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:
Rummikub · 31/03/2022 18:14

And look at the finding gap widening between private and state sector

noblegiraffe · 31/03/2022 18:27

That would be this funding gap.

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
Rummikub · 31/03/2022 18:40

Yes that one
I was aware but that graph shocked me

Saltyquiche · 31/03/2022 18:47

I’d like to see a better balance in school, forest school, some non competitive sports, weekly cookery, growing veg and veg,

Buzzinwithbez · 31/03/2022 18:48

@gospelsinger

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.
Yes, I agree. Trying to shoehorn maths and English in, in a relevant way to engage them sounds like something that might work for a much younger child, but a bit patronising for an older one and just result in creating busywork for them to do for the sake of it. If they need maths, they'll be using it anyway!
timeforteaforyouandme · 31/03/2022 20:14

Totally agree with dropping GCSEs.

Demoralising for those struggling - give them a bit longer to mature

Stressful for the high achievers

Can't see the benefits

Rummikub · 31/03/2022 20:20

In countries were there’s mo GCSEs they tend to leave with a pre university / level 3 type qual. How would that work with pupils who are not able to reach that?

Rummikub · 31/03/2022 20:21

Sorry
In countries where there isn’t a gcse type School very at 16..

katepilar · 31/03/2022 20:24

one worry about dropping GSCE - if there is no formal nationwide assessment before age 18, how will university offers be made?

I dont fully understand the UK system but that would have to change I guess. In my home country we have entrance exams for unis, which are generally held in June after you finish secondary school in May. Universities can factor in grades you get in secondary school leaving exam which is similar to IB and /or yearly grades from secondary school.

puffyisgood · 31/03/2022 22:43

I skim read the paper, suppose i just shrugged really. A 20 page report can't begin to scratch the surface of all the issues involved. The scope of the review (covering ages 4-18, with everything, from start/finish date to teaching style to assessment potentially up for grabs) was far too ambitious to get anywhere sensible with the time and resources involved.

A serious review should be funded properly and be really rigorous on the key questions, e.g.:

  1. the objectives of the education system;
  2. how it's currently performing against those objectives (across the board and in individual cases); and
  3. in the light of the above, what are a sensible set of options for reform, all of them subjected to a realistic costing and pros/cons impact assessment.
noblegiraffe · 31/03/2022 23:01

I think another key question is

2b) Do we have the resources to effectively implement this? It's not just about costs, it's about staff. We don't have enough teaching staff to effectively implement the current system. The extensive bursaries and continued failure despite these to meet teacher recruitment targets shows that it isn't a problem you could just buy your way out of.

worriedatthistime · 31/03/2022 23:04

Leavd btechs alone , they are great for many kids not all relish exams
I have to work consistently and work and not sit an exam just on a friday
Longer school day who would do it ? Fine of your providing funds for more stuff
Gcse should go back to being some coursework like they originally were , this gives those not good at exams a chance also
My kids have both done GCSE and just said it was all about memory and exam technique, they never really seemed to enjoy learning
Not all kids are academic so more apprenticeships and jit insisting they all do x amount of gcse's

Sushi7 · 01/04/2022 04:40

Let’s unpick your main points:

  1. No exams
We need exams, especially English and Maths exams. Why? How else would we assess that 15-16yo can write well (reading, writing and critical thinking skills) and do basic maths? With all subjects, you’re being asked to apply the skills and knowledge you’ve gained to questions you’re asked in the exam. Exams promote good work ethnic, independence and resilience. I do agree the GCSEs need to be looked at again and the format changed.
  1. Longer school day
If teens want to do after school activities then they will find time to do it. Forcing them into clubs will make them resent it and ruin the experience for others. We need less lessons and a longer lunch time. Also, many teens enjoy clubs that aren’t connected to the school.
  1. Include English and Maths until 18
Why? If they’ve passed then why should they be forced to do these subjects if they don’t want to? The whole point of sixth form/college/apprenticeships post 16 are to explore subjects you enjoy!
sashh · 01/04/2022 05:38

Don't drop GCSEs but be more flexible about when they can be taken, in the days of O Levels it wasn't unusual to do one or two O Levels early. It also wasn't unusual to set more at VI form.

But the school is measured by how many possess children get at age 16.

There used to be 'consolidation' courses to resit at college, why was this got rid of?

Some children do leave at 16, even if they don't then it is a good benchmark to then specialise later.

Employers and FE colleges understand GCSEs, as do parents.

As well as those who do enter the workforce GCSEs are recognised internationally and are roughly equivalent to a US HSD and gives student options to study in the US or Canada.

Northgirl96 · 01/04/2022 06:10

Forget all this. Fix the mental health crisis and properly fund CAMHS. As a school governor, you really ought to know this already.

Ericaequites · 01/04/2022 06:35

@pointythings- I am an American not fully aware of English lit GSCE requirements. The two novels by Caribbean authors in English seems restrictive. Requiring two books by Caribbean, African, South Asian, Australian Aboriginal, or Māori authors in English would offer a wider range of multicultural perspective. Bureaucrats often make complicated and pointless rules.

allaboutA · 01/04/2022 06:47

My children, now teens are studying in continental Europe. They will have formal testing at 18/19 when they finish school. This testing however the concluding part of what is essentially teacher based assessment for 5 years, where children have to meet a certain standard each year. The types of school however are varied, catering for lots of different types of interest and ability.
The biggest difference is what happens after this stage. Schools are not measured on the results, they are measured on how their pupils progress in following year, after leaving school. Some more technical/work based schools, whose pupils either go straight into work or study subjects such as mechanics and engineering will measure success by the percentage of students finding employment in their chosen field within 3/6 months of leaving for example.
Other, more traditionally academic schools report their success by showing not the percentage of students attending university, but their average marks after the first year in university, so for example, the percentage on track for a first.
Together with this is the fact that to access most university courses, it's the universities themselves that set an exam for entry, not high schools. This exam can be sat by anyone wishing to go, mostly independent of their choice of high school. That means that you could theoretically attend an art school, but also sit an exam to read medicine at university, obviously though the majority applying would have chosen a different school, but there are hardly any formal restrictions to prevent you.

Onionpatch · 01/04/2022 07:03

@puffyisgood all very strong points

Sushi7 · 01/04/2022 07:35

[quote Ericaequites]@pointythings- I am an American not fully aware of English lit GSCE requirements. The two novels by Caribbean authors in English seems restrictive. Requiring two books by Caribbean, African, South Asian, Australian Aboriginal, or Māori authors in English would offer a wider range of multicultural perspective. Bureaucrats often make complicated and pointless rules.[/quote]
East Asian authors should be added to that list too. More female writers as well.

pointythings · 01/04/2022 08:41

You can have more than two, but do bear in mind this is the Dutch curriculum so English as a foreign language. I agree with adding East Asian authors, but overall I think the Dutch way of doing it allows for much wider reading anyway, with a lot of freedom of choice for the student.

Erictheavocado · 01/04/2022 12:40

I am a TA in a primary school. I am paid an hourly rate and earn just over minimum wage. I already 'give' my school several hours of my time every week because they simply cannot afford to pay the extra hours. If the school day is to be extended, where is the money coming from to fund it? I am currently sitting in a room in a school that is over a century old, has not seen a luck of paint for at least 20 years, we have leaking roofs which are causing damage to the already 'blown' flooring, quite apart from the H&S considerations. We have an inefficient heating system that cannot keep the school at a sensible temperature and our corridors which are constructed of wood, have the most wonderful crop of mushrooms you could wish for. Children are missing out on vital support because we do not have the money to employ anyone to do general class support - if you don't have an ECHP, basically tough. We cannot afford to buy in services like behaviour support, our kids miss out on a lot of practical activities because staff are fed up with having to fund it out of their own pockets, knowing they have more chance of winning the lottery than of getting their money back. So again, I ask, where is the money coming from to fund the extra hours and if it can be found by some method why are schools so badly underfunded at the moment?

ghostyslovesheets · 01/04/2022 13:46

Two issues I have:

  1. Raising Participation Age (16-18 year old required to be in full time education ) reduces opportunity for young people not able to access full time provision - there are no maths/English functional skills or GCSE option for people under 19+ now - ditto part time/evening options - but many of the young people I work with are unable to commit to full time - due to EMH issues, parenting, disrupted education / home lives. Further embedding this continues this exclusion - there needs to be an understanding that many young people have struggled to attend compulsory education up to 16 - but at least funding was then available for alternative provision, tutoring or reduced attendance - this is not there at 16+. Many young people do not fit the idea education policy makers have of our 16+'s

Secondly many young people struggle to make informed career choices at 16 - funnelling them into (lets be honest) academic/technical routes at 14 could risk their future plans unless supported by a fully funded, independent careers service staffed by professionally qualified advisers. Schools struggle to meet the requirement for effective careers advice presently - often offering 1 interview in year 11 with an outside agency - with no follow up or further intervention - a National Careers website doesn't replace a national staffed service in all schools and colleges.

MixedClassBaby · 01/04/2022 14:01

@noblegiraffe

Re abolishing GCSEs:

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.

How deeply have you looked into the UTC programme? Did you just like the idea of them? Even Michael Gove admitted that they've been a complete failure. Many of them had to close due to lack of students and terrible exam results. www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/14/technical-colleges-failure-admits-former-education-secretary/

As for a proposal to completely shake-up the entire school system AGAIN, please just leave schools alone for a bit. PLEASE. We only just had a complete shake-up of the entire school system a few years ago with Gove completely rewriting the curriculum and reforming both GCSEs and A-levels. We're crawling out the other side of a pandemic that has left schools devastated and we are trying to pick up the pieces of being effectively abandoned by your government with no funding, no support, with teachers and heads being routinely lambasted in the press, egged on by your party and leader. Headteachers talk about how the relationship between government and schools has completely broken down and is in urgent need of repairing. Lumping a whole new pile of poorly-thought out initiatives on our desks that need to be implemented before the next General Election will not improve this.

If you want to make an easy and quick fix to 16-18 education which will broaden pupils' education, bring back the AS level system that was working perfectly well before your government binned it. A-level students used to take 4 subjects in Y12 and now largely they only take 3.

And stop the proposals to bin well-respected BTECs because your government wants to force students to take T-levels.

We don't have the maths teachers for all pupils per your proposal to take maths till 18. We don't even have the maths teachers to teach pupils maths till 16. Have you read any of the many reports into maths education and the reasons behind why maths isn't already compulsory to 18 in England?

Your party has gutted schools. Underfunded, overworked, seen as the solution for all ills. Lack of funding for social care, SEND, mental health, it has all been pushed onto schools who already couldn't cope with their stated aim of teaching kids maths, English, science.

If you are interested in improving schools, then the solution is not cosy armchair commentary about curriculum reform or longer school days, it's to start campaigning within your government to sort out the mess that they have made of education over the last decade. Ask teachers what they need. Binning GCSEs is not high on the list.

This. This in spades.
SockFluffInTheBath · 01/04/2022 15:37

@Foxyloxy1plus1

It’s infinitely depressing that these people continue to fail to recognise that the people who know best what works, are those actually doing it. Having a keen interest in education and having been a primary school governor, does not qualify anyone to pontificate on new initiatives.

How any teacher remains in the profession is beyond me.

Agreed, and one of the reasons I left (secondary, qualified in 3 shortage subjects).

My immediate objection to a 14-18 curriculum is that at 14 my 2 DC chose their GCSEs and both had their hearts set on technical degrees and careers. They were adamant. A couple of years later one wants to do geography and the other French & German at uni. Where is the mid-point for them to change direction a few years in if there’s no break at 16? Do we seriously expect 14 year olds to choose their life’s direction?

My second objection is that the current system does work for the majority, and with man hours it can work better than it does for the lower achievers. The whole system does not need to be torn down and rebuilt, it simply needs to be fortified- it needs more highly-qualified boots on the ground. You can’t fix this with cuts and a ‘new and improved’ (read: cost-down) mish mash.

orchardgirl4 · 01/04/2022 16:17

Please no, to extended school days. School days are long enough as they are. Family time, in my opinion, is more valuable and precious. Children are only children for such a short time. Let them play. Let them be children. They are already enough.
Yes to ditching GCSEs. Too many exams. Use coursework to evaluate progress.