It does seem quite extraordinary that this year’s outstanding GCSE results were greeted as being symptomatic of exams that are too easy and which need to be reformed.
Kevin Courtney is the Deputy General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers (NUT), the largest teachers union
It does seem quite extraordinary that this year’s outstanding GCSE results (see graph 1) were greeted not as a result of hard work by both teachers and pupils but as being symptomatic of exams that are too easy and which need to be reformed. Especially when many of those same commentators are very happy to lambast schools at the bottom of the school league tables creating huge pressures to teach to the test.
Graph 1:
The NUT is not opposed to reviewing our qualifications system, especially with an expectation that most young people in future will remain in education or training to the age of 18. Rather than introducing ill considered, ad hoc and piecemeal changes seemingly at the whim of individual ministers and their personal prejudices about learning and achievement we need a considered and planned review.
This should be agreed with education professionals, universities, employers and the wider public. The government intends to discontinue modular examinations and return to a system where exams must be sat at the same time at the end of a two-year course.
Modular courses and qualifications, provided they are well designed, help ensure all young people are able to demonstrate their full knowledge and abilities. Spelling and grammar are clearly important, and qualifications in English should assess and accredit abilities in those areas.
Examinations in other subjects should assess abilities in those subjects specifically, rather than attempting also to assess ability in English. This is particularly important for young people who have English as an additional language or those who have learning difficulties such as dyslexia.
While the governmnet expends much energy on attempts to raise standards, while completely ignoring the undoubted present success rate, they are remarkably silent on one of the main barriers to many young people continuing in education. For many students the issue of being financially solvent enough to continue studying is a huge problem.
The reduction and confusion surrounding the education maintenance allowance will cast a shadow over these results as many students will find it difficult to continue in education despite having the grades and potential to do so.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
19 Responses to “Yet again the detractors seek to undermine GCSE results”
Penny Louch
Yet again the detractors seek to undermine GCSE results: http://t.co/8a42sQD writes @NUTonline's Kevin Courtney
JulieDavies
RT @leftfootfwd: Yet again the detractors seek to undermine GCSE results: http://t.co/FRdpDKA writes @NUTonline's Kevin Courtney #NewsClub
Julie Davies
There’s been a bit of coverage today about the way state schools are narrowing the gap with private schools and Alastair Campbell has speculated on Twitter that there isn’t more coverage because most new editors have their kids educated privately: http://ht.ly/6coN8
Perhaps there are some simple explanations. GCSEs have been around for twenty five years and results have been steadily improving. Teachers have a really good knowledge of course requirements and so do the kids themselves; they get hold of the syllabus, they know what to do and how to work. They have access to sources and resources online without walking to the public library and Google means they can look things up without showing themselves up in class by asking a silly question.
Falling behind, getting lost and confused, making the wrong choice of subject and dropping out are all much less common because of all of the above and better teaching methods. When I first came into teaching, the route to good grades was through a secret garden. The private schools and the private tutors had a map and so did specialist and sought-after teachers in state schools but it wasn’t nearly as universal available as it is now.
The moaners want kids to spend two years studying a course and then failing, to prove we have a world class education. Actually, what they hate most is kids from humble backgrounds to get good results without going to a grammar school. The right sees this as the only ladder. They want to see the other ladders taken away. EMA never stood a chance after the coalition was formed.
Ed's Talking Balls
I agree, it always seems churlish for commentators to start banging on about grade inflation on the day that results come out. I guess it’s inevitable, but harsh on those who have no choice but to sit, and try to pass, the exams in front of them.
Nonetheless, we should all be concerned about grade inflation. I don’t know too much about GCSEs, other than anecdotal stuff, but I saw the BBC’s graph on A-Level results the other week. There is simply no way that, at some point in the 80s or 90s, 17-18 year olds suddenly became dramatically more intelligent.
As for modular courses, the idea is sound in principle (albeit that one set of exams, rather than several spread over time, test a candidate’s ability to deal with pressure better) . The problem is resitting, as too many bites at the cherry devalue the qualifications. Why should someone who passes at the first time of asking be awarded the same qualification as someone who needed several cracks at it?
Lastly, I noted with interest the improved performance of City Academies (as highlighted by The Spectator). When will the unions stop letting self-interest get in the way of higher standards for children? No society should tolerate sink schools as “one of those things”.
Julie Davies
On your last point, Ed. (Is your surname ‘Talking Balls’ or ‘Stalking Balls’ by the way?)
City academies, Labour academies, were set up in schools with serious problems. For many of these schools, it was a last chance to improve to avoid closure and a lot more money was pushed their way than other schools in their local authorities. They weren’t the only schools and they weren’t always the bottom of the heap. For too many schools in 1999 when academies were invented, a steep rise in results was the only way to go and the success story is the huge numbers of state schools, not just academies, that have equalled or exceeded the results trumpeted in today’s Spectator. Unions have members in all sorts of schools, including academies (and in fact public and other private schools.) Your point about self interest is just flatulent.