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:
Rummikub · 03/04/2022 13:59

Grading ion the curve makes it harder to compare different cohorts with each other. The curve shows you eg the top ten pc in that year. One year a grade 7 could be 80 pc a previous year could be 70pc.
A few years ago a grade was 24pc.

putryersh · 03/04/2022 15:46

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

MyNameIsJane · 03/04/2022 16:16

@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.

Well said, @noblegiraffe
Blackberrycream · 03/04/2022 16:29

@Rummikub

Grading ion the curve makes it harder to compare different cohorts with each other. The curve shows you eg the top ten pc in that year. One year a grade 7 could be 80 pc a previous year could be 70pc. A few years ago a grade was 24pc.
Some years the exam might be easier. A curve used in a small population is unreliable ( as when applied to individual schools under the first set of teacher assessed grades). Over larger populations it is the most reliable method .
Rummikub · 03/04/2022 16:32

Isn’t the curve applied to the whole cohort nationally?
I’m not talking about teacher assessed grades.

Rummikub · 03/04/2022 16:33

I may be being dim but it makes no sense to me.

Rummikub · 03/04/2022 16:35

In a particularly brighter year a clever child may achieve a 6 whereas in a previous year they would’ve been awarded a higher grade.

noblegiraffe · 03/04/2022 16:42

Adjustments are made to grade profiles for “brighter years” using KS2 results (historically) to identify “brighter years” and in future moving to using Y11 national reference tests.

Rummikub · 03/04/2022 16:45

And does that make curve grades better/ fairer/ equitable than a pass mark?

noblegiraffe · 03/04/2022 16:55

Yes, grading on a curve is fairer than a ‘pass mark’.

If you write exams and declare that 40% is the pass mark even though the exams are different every year, then year on year you will get vastly different numbers of pupils passing. A child who would have just passed one year would not pass the next year if the next year’s exam had slightly trickier questions.

It is impossible to write exams of exactly the same difficulty so that the right pupils pass each year.

Badbadbunny · 03/04/2022 16:55

@Blackberrycream

Some years the exam might be easier.

Then make the exams of roughly equivalent/similar standard from year to year.

In professional exams (in my case accountancy), the pass mark is fixed and doesn't change year on year. They try their best to ensure that each year's exam papers are of a similar standard and set questions/marking scheme etc so that a specific percentage is the pass/fail border.

noblegiraffe · 03/04/2022 17:00

Then make the exams of roughly equivalent/similar standard from year to year.

They are supposed to. You can tell by looking at the grade boundaries year on year that they don’t manage it.

Some papers are more difficult than others. It can also be difficult to assess in advance where the particular problems will be (see the famous Hannah’s Sweets maths question that stumped many but shouldn’t have been that bad).

Blackberrycream · 03/04/2022 17:13

@Rummikub

Isn’t the curve applied to the whole cohort nationally? I’m not talking about teacher assessed grades.
Yes. That was my point.
Rummikub · 03/04/2022 18:40

Yes. That was my point.

Yes sorry I misread it

It’s an interesting debate though.

I’m still thinking which is fairer. Was there a time when pass Mark was used? What did grades look like then?

borntobequiet · 03/04/2022 19:20

Writing exam questions is very difficult and often examiners get it wrong. This is why mark schemes evolve from a couple of lines to half a page per question. And this happens in subjects such as Maths and Science.

cecilthehungryspider · 03/04/2022 19:42

If you want to improve schools then they need more money! The biggest impact would be reducing class sizes. More money for TAs who support the children with additional needs. More assessment and support for children with SEND.

I'm not a fan of the extended school day. If that happened my children would have to give up their chosen sport and I'm sure lots of other after school activities would suffer. Now, if there were to be lots of free after school activities on offer for children who aren't already doing something, that would be a really good idea. It all needs money though.

RazzlePuff · 03/04/2022 21:17

The issues with children being left behind is more complex than swapping an exam for a completion certificate (which will be meaningless as children get on the conveyor belt with schools passing them along.). The parents that hate the exams are those whose children don’t do well, & are there are so many reasons children don’t do well which have nothing to do with an exams.

My local education authority is terrible, run by children-hating, barely educated idiots. Scrapping gcses will give them an easier way to fail our community.
I appreciate the effort, but “scrapping gcse” is a desperate & easy strategy grasping for votes.
FIX the schools, teachers & Support for dyslexia, adhd, etc

VerbenaVerveine · 03/04/2022 23:33

@noblegiraffe

Hi Flick,

I just read your 4-18 education report and have some concerns.

Re the extended school day: You admit that it is unlikely that the government would fund this, and in fact we know that they have already refused to fund this as it was part of Sir Kevan Collins' covid-catch up proposal that was rejected by your government causing him to resign in disgust. Your solution is that parents should contribute to costs and justify this with the argument that they are already paying for childcare.

Your proposal is that the extended 9-5 school day should start from Y4. This would presumably continue to age 18, however once pupils are in secondary school, most parents do not pay for wraparound childcare as their children are capable of being at home by themselves. This is even more true now that some parents are working from home. Your suggestion, therefore, involves a majority of parents who do not pay for wraparound childcare now being forced to pay for after school childcare in the form of an extended school day 'in order to fit in with their working patterns' that they do not need.

Do you think that this will be acceptable to parents?

Your proposal to extend the school day till 5 in order to incorporate extra curricular activities will severely impact current providers of after school activities. The gymnastics groups, the swimming lessons, the brownies and cubs. Many schools do not have the facilities to offer the wide range of activities offered by specialists, and specialists who generally draw their customers from a wide range of schools would have to consider restricting themselves to, at most a handful of schools, reducing the number of children who can access their offer. Would we get the Olympic rower trained if they are stuck at their school till 5 doing some other activity that their parents are being forced to pay for? Given that the longer school day is assumed as part of some of your other suggestions, I assume there will be no opting out. If it's opt-in, haven't you just come up with 'after-school club'?

Agree!
user1497207191 · 04/04/2022 10:32

@Tigerteafor3

Education that progresses by age doesn't work now.

I've been saying that for years. We need to break the mindset of always moving up a "year" each year, making choices and taking exams at pre-defined ages, etc. It may suit the majority but massively fails the minority.

We need to lose the "stigma" around being kept back a year and make it more normal and acceptable. For some pupils, something so simple can make the World of difference to get them back on track. I know it's possible at the moment in extreme cases, but you really have to fight for it to happen. My OH missed most of the third year at secondary due to relocation - then started GCSEs at the start of year 4 way behind and never really caught up because ended up in the bottom sets with the disruptive pupils - being allowed to start third year again would have made a massive difference (they tried but gave up because school put up so many barriers!).

knowinglesseveryday · 04/04/2022 11:06

It seems to me that if children in Sweden make excellent progress with a shorter day than we have, it isn't the quantity of education in the uk which is the problem.

user1497207191 · 04/04/2022 11:22

@Wastwater

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.

Yes, our DS was an avid reader UNTIL the GCSE years which sucked all the life out of books for him and he's never read a single book since. It didn't help that he had a crap teacher who "taught" them the books by putting on videos in the lessons and just spent most of the other lessons working through York note revision guides to hammer on about the themes, character types, etc and was "old school" so spent a lot of time teaching about context, history of the author etc which he admitted himself "wasn't relevant for the exams but he liked teaching it anyway". Then all the poetry they had to learn word for word, and the quotations they had to memorise from Shakespeare etc., he ended up hating English when he'd previously loved the subject.

pointythings · 04/04/2022 11:27

The poetry issue doesn't just apply to boys. I think having a section on love and relationships is perfectly OK for boys - in life, they're going to have to engage with these things - but the way poetry is currently done is restrictive and a massive turn-off. Learning stuff of by heart and focusing on regurgitation is guaranteed to turn young people off poetry. It certainly did with both my DDs, who were massively into poetry to the point of writing their own. Fortunately their love of it returned.

I also think the idea of forcing young people to memorise formulas for the sciences is a big fat nonsense. I did my exams in the 80s and we were allowed to use a formulary. Do we really think people working in the sciences have all this in their heads when it's the work of second to look it up and check you've got it right? It is important to know which formula serves which purpose, but memorising its exact contents serves no real life purpose at all.

user1497207191 · 04/04/2022 11:52

I think English Lang & Lit need to be properly separated into two different subjects, taught separately, preferably with Lit made an option rather than compulsory. We need a functional English GCSE that deals with day to day literacy, i.e. comprehension (not of fiction texts but of useful life skills such as understanding instructions, etc), form filling, communication skills, etc. that everyone studies (no fiction etc), and then the "Lit" subject separately for comprehension of fiction/poems, studying literature etc only for those with the interest in that kind of thing. I remember when I was at school, the "English" lessons were dominated with poetry, fiction, comprehension on fiction, etc., and "real life" things like letter writing and understanding real life things like recipes/instructions, etc got maybe one lesson per year! It was all far too heavily skewed towards poetry and literature.

user1497207191 · 04/04/2022 11:55

Yes, I agree about learning of formula for Maths and sciences. I could never understand why you had to learn some and others were provided at the back of the paper - all seemed very random. And completely pointless, especially in modern times, when you could easily google for formula or, more likely, they'd be readily available in the workplace if relevant.

It's a far more important and useful skill to be able to manipulate formula, derive formula etc., rather than just rote learning.

HowFascinating · 04/04/2022 12:11

Similar with having access to the literary texts in an exam so it's not a pure test of memory. In exam conditions, you can still demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the text without having memorised quotations......