Do you like the GCSE system?

[YesIReallyDoLikeRootBeer]

As someone who lives in America, I have no experience with GCSE (or A Levels either). Every year on results day I read the posts and it makes me think about whether I would like this system or not. So do I have it right that the result of a test determines your whole grade and ability to move on for A levels? What if a child has a bad or off day? If they had been producing great work all school year but then something just goes wrong on test day, or maybe they are not good at test taking, is any of that taken into consideration? Here my kids do have final exams for each class they take, but that is just a portion of their final grade. All the work they do during the school year is part of the grade too. So if a child has a bad day and doesnt do great on their final exam, it is still possible for them to pass the class. (for anyone who knows the American system I am only talking about regular classes where I am, AP "advanced placement" classes could be different but I dont have personal experience with that). I'm certainly NOT saying our system is better I'm just curious to hear if parents (and kids) like your system. And honestly just to add, I like how after GCSE they get to focus on only 3 or 4 subjects, so I am not saying "our way is the best way" but I do think about my kids. One would have had no problem with GCSEs but my other two sons were not great "test takers" and it would have been a big struggle for them to have a test on one day determine what happens next.

@clary I've looked into this a little. IGCSEs don't count towards the EBacc so, no, the vast majority of private schools don't offer the EBacc!

I think it’s a good idea to study a broad range of subjects, yes. And such a range should be offered (and is).

I think that ebacc is stupid as a measure bc schools then push it and it is deffo not appropriate for all children to take MFL GCSE. MFL is my subject, tho I no longer teach in schools, and I have no wish to teach a student GCSE who hates the subject and wishes they could have chosen DT instead.

Thankfully my school did not force it. My dcs’ scho did tho, leaving students with very few choices and in a lot of cases, a grade 2 or 3 in Spanish or German. At least with maths and English students can see that these GCSEs will be needed going forward.

FWIW all my DC took ebacc subjects. lol. I’m not against that, I am against the force. A school local to me only offers 8 subjects, with compulsory ebacc, so the dc literally have one choice from RE, PE, DT, drama, food, textiles, art, geography or history (whichever they didn’t do for ebacc), CS, music, H&S, dance. I don’t think that’s great tbh.

Ah OK fair enough.

The schools offer those subjects tho which is the important thing.

The EBacc as such is not something "offered" really - as in, it's not any kind of qualification or thing that future employers or universities will look for. It's simply another way of measuring the attainment of schools (and to some extent encouraging them to encourage students ot sit a broad range of GCSEs - I am in favour of that but I think it backfires as I have said) so it really makes no odds. I presume private schools are not measured by the same criteria as state schools anyway - or they can set their own criteria!

I completely agree that forcing a lot of subjects on students can backfire. For what it's worth, both my DC went to the private school where I teach. One did EBacc subjects, the other didn't. But the school does insist on doing MFL. (Maths, 2xEnglish, 3xScience, MFL, and a completely free choice of any other 3.)

Some schools push Ebac and some schools don’t push it, as the data shows and as your anecdotes also show.

The school I teach at does push it. I am a maths teacher, though I studied French to A-level and speak other languages too. (Not that this is about me).

I am really in two minds about this. I think studying MFL to GCSE standard is part of a broad education and I don’t think kids not liking MFL is really a good reason not to give them a broad education. I also think that relatively few children are not capable of passing GCSE MFL. So I do think, on balance, that it is a good thing that schools push MFL and I see Ebac as the best way of measuring that.

I guess you and I just disagree on the extent to which MFL are important for kids to study up to GCSE. I guess you take the view that one can have a broad education and also ditch MFL at age 14, whereas I am not at that place just yet!

The decline of MFL in the U.K. continues apace. It will continue still further under the current government. Do we care?

Hey @Pythag we do agree I promise. Yes I care very much about MFL being studied at school. Honestly I do. I had to take French and was able to take other MFL and ancient L and I am grateful for that. MFL is my subject and I love it and I want everyone else to love it too.

I think an able child should certainly be encouraged to take French or German or Spanish GCSE. And I have encouraged students to take the subject. If DS2 had not had to take Spanish I would certainly have been pushing it to him. Actually we had a good take up in my school - one year IIRC about half the cohort took MFL. That's changed now I gather bc the number of GCSEs taken has drastically reduced sadly.

I think studying MFL to GCSE standard is part of a broad education and I don’t think kids not liking MFL is really a good reason not to give them a broad education. I also think that relatively few children are not capable of passing GCSE MFL.

I agree with your first sentence, well most of it. But I don't agree with the second bit. I have taught many many DC who were not in any way capable of passing GCSE MFL unfortunately. I have had GCSE groups where the best possible grade for many of the students would be a D or an E (old spec). I like the newer spec myself but I do think it is even more challenging and if a student a) is not interested enough to learn and b) does not have some basic ability then they may well not gain a 4. And if they are forced to take it when they wanted to take CS or art then yes, they may well rebel and do badly. In the end that mainly hurts them of course.

And a broad education - actually includes more than is on the ebacc. Things like DT and CS and PE. The trouble is, more schools are asking students to take fewer and fewer GCSEs (like, 7 or 8 rather than 9 or 10) which is really narrowing things. That might be the real issue here.

Exam based systems are all rather out of date.

The whole idea of using pen and paper.

The notion that assessment is impossible because people cheat ignores completely that we can engineer a set up that makes this rather difficult and that teachers etc. can be trusted to administer this.

Funding is the reason we stick with these old ways to but at some point a system that was modern in the last century has to become unsustainable

I think we saw over COVID that the alternative is not necessarily an improvement. However the "do or die" nature of the exams could be mitigated by having an autumn sitting and/or a better method for special consideration. DD2 was foolish enough to attempt to take an A level paper when she was in agony with a spinal issue that the exam board had been pre-notified of. She then spent most of the paper lying on the floor. It pulled her down 3 grades compared with what she would have got if she had signed to say she was not fit to take it so the grade was calculated on her other papers. Had special consideration been to look at those other papers rather than a maximum of something paltry like 3% then things would have looked better. Alternatively if she'd had the option of resitting in the autumn that would also have helped. (resitting in the next summer wasn't possible due to a combination of syllabus changes and the need for major surgery in her gap year). She was lucky that university admissions tutors are aware that things don't always go to plan and can be sensible and sympathetic in looking at the overall picture of previous performance/teacher reports etc.

The issue for MFL for DD... its spelling. She works extremely hard to improve spelling, but scores really low in written MFL as there is so much of it. Bearing in mind, if she's not concentrating hard still at 13, she can spell a word like "Mummy" wrong.

Its not as much of an issue in subjects like history for her. Or vocational ones like I mentioned, like Animal Care (its BTEC at her school)

She loves learning on Duolingo though... I know that's not a replacement for a proper MFL course but its accessible for her.

Dd just did GCSEs and honestly, while we encouraged and supported her, privately I was shocked they are largely a memory test. As an employer, I want skills like taking info and critically analysing it, using info to make decisions. While there’s a bit of analysis, the amount of stuff you memorise feels crazy to me. Geography case studies memorising population numbers and the strength of an Earthquake - if it was just that then maybe okay but it was so so much more. Useful in a pub quiz maybe. memorising English literature texts to quote - what’s the point? We were allowed to take in our anthology books so we could learn the gist but refer to the book. Made much more sense and didn’t disadvantage those struggling with memory.

I am aware of zero schools that expect children to only take 7 GCSEs (this would really surprise me, given progress 8 as a measure). I think this would only apply to the least able in a given school?

At my school we make all students do 10 (or 11 with further maths) but it is a grammar school. They get four options, one of which must be MFL (though they can do two MFL) and one of which must be history or geography (though they can do both).

I think most schools get most students to take 9 GCSEs, which I think it fine for most students and I also think generally allows for sufficient choice.

In terms of not capable of passing GCSE MFL, I look overseas at the number of students capable of learning English. Those overseas students are not more capable than those in the UK! Obviously, the incentives are vastly different: children in the UK know they don’t need MFL to work, a different story if you are from a Netherlands or a Portugal etc. The fact that so many Dutch children can learn English, does make me think it is to do with attitude rather than ability in our own country!

I don’t disagree with any of your points about children not wanting to do MFL and then behaving poorly in lessons etc. I just still don’t think this is a good enough reason for us to abandon pushing MFL on unwilling pupils as a nation! Easy for me to say as maths teacher: the last government’s push of STEM was so successful that kids know they have to behave in maths lessons haha.

In terms of a broad education, while CS, PE and DT are all well and good, I personally do not give them the same academic status that I give MFL, English, maths, sciences and humanities and therefore don’t mind that these are not in the Ebac bucket, with the consequence that schools don’t push them to the same extent. At my school, CS, PE and DT are all optional GCSE choices, which I like for being optional.. Students have to go games lessons the whole school anyway. Is your position that we should elevate the likes of CS and DT to the same status as MFL? Maybe I am old-fashioned, I just think conjugating French verbs has more academic status than DT! But horse for courses and we should make as many kids as possible so the former and let them opt to DT etc!

Anyway, nice to have an interesting discussion with you - so nice to explore people’s different opinions in the field of education….

Welsh GCSE don't seem as bad as English - no idea about Scottish Nat 5 or N.I GCSE.

There is course work - essay in exam condition they can pre for etc but they sit some exams in Y10 - actually throughout 2 years - and summer kids like mine can be very young and sometimes 2 year course are done in 1 year or 18 months. It the number I dislike 12-13. which seems like too many.

I more like AS levels - so Y12 exams being part of A-levels - seem better indicator of final results than teacher predictions.

They also still have BTEC here and many do those instead of GCSE at DC school often ending up with a mix of GCSE and BTECs.

Post 16 is huge change here though - they don't actually have to stay in education post 16 - as the do in England - though most do and there is a variety of courses to go on to - city and guilds, apprenticeships BTECs - AS levels/A-levels.

They are undergoing a huge upheaval soon though - think year after next is last year for current GCSE then its all change again.

I don't think I'd prefer USA system.

I think it's ok as it is. It has changed over the years - I remember my own English lit exam was 100 percent coursework. But I could have had someone help me with that, although I didn't. I did write a speech and give it to a friend who used it for her own exam, resulting in a high grade for her that she wouldn't have got otherwise. My eldest child's Eng Lit 8 years ago was half coursework and the teacher got him to do it again!

It's definitely possible a child could have an off day, and some children panic in exams, but there will come a point where they cannot avoid stressful exams if they continue in education, so I don't know whether that's the answer or not. Maybe having longer to do it but still in exams conditions could help.

@Pythag I don't want to intrude on a private education but there are tables of number of gcses taken. More students take 7 than 10. 24.8% take 8 and 28% take 9. Apparently, the average number is 7.8.

It's probably not school wide policies but schools reacting to the children they have. I know at my sons school there were people taking anything from 5 to 11.

@Pythag sorry to labour the point. But I would be mortified if anyone, even unknown people on the internet, thought I was not in favour of MFL being taken for GCSE. I am, I absolutely am. Anyone who knows me knows (I hope!) how passionate I am about my subject. What I did not enjoy as a classroom teacher was trying to teach KS3 students whose answer was always “why do I need to learn French? I’m never going to France. And anyway everyone speaks English.” So depressing. At least in GCSE I could be sure everyone wanted to be there, whatever their ability level.

So yes I absolutely encourage choosing MFL GCSE and I much prefer and rate the new(ish) GCSE over the old one with all the controlled assessment, which really only tested how helpful your teacher was and how good you were at rote learning.

And I agree we should teach MFL better in the UK. In fact it should be focused on at KS2 and more and better in KS3 so that more students are keen and want to take the GCSE.

So we do agree I think.

I do think tho that the fact that children in mainland Europe grasp English so well is not proof that English DC could learn MFL easily. There is a massive incentive to learn English if it is not your mother tongue – bc of US more than UK tbf – and also many more ways to learn it. It is everywhere – on TV, films, popular culture, social media. No French student is going to turn to their teacher and say “well when I go to the USA everyone will speak French.” As I say, in the UK we should focus on the earlier years and make MFL accessible and engaging. Tho the other issue we have is which MFL? The vote is badly split, again unlike non-English speakers, for whom English is the obvious choice.

To look at numbers of GCSEs sat – yes I do know of schools where some take 7 (maybe the weaker students in the cohort tbf). And many many schools locally to me are moving or have moved to 8 being the max. My old school is an example – eight GCSEs and if you choose triple science, that is one of your options. If the school insisted (as it thankfully doesn’t) on EBacc, that would mean anyone choosing triple science (a good idea surely if you plan science A levels tho I know not essential) would just take 3 x science, 2 x Eng, maths, MFL and hist/geog. That’s it. Nothing else. This is not unusual at all. I think it’s poor – and in fact MFL take up has fallen drastically at the school bc students are coming to the staff and saying sorry miss, I want to do triple and I also want to do PE/CS/DT/music so I can’t do French.

The thing about capable or not of passing intrigues me – do you mean at a GCSE 4 or above? Would you say the same for maths, that all DC are capable get a 4 or above? Or English? (let me introduce you to my DS1 who took it 3 times and got an E each time.) I wonder if teaching in a grammar school gives you a different view. Without any doubt whatsoever, a considerable number (or percentage) of DC do not have the capacity to achieve a 4 at GCSE MFL. I still think they should be able to take it btw, if they are interested. Hence me having taught students who got Es and Ds (or 2s and 3s in new money). Still a grade worth getting IMHO.

In term of status – not something I really consider tbh. If a student wanted to take (say) PE, art, drama and dance as GCSE options, it might be wise to steer them towards something else for at least one option – not least bc of the heavy NEA involved. But that’s not to do with status for me. I love MFL and think it’s important, mind-opening and wonderful. But some would love DT or CS (which btw IS in the ebacc list! It’s a science) in the same way and I think creative subjects have a real value and importance. The focus on the Ebacc, combined with reduction in number of GCSEs sat (to increase grades basically) is a narrowing of the offer to teenagers that I am not happy about.

Wow long post sorry to hijack the thread everyone!

Were school aware? Was she not offered the chance to take her exam in a small and/or to have ear defenders? Terrible if she wasn't offered access arrangements to allow her to do her best.

@Pythag this is the whole issue though... not everyone is academic or wants to be. Looking down on CS, PE and DT is a huge problem.

Have you not just watched any of the Olympics? The coaches, physios and athletes have most likely all got a PE GCSE under their belt, which has helped them excel in a sporting career. Why do you see PE as 'lesser than'?

Why are all our children forced through a system which only truly suits those that are academically focused? Why are the choices for non-academic subjects so limited/restricted? I know a pupil who would excel in both Art and Photography at GCSE level but can only choose to do one or the other. Because?? They need to do history or geography. Why? What's wrong with doing subjects that you're good at? Why be forced to drop a subject you'd enjoy and would pass with flying colours to do a subject you don't enjoy and will get a lower grade for. It makes no sense to me.

Just imagine how miserable academic students would be if they weren't given access to Chemistry, Maths and English literature... and how absurd that would be! But that's EXACTLY what's being done to students who want to follow a more vocational path.

There are children who after 12 YEARS of education have zero qualifications. This can't be right! I spoke to a young girl yesterday who managed 1 GCSE grade 4, the rest were all grade 1 and 2. Where does that leave her? Written off at 16, thinking she's stupid, that's where.

We need way more vocation based subjects. Why can't pupils learn plumbing or beauty at school?

And why do SEND pupils have to struggle through a system that absolutely crucifies them?

Surely schools should be bringing out the best in all students, not just those that are academically minded?

We should be turning out happy, confident young people into the world. Instead we abandon those that 'can't pass a GCSE' and label them as stupid. How does that help?

I've managed people with degrees who have zero common sense and those with no qualifications who have flown with just the slightest of encouragement.

Our school and exam system is all wrong... it should be coursework based and based on courses that are appropriate for all minds... practical and academic.

The argument that there'd be too much cheating for coursework to be considered seems insulting to me. Personally I think the only cheating that's going on is how we're cheating thousands of young people out of a great future because we have an archaic exam system that doesn't meet their needs.

No, it needs scrapping. We need to break down into "modules" like they do in Universities and professional/trade exams. Far too much emphasis is placed on end of course exams with GCSEs and as we found out previously, coursework is too easy to cheat. Far better would be "bite size" modules of say one term in length. Far less need for revision if you get examined at the end of the term where you learned the content, which means more content can be tested overall. If you're "sick" or underperforming on the day of the test, the impact on your overall result will be minimal, whereas having a "bad day" on end of course GCSE exams may mean you fail that GCSE or get a very low, undeservedly low, mark. Broken down would also help deal with the disengagement as every term would be a "new start". I'd go further and create some kind of "school leaver certificate" grading system where all the marks over all the modules are aggregated to come up with an overall grade covering everything.

It’s a good question. There have been adverts a plenty about the new phone that can AI translate for you into another language, so I could go to Hong Kong tomorrow and be understood if I wanted.

There are apps like Duolingo if you want to take a language for fun in life without the pressure of a school qualification.

At school I was offered French - presumably because they are our nearest foreign neighbour and the most likely to visit back in the 80s but from a career perspective mandarin and Spanish are far more useful. So from a qualification perspective my MFL hasn’t added anything to my life and I’ve learned a second language independently since. I’m not qualified in it, but I’ve recently travelled there and done really well with understanding and being understood.

With all that in mind, I would say that while an excellent skill, a MFL is no more a required skill than RE, drama or Geography these days, so perhaps a freedom of choice might be better - and it’s up to teachers to instil the love of learning one instead.