GCSE results 'worst results in decades '

[Tel12]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/apr/24/pupils-in-england-facing-worst-exam-results-in-decades-after-covid-closures-says-study?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
This article highlights the predictions of declining grades in GCSEs this year and for years following, impacting on lifelong prospects. I'm not surprised by the results, just reflects on my own experience. It's really concerning.

I dont think primary is too packed after all many missed a year with few effects

I think this would be quite a contentious claim...

The world and kids have moved on massively since 2020. And prib before. We all need to adapt

This sums it up. As in how teachers and the school system see teenagers. As a generic problem to be dealt with. I well remember that horrible prejudice towards me at school at that age, someone really bright and keen to learn, that you were immediately judged by many teachers to be a juvenile delinquent, and felt hated no matter how hard you tried. It's a crying shame that things have got worse since the 1990s, and far worse in te last ten to fifteen years.

sometimes its about efficiency not the quantity of revision. Tutoring can help in this regard. I know someone who was predicted awful grades and had a bunch of tutors to help him improve (plus he had a sharp shock from being lazy and nonchalant about academics). That being said revising more isn't the worst idea I've ever heard.

I've just been through Y11 (in retrospect GCSE seems way better than Y12) and moved countries in Y9 which was quite jarring in the middle of Covid. Personally I had a good academic social circle which was decently but generally healthily competitive so if you can foster that or just try and set some positive but ambitious goals that works quite well.

Why is the entire education based on a few hours of exams? It's absolutely insane, some will do well and some will crumble even if highly academic.

My DC did 2 French and Spanish for 3 years then didn't take as GCSE as struggled. What a total waste when was struggling in a core subject.

I found it all boring at their age but now love learning about history. But cannot recall anything I learnt and my GCSE papers have never been looked at since the 90s.

@Ubugly ,

‘Why is the entire education based on a few hours of exams? It's absolutely insane, some will do well and some will crumble even if highly academic.’

But the same is true for coursework assessment. Some are far better sprinters, other better marathon runners.

The problem is that you need some kind of objective assessment. You can see the exam grades spike in the Covid years when they were centre or teacher assessed, especially in private schools where parental pressure was insane.

There is an argument for not having GCSEs at all when education is compulsory to 18, but then 6th form entry would be dependent on some form of school assessment.

Ultimately some form of objective assessment has to be made, and exams seem the least bad option. GCSEs are soon forgotten about during the A level and university years.

The types of children who get the best results (Indian, Chinese, African, wealthy white people) left Covid ahead of their peers. So I think the top results will nor change much. If there’s an impact it might be in those kids who receive middling results or might be in care,

@Newbutoldfather education isn't compulsory till 18.
Statutory leaving age is still 16.

I well remember that horrible prejudice towards me at school at that age, someone really bright and keen to learn, that you were immediately judged by many teachers to be a juvenile delinquent, and felt hated no matter how hard you tried.
Why were you immediately judged to be a juvenile delinquent??

@Needmorelego ,

Education is compulsory until 18, but you can leave school. If you do, you have to undertake training on the job.

Why do so many people think the school leaving age is now 18.
It isn't.
Are schools lying and telling people it is.
The statutory leaving age is 16 in all 4 countries of the UK and then in England only there's the vague rule of "education or training" until 18 - but no one does anything if a 16/17 year old "drops out".
16/17 year olds can also technically get a full time job with a bit of training (don't all jobs have training at the beginning?).
I don't know why but it really pisses me off that so many think it's compulsory until 18 because there's 6th Forms/colleges full of bored teens that don't actually want to be there.
Grrr...

@Newbutoldfather getting a job that has some training (option 3) isn't "education" though is it.
And if the teen quits the job no one follows up or cares tbh.

For every student?

That sounds bad tbh

The two tier system, O levels and CSEs, was phased out in the early 1980s, replaced, initially, with the 16+ then GCSEs.

Using separate exam methods platforms according to ability creates a discriminatory system. Obvious Unis will prefer the higher qualification but schools may choose to limit provision to the system that best suits their demographic.

Pre 1980s you would not be considered for A levels without O levels. The curriculums were continuous so if you hadn’t taken the O level it was a struggle to continue in STEM subjects. There were some subjects not offered at O level ( business studies, economics etc) that were easier to take up at A level.

Universities would probably welcome the return of old style O & A levels, it was much easier to identify the more able candidates. Not necessarily fare if you struggled with exams but as mumsnetters are always telling us a clever child will succeed regardless of environment.

I agree that it was a better system but it wasn’t particularly a fare system.

@EasternStandard it should be 6 minimum imho.
There's still loads that can be taught - there just doesn't need an exam and a grade at the end. Just knowledge and experience.
Those that want to do more exams could have the option of doing more.
But those who struggle or simply aren't interested in some subjects shouldn't be forced to study them in such depth and have to sit 3 blimmin exam papers on them. Because that often will take the focus and time off the actual important subjects like Maths and English Language.

I don’t mind so much if people argue for an alternative track if everyone agrees it’s best for that dc, as long as the students who respond well to challenge and many subjects get the higher number.

Even narrowing down to current number wasn’t easy as we had to drop some good subjects

Some dc might be better with fewer but I can’t really say

@EasternStandard some students would definitely do better doing less subjects.

This is the cohort that was encouraged to become screen addicts because of Covid. They were in Year 6 in March 2020 and left to their own “devices” literally. They then had Year 7 disrupted and phones/screens were allowed for years. It is the combo of Covid and unfettered screen access that does this.

There is now a big backlash against giving children iPhones. Year 9 and lower, in particular.

Lots of schools reduce subjects taken for some dc but just allowing students to do what they want at 13/14 won’t result in them being well educated. As a country we need a well educated population who engage in society. Not a load of spoilt dc who do what they want.

DC should be able to read books and literature is a subject that opens doors to many more. It’s very valuable.

It might well be dc aren’t as bright in years to come. Maybe they are not learning effectively and are more interested in phones. Employers ultimately want an educated workforce and will screen via exams passed. I think there should be some assessment reintroduced. However we seem to have teachers who think everyone is a high achiever so external moderation would be key. If we want world class unis we do need a world class education system for the brightest dc. That’s a broad curriculum with robust testing.

@TizerorFizz it wouldn't be about "doing what they want" it should be done in the best interests of the child.
An academic struggling teen does not need to do 8 - 10 subjects that half of which they will massively struggle with - which in turn leads to a dislike in studying or focusing on the wrong thing (ie constant revision and stress over French or geography when they should concentrate on maths).
They can still learn lots. It's just not everything needs an exam at the end of it.
The "brightest" students can still do a dozen GCSEs if they want too.

What we need is a drive via health visitors to inform parents not to give babies/toddlers etc phones/screen time. You see it all the time! They do not develop concentration and they then do not develop literacy skills. Reading books is the foundation of absolutely everything and the Government needs to do more.
And yes, do not even get me started on the vaping! It should be banned, full stop. It is really harmful and it has taken hold all over so quickly. The cost is not just to health, it is also the litter and the batteries.

Very good point. My ds can't wait to get to 6th form, he knows exactly what subjects he wants to do.

DC need a broad education. It just seems in the uk, dc cannot abide the idea of that. Some countries keep more subjects going into post 16 education, eg IB. We are happy with narrow learning and filling up unis with dc who have had a very narrow tick education which continues at uni. One persons “boring” is another persons “interesting” of course and dc cannot choose what curriculum they do.