stress st such a delicate age, and it forces them to restrict their academic options far too young

MillyMollyMurphy · 31/03/2022 08:58

I don’t want a longer school day. I changed my job so I could have extra time with my children. School is noisy, chaotic and over stimulating for younger children. I liked having my son home so that he could sit and play Lego or read or just so we could chat to each other.

I don’t think having kids that you just put to bed at night is conducive to a positive family life and good mental and emotional health for anyone. Not everyone is an extrovert who wants that busy lifestyle.

Oblomov22 · 31/03/2022 09:14

I disagree with her. I think the GCSE examinations are fine at 16. I don't think most students are disengaged. And I'm not a fan of the extended day.

AlistairCamel · 31/03/2022 09:23

I would be supportive of both proposals.

I would support a broader curriculum for 14-18 year olds, perhaps similar to the IB which many independent schools do already.

On the longer school days, I think it’s a great idea but that additional time should be used for enriching activities such as sports, language, art and activity clubs. I envisage some problems with this. My children’s small infant school would struggle for space to accommodate lots of different clubs although perhaps some clubs offered would be suited to a classroom environment so maybe not such an issue. Secondly the funding needs to be there. Teachers have long days already and can’t possibly cover an extra 7.5 hours a week (presuming clubs ending at 5) without renumeration. Even then where does the time come from? They have lives. But perhaps there is a role for external providers here who currently provide extra curricular clubs (although I have reservations about government money being ploughed into the private sector).

Broadly I agree with your suggestions.

Deereemer · 31/03/2022 10:28

Yet another vainglorious attempt by a non expert non teacher trained tory mp to take a sledgehammer to our fragile education system.

How about funding your party properly funds what we have?

Deereemer · 31/03/2022 10:29

Obviously that should read 'how about your party appropriately funds what we already have'

Buzzinwithbez · 31/03/2022 12:01

I love some of your suggestions. Particularly allowing for interest led education and experience that is relevant to the young person.

With my eldest, we were able to strike a balance by home educating so that their interest (more absolute passion) could be given as much time as they wanted, while jumping through the necessary GCSE hoops to ensure he could access formal education at level 3 in their chosen subject or another should they have changed their mind. Eg..enough GCSEs at a-c to move forward vs high pressure of 9/10/11 of them ...At 17, he's now pursuing a career in that, with full time level 3 college course, plus attendance in two other programs on weekends, and fitting in working within the industry.

As regards a longer school day - I feel like the years of low pressure education with lots of thinking time and time to follow his interests, develop his social skills, attend workshops, family time etc in a wider range of environments than a long school day would offer has contributed to his roundedness and good work ethic, rather than being a hindrance to it. - In contrast, I was burnt out by the end of my GCSE years and he feels it is similar for many of his college peers who took the traditional route.

My concerns would be

  • can this sort of individualisation be achieved on a mass scale, while ensuring that the young people feel that their time is being well spent on good quality learning experiences?
  • A longer school day. I'm not sure you can achieve the sort of flexibility that you're thinking of while thinking in terms of school. - A system of learning centres that a child can access would be more appropriate but probably complete pie in the sky.
If a child is struggling to make connections with their school peers or is a victim of bullying, often out of school activities provide different sets of friendship groups and enhance confidence. Restricting out of school activity by extending the school day could be detrimental to children finding peer groups that they thrive in. It also means they're restricted by what the school is able to offer. If a child excels in sport, music, IT etc. There are lots of experts in those fields that they can access, many giving their time as volunteers. These enthusiasts are not often found teaching in schools.
  • currently, home ed children can, with more difficulty than should be necessary access GCSEs. This new system would need the flexibility to ensure that any sort of requirement for moving on to the next stage of higher education/work is not barred to them. A portfolio based approach will work very well for a lot of these young people if it's inclusive.
Frequently Duke of Edinburgh award, arts and STEM awards, Coder Dojo and so on does form part of their education and certificates that can be included in a portfolio.
Rummikub · 31/03/2022 12:42

Some students preferred exams to teacher assessed grades
How would over inflation or marking lower be achieved?
I’m seeing students with teacher assessed grades and a lot of them felt it unfair.

ConfusedBear · 31/03/2022 12:51

The first thing I would change is that the achievements of the 200,000 who do not pass at grade 4 or above should be celebrated more. They have passed exams and demonstrated functional skills in a wide range of subjects. If they've reached their current potential they should be proud of this.

nosyupnorth · 31/03/2022 14:48

You propose to add an extra hour and a half of teaching hours to each teachers day, plus all of the prep work for those hours and marking what is done in those hours, and yet somehow not add more hours to teachers' days? Are you going to recruit a bevvy of magic pixies to take on that extra workload.

And those poor kids, losing yet more free time to structured and dictated activites. No more hobbies or personal interests for them, only whatever sport and art the school choses to offer and can supply staff for, which will be whatever is cheapest and most common, so presumably all sport is football/rugby for the boys and netball/hockey for the girls and all creative interest is media studies (aka watch a video and talk about it).

Wastwater · 31/03/2022 15:03

Longer school day??? hmmmmmm... no. Maybe at a push if all homework was formally outlawed. Seriously.
But lots of kids currently do specialist activities after school-- elite sport/ drama groups/ orchestra type things that schools would not be able to offer (and that's not just the middle class kids). You can't just throw all of them under the bus.

Not sure about scrapping exams at 16 either. I mean scrap GCSEs in their current form, definitely- they are appalling in terms of content/ curriculum/ actually assessing a student's abilities in anything other than memory and exam technique. For example, Stop making 15 year old boys study poetry on love and relationships!! It's utterly irrelevant. GCSEs just kill any passion or interest for the subject which a pupil might once have had.
But children need motivating and assessing and exams help with this.
A bigger problem to address is the apprenticeship system- or lack of system. There should be more places, recruitment should be better coordinated and advertised.

Badbadbunny · 31/03/2022 15:33

@Rummikub

Some students preferred exams to teacher assessed grades How would over inflation or marking lower be achieved? I’m seeing students with teacher assessed grades and a lot of them felt it unfair.
I think many children felt the teacher assessed grades of the last couple of years were unfair because they were unexpected. If pupils had know at the start of each course that their marks would have been based on progress tests, coursework, homework, classroom interaction, they may well have put more effort into those areas. As it was, they were expecting external tests at the end of the course so many thought that they had plenty of time for last minute revision/cramming etc - that was abruptly taken away from them. Knee jerk reactions to a pandemic aren't really a reliable way to assess the success/failure of teacher assessed grades.
Rummikub · 31/03/2022 15:36

I do agree with you @Badbadbunny

But part of the premise is that teacher assessed grades were a success

gospelsinger · 31/03/2022 17:07

No. Do not force yp to do all the subjects they don't like up to 18. Recipe for big MH problems and lots of disillusionment.

SnackSizeRaisin · 31/03/2022 17:50

Tbe problem with secondary schools is poor discipline leading to huge amounts of time wasted, low aspirations and expectations, and bullying. These are what cause the poor mental health and poor results. Teachers also suffer and burn out
We don't need further dumbing down and making things more appealing. We need an expectation that all students will work hard and behave. Not excuses being made that result in them being trapped in low paid jobs.
Re a 14 to 18 curriculum..we could have an 11 to 16 curriculum currently and don't. Why not?

Look at Michaela community school as an example of how it can be.

daysem · 31/03/2022 18:08

I am complete with you. 16 and early teenage years are not the best ages to assess children. As you suggest most of these exams test memory. The focus on the GSCEs should be on comprehension and critical skills. Perhaps more coursework and project work is the way forward.

pointythings · 31/03/2022 18:10

Look at Michaela community school as an example of how it can be.

No, let's not. Let's look at the hundreds or ordinary schools that don't turn their students into little robots and still manage to turn out good results and rounded young people. Let's look at what works in other countries where there isn't this obsession with uniformity and conformity and where vocational education is valued properly. Let's above all take off the rose tinted spectacles and stop pretending everything was better in a mythical past.