Will this secondary shake-up boost standards for all?

Today's Daily Mail splash on the future of GCSEs, the national curriculum, league tables and exam boards has the air of a brainstorm session at Sanctuary Buildings that has been released before being fully thought through. Nothing wrong with that, if Michael Gove spends some time thinking through all the implications of what he is proposing. But he needs to be careful that his proposals don't end up undermining a wider drive to raise standards for all.

There are some perfectly good ideas in what appears to be being considered. It makes perfect sense to have a single exam board for each exam. The effect, of course, will be to have a single syllabus in these subjects. Which makes the supposed removal of the national curriculum from secondary schools rather less radical than is being suggested: indeed it would ensure that academies and free schools work to a single syllabus. Lord Baker is right to argue that it is as important that technical subjects are examined at a high standard as well as Gove's favoured subjects like history and geography.

The second question concerns the proposal of splitting the GCSE into a CSE and O-level exam. There is a seductive sense to this idea if you believe that the only impact of GCSEs has been a 'dumbing down'. But this is a tabloid caricature. It is perfectly fair to feel that there needs to be more rigour involved in getting an A grade, but that doesn't mean writing off thousands of youngsters who could today strive for a C. There is a terrible canard in the notion that the use of the 5 A-C benchmark itself denies ambition: in fact, a C is worth far more to a child than a D when talking to employers, and the existence of the benchmark has led many schools to push such pupils towards a grade they can achieve in a way that the average point score would not necessarily do.

But there is a good argument for saying that achieving an A grade should be really demanding. With a single syllabus there is no reason why this cannot be achieved in a single exam, particularly since Gove wants to move back to linear testing at the end of two years. That is not to say there is no place for more practical exams in English, Maths and Science. Such tests should be available, however, at GCSE standard of level 2 as well as the less demanding level 1, and less 'academically -minded' students should not merely be expected to achieve level 1. It would be a serious and terribly retrograde step to move in this direction, and Gove will find that it could have as serious an impact as Labour's scrapping of an expectation that all schools study languages through to 16.

This raises the issue of league tables and floor targets. And it is here that Gove could be making his biggest mistake. The big improvements in London and by academies over the last decade have been spurred in part by ever-more ambitious floor targets based on the 5 GCSE standard. It is a realistic but relatively demanding ambition for schools to expect a majority of their pupils to reach this level, and Gove has sharply increased the demand of the floor targets. Of course, one could set a target based on the average point score, but this could have the perverse effect of lowering expectations in terms of breadth. And since there is no longer a strong incentive to use high GCSE vocational alternatives, the main concern here has been addressed. By all means publish a 5A target alongside this, though in truth the EBacc is becoming the more rigorous target here.

Gove has time to get this right. More rigorous GCSEs, particularly for top achievers, do not have to place a cap on ambition for many other students. More practical business-focused English and Maths tests should not themselves be set unambitiously. And Gove should not throw away one of the most effective drivers of improve standards for many schools in the process.

What lies behind the claims of dumbed down exams?

The exams regulator, Ofqual, has inherited a programme of exam standards reviews that were introduced in 1997 with the support of both the outgoing Conservative and incoming Labour governments. Yesterday, they produced a veritable collection of these reports that were duly spun to a grateful media as confirmation of a concerted dumbing down drive over the last decade.

I decided to look more closely at what Ofqual actually said. And what it does say poses rather more interesting questions than the critics would care to ask.

• There has been a move away from essays towards multiple choice questions on some papers. In other words, a move away from analysis towards testing knowledge of facts. Now, in many ways, I happen to agree that this is a retrograde step. But isn't the tenor of what the Government has been saying that we need more facts and fewer skills. Won't the result be that we move towards more multiple choice questions like this and fewer 'more demanding' essay style questions? 
• A big complaint of the dumbing down brigade on science was directed at an effort to make the subject more relevant and interesting at GCSE through 'How Science Works'. Fascinatingly, Ofqual tells us that in GCSE Biology "this change did not affect the demand of the qualification overall." and in Chemistry it even made it more demanding. (Earlier reports on physics and on general science had been very critical in 2009)
• In GCSE maths, the big change that made a difference was moving from a three-tier to a two-tier qualification, set at intermediate and higher levels. But the problem with tiered papers is that teachers can under-estimate a student's ability and enter them at a tier where they cannot excel. Tiering can be an enemy of aspiration, in other words. The problem when the tiers are removed is that the exam boards reduce demand. There must be a better way to do this that measures true attainment without capping aspiration. That has always been the policy goal.
• In several courses, OCR seems to have been more demanding than AQA, once again showing the perverse effects of having competing examination boards for the same subjects.
• Reviewers judged A2 Geography to be less demanding because of the removal of the coursework element. Coursework - typically a 4,000-word investigation - was an effective way to assess skills by, for example undertaking and reporting on investigative fieldwork

So, let's be clear of the implications:

• First, coursework has been removed or reduced because of concerns over cheating, and the extent to which it can be manipulated by parents or helped by teachers. It is often set now under supervised classroom conditions. But it is not a synoptic assessment in a high stakes exam setting. So, a way must be found to allow for such investigations in ways that avoid cheating.
• Second, competition between exam boards, far from promoting 'innovation' seems to provide schools with easier options. Ofqual has set its face against moving towards a national exam board for A levels and GCSEs. But shouldn't it think again?
• Third, we clearly need fewer multiple choice questions and more essay-style questions. That does mean more markers and more expensive exams. It also means more time devoted to learning the skills of essay writing and research. All to the good. But it needs a Secretary of State who is clear that he sees this as being as important as acquiring facts.
• Fourth, there is not necessarily a tension between making science more relevant and maintaining standards (provided it isn't accompanied by lots more multiple choice questions).
• Fifth, the system of reviewing standards over time seems to work. And it has existed now for 15 years.

It's always helpful to have a little context.

Educational inequality has reduced with Labour

As if Lord Ashcroft's millions and the greatly inflated Short money were not enough, one sometimes thinks listening to the radio each morning that the Government feels it needs to do more to assist the Conservative election campaign, with today's inequalities report the latest contribution to the self-flagellating narrative of Labour 'failure'.

To be fair, the Harman/Hills report does acknowledge that some Labour programmes have had an effect, like tax credits and early years' policy. But little is said upfront about the impact of education programmes like the academies, excellence in cities and the national challenge. And the strongest evidence that Labour has narrowed the gap in GCSE achievement between social classes (though it does acknowledge changes with ethnic minorities) is buried on page 266 of the report and draws on information in the 2007 Youth Cohort Study.

Figure 10.3 shows trends in this level of achievement by parental occupational social class for children in England and Wales, between 1989 and 1998 using one classification, and from 2000 to 2006 using the classification we used in the last sixchapters (National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC)). In the first period, the gap between children with unskilled manual and with managerial/ professional parents widened from 40 to 49 percentage points, but in the second the gap between children with parents in routine and in higher professional occupations narrowed from 48 to 39 percentage points. So while this gap remains very wide (and we discuss in Chapter 6 how it develops over the school years), there are signs that it has narrowed a little in recent years.

Translated into plain English, what this means is that the poorest social group saw their GCSE results improve by 14 percentage points between 1999 and 2006 whereas the best off group saw only a six point rise. Indeed, the increase for lower professionals was 11 points and for lower supervisory groups twelve points. More recent figures - including last year's GCSE results allowing for free school meal take-up - suggest the gap has narrowed a bit further. By contrast, under the Tories there was a substantial widening of the gap in the years after the GCSE was introduced, with those in 'unskilled manual' groups seeing improvements less than half those of managerial/professional children. Hardly a sign of Labour failure, then.

The wrong education battle

Why on earth is the schools minister Vernon Coaker arguing about accreditation for the International GCSE (on the World at One today) on a day when we should be celebrating the achievements of young people, and the record of the Labour government in improving secondary education? Is it any wonder that people don't recognise Labour's improvements when ministers spend their time being sidetracked into pointless debates?

It is a silly debate, yet officialdom in both DCSF and the QCDA are fervent in their refusal to recognise the IGCSE, just as they are disdainful of the International Baccalaureate, from which Ed Balls shamefully cut funding. But both qualifications could offer real competition to other exams, helping maintain standards, and the official arguments against their recognition are pretty weak.

It must be said that the Tories are taking a more discreditable stance in their attempt to do down the achievements of those following vocational routes. But ministers are failing to focus on the real dividing lines between the parties by defending the indefensible. If schools want to offer the IB or IGCSE, they should let them do so. And credit their achievements in league tables - as well as those pursuing vocational routes.

The future of league tables

Whatever happens at the next election, schools will be subject to performance tables. Labour is proposing to grade schools according not only to their exam results, but also their wider extra-curricular activities and what parents think about them, with a new report card. Yesterday, the shadow schools secretary Michael Gove proposed that the existing tables be skewed so that schools get more marks for physics and no marks for vocational subjects.

Gove seemed to confuse several things in his remarks on league tables, and his attempt to suggest 'all was awful' drove him into the realms of hyperbole. First, he ignored the fact government has already changed the 5A-C benchmark by focusing on those schools that achieve the benchmark including English and Maths. That has changed the rankings considerably. Second, he ignored the fact that there is already a GCSE points score in the tables, though only the Guardian uses it for its rankings. Newspapers compile league tables, government provides the information. And third, he ignores the changes to A-levels that will mean tougher exams and more open-ended questions next year. These were part of a package introduced by Alan Johnson and Tony Blair.

That said, Gove makes a reasonable point when he argues the importance of international rankings, though he ignores those tables where England has done better. And there is a perfectly good case for giving schools an incentive to sit A-level students in tougher subjects like physics by giving them extra credit in point scores for those subjects. I also agree with the idea of having league tables based on university success rates, something the Sutton Trust has proposed.

However, the idea that schools should get no credit in mainstream league tables for vocational qualifications is wrong-headed and dangerous. Some such courses were over-credited at GCSE in the past, but that shouldn't prevent schools being recognised when they help practically-oriented students to do well. Not every pupil will be going to university, let alone Oxford or Cambridge; many may want to go on to apprenticeships or vocational degrees. And such courses often have a very good employment record. Of course, the qualifications should be rigorous, and any credits appropriate. There must be a place for both the academic and vocational. But if schools are not incentivised to guide pupils towards the most appropriate courses for them, we will end up with students given advice to take academic options as inappropriate as the advice being given to some academically able students to steer away from hard academic subjects.

This post also features on the Public Finance blog.

The maintenance of exam standards

The A level and GCSE results can only be weeks ago, because the dumbing down debate has started in earnest. First off, the universities select committee publishes a report attacking universities for a virtual doubling in the number of candidates awarded first class honours degrees. Then comes the shadow schools secretary promising to advance his enthusiasm for history by publishing past exam papers online.

Both rather miss the point. With universities, there is certainly room for greater input by external examiners, preferably from overseas, to ensure that standards remain rigorous. But it is virtually impossible to make a meaningful comparison between a First won for a professional or vocational qualification against one in a scientific or humanities subject. Just as with school exams, there is not a lot of point making bald comparisons over time either. No 1950s exam paper would have displayed much familiarity with modern computers or bioscience, for example. Equally, there is little point in young people today using the log tables I had to use in my youth.

What matters most is the currency of the exams with employers and international students. So what's needed is a proper system within different subjects to ensure high standards across countries. And within countries, there is some merit in publishing employment and postgraduate data for each course and grade so students can see their currency. (There may also be a good case for simply publishing student marks, and skipping the 2:1s and 2:2s which have become less meaningful, alongside the level of work needed to gain those marks). What is definitely not needed is a huge new layer of bureaucracy to force the sort of 'parity of esteem' on higher education that has bedevilled vocational education for younger people.

With school exams, I'm all for transparency. When I worked with David Blunkett in the first term of this government, we allowed students to see their marked papers by right, something we did in the teeth of fierce opposition from the exam boards. Of course, past papers should be published online. But let's not pretend that they offer much more than historical curiosities in most subjects. What matters is that there is a robust independent mechanism in place - and has been since 1996 - ensuring that standards are maintained over time. It has not been afraid to point out where it believes standards are slipping. But it is able to take full account of advances in knowledge and technology as well as that which is timeless. Ensuring that mechanism remains and is strengthened is the best way to guarantee standards.

Why our exam system needs re-examination

It is good news that the new exam regulator Ofqual has expressed its disquiet about the rigour of last year's new science GCSEs. Not because it is good that the questions were too easy. But because it shows that the new regulator (about whose creation I was sceptical) has teeth and is prepared to bare them. It makes their pronouncements about the English and Maths papers the more credible and gives some assurance that the new regulator will not hesitate to act where dumbing down is taking place.

Unlike some commentators, I have never held the view that there is a conspiracy to dumb down GCSEs and A levels. Rather it has been changes made to the nature of the exams that have led to changes in the marking. I can see some point in modularity at A-levels, particularly with innovations like the new extended essay or project, but have always argued for a substantial synoptic element. Equally, while it is good that coursework (conceived before use of the Internet became widespread) is being reined in, it is absurd that costly modular exams are being introduced across all GCSEs.

I also don't share the view that the attempt to popularise science necessarily leads to a dumbing down of the exams. It is perfectly possible to compile challenging questions for a popular curriculum. Indeed, it should be remembered that there has also been an increase in schools offering the three science subjects separately; these are the students most likely to take science at university. Those scientists who complain confuse the need for a minority to gain expertise in science with the importance of the majority having a basic understanding of the subject.

But there is one overriding lesson from this whole sorry saga. Competition between the exam boards has always led schools to shop around and there is a pressure on the boards to provide schools with syllabuses that will be attractive to them. Labour drastically cut the number of boards in 1997. But we didn't go far enough: this is an area where competition is unhealthy, as any innovations that it creates are outweighed by perverse incentives to make things easier. As I have argued before, there should be a single board contracted to provide each exam and Ofqual should work to make the whole process simpler and more transparent.

Ofqual should be raising standards, not telling exam boards to lower them

Schools Secretary Ed Balls established Ofqual shortly after taking up post to reassure the public about exam standards. If a story in today's Times Educational Supplement is to be believed, it is going a funny way about it. The AQA exam board claims it was told to reduce the borderline for a grade C in one GCSE science paper to bring it into line with other exam boards. Shouldn't Ofqual have told the other boards to raise their game instead?

But the bigger issue this raises once again is why the boards aren't allowed simply to set boundaries for exams that everyone can understand: when I did my school exams in Ireland it was 40% for a D pass, 55% for a C, 70% for a B and 85% for an A. I understand all the arguments about why so much effort goes into altering the boundaries after the exam. Yet it ought surely to be possible to decide the boundaries in advance? It would certainly lift the credibility of the exam system in an instant.

Talent isn't rationed

As pupils get their GCSE results today, I'll leave it to Andrew Adonis, in a great piece in today's Times, to explain exactly why the carping and handwringing is so wrong. His piece also acts as a strong riposte to a spectacularly silly piece by Alice Thomson in the paper yesterday. As Andrew puts it:

So every August we are told that increased success rates demonstrate declining standards in state schools (increased success in private schools, by contrast, is usually put down to hard work and good teaching). I reject this ration-book view of talent and opportunity. It was a bad recipe for the 20th century and is a disastrous one for the 21st. Successful societies flourish above all else by mobilising talent and educational potential. There is no genetic or moral reason why the whole of society should not succeed to the degree that the children of the professional classes do today, virtually all getting five or more good GCSEs and staying on in education beyond 16.

On the basis of rigorous standards, we should strongly welcome annual increases in pass rates. We should not bemoan the 19.5 per cent getting A* and A grades at GCSE (up from 14 per cent in 1997), and the 46 per cent getting five or more good GCSEs including in English and maths (up from 36 per cent in 1997), but ask how we rapidly increase these proportions higher still. Every 16-year-old without incapacitating special needs should get five or more good GCSEs including English, maths and (where appropriate) vocational equivalents; the challenge is to improve schools and raise social aspiration to bring this about.

Can you compare the level of difficulty in a Physics and English exam paper?

My old friends at the University of Durham have just completed their latest assignment on behalf of the Institute of Physics, Royal Society and other members of the 'Score' lobby group. Funnily enough, it concludes that it is much harder to get an A in the sciences than drama, sociology or media studies, and a bit harder than English, RE or business studies, while history is tougher than film studies. They suggest that extra credit should be attached to tougher subjects. Now, Ofqual, which has recovered from its rubbishing of the quality of marking, has decided to take a closer look too.

But I wonder whether all this is not beside the point. As one who enjoyed history and economics more than physics or chemistry, I always found the latter subjects harder. But their questions are also usually less subjective. It is harder to measure - and agree on - what makes a good essay than whether a formula is correctly applied. This is not to say that Ofqual shouldn't try. However, if the Durham team and their sponsors are really more concerned about incentivising students to study the subjects, and government wants more people studying those subjects, wouldn't it simply make more sense to award extra credit to good grades in physics and chemistry on those grounds, rather than trying to prove their innate superiority?

Effing examiners need to get a grip

Today's news that Peter Buckroyd, chief examiner of English for the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) tells his examiners to award students marks when they write swear words like 'f*** off' (and nothing else) on their exam papers is grist to the mill of those who doubt the robustness and integrity of our exam system.

The Times reports Mr Buckroyd as saying: "It would be wicked to give it zero, because it does show some very basic skills we are looking for – like conveying some meaning and some spelling. It’s better than someone that doesn’t write anything at all. It shows more skills than somebody who leaves the page blank.” By the same token, I suppose, a student who hits a teacher is showing more dexterity than a student who sits quietly in the classroom and behaves himself, and should therefore be rewarded for his PE skills.

But such stupidity does not represent the exam boards' worst offence. The swearing student will only receive a few worthless marks. A far greater problem is the absurd way in which the boards change the marks attached to each grade every year after the event, rather than trying to set the standard before students sit their exams and stick to it.

A few years ago, I offered some thoughts on how the exam system could regain credibility through consistency, in particular:

Pass marks should stay the same from one year to the next. Students should know that 50 per cent will always be a C at GCSE or a level 4 in the key stage 2 tests. Such change would require better preparation of the exam papers to ensure that the difficulty of questions is maintained, but that effort would be a small price to pay.

To greater transparency and consistency, one might add a large dose of nous, a quality apparently in short supply at the AQA these days.

The right time for exam marking honesty?

Normally one has to endure the spectacle of aged commentators raining on the parade of cheerful GCSE and A level students as they get their exam results in August. But it is quite something when an exam boss chooses a time when students are nervously sitting their exams to tell them that the marking might not be up to scratch. Of course, complete consistency in marking essays is impossible; and it is right that students should be aware of the fact. But is this really the right moment for the new head of Ofqual, Kathleen Tattersall to share this insight?

The original purpose of Diplomas

My old friend - and occasional sparring partner - Graham Lane has transformed himself from the voice of local education authorities to a champion of Diplomas. In that capacity, he takes me to task for my supposed ignorance of the new qualification in my recent Guardian article. I fear it is he who is displaying an ignorance of their history when he says "it is not true that diplomas were first announced in 2005 as a vocational alternative to A-levels". In fact, that was always how Tony Blair saw them, and he was right to do so.

Of course, as I said in my article, these would not be traditional vocational qualifications.

"Unlike apprenticeships, they would not be predominantly work-based, and would mix "theoretical and practical learning"; but unlike A-levels, students would also have to do English, mathematics and IT. This reflected the view of employers that such a mix is more suited to modern business."

Graham then ignores my praise for his engineering Diplomas as a likely route to university to make a silly point about hair and beauty Diplomas: I didn't argue that no student would want to progress, but that most would do a level 2 Diploma - "in the hope of starting work or an apprenticeship thereafter". That is precisely what most people involved in developing the qualifications think too. What is most worrying about Graham's response is that he seems more concerned with defining Diplomas generally than selling the potentially excellent engineering Diploma to parents, teachers and pupils. Which was precisely my point.

Qualified to differentiate

I have an op-ed piece in today's Guardian, arguing that Ed Balls needs to spend more time selling Diplomas, and less time worrying about whether they might replace A levels. You can read it here.

The Telegraph and the 3Rs

When I first came to Britain in the early eighties, one thing you could say about the Daily Telegraph was that it was a newspaper. It had its trenchant opinions in the comment pages, but you could rely on the Telegraph, perhaps more than any other newspaper for an honest account of the news. Of course, most broadsheets have abandoned C.P Scott's dictum to a greater or lesser extent since then, but none more so than the Telegraph. Today's ludicrously one-sided account of the GCSE results shows that it no longer knows the difference between comment and fact. Statistics are presented like confetti, lacking in context or any sense that they know what they are talking about. You do not need a grade C in GCSE Maths and English to have 'mastered the 3Rs'; though it is certainly desirable if you plan to pursue A levels or further academic education; and the government has rightly set targets to increase the number of GCSE students who do so. However, the 90.7% of youngsters who achieve level 1 in functional maths and English are a better proxy for 'mastering the 3Rs' if the 3Rs are the basics. And if the GCSE English and Maths exams are as easy as the sneerers at the Telegraph imply, why do over a third of independent school students not reach this standard?

So, let's be clear about this. Achieving five good GCSEs - at grade C or above - in English and Maths is not something everyone will achieve (though over time a clear majority could). Indeed, many students get a C in English, but not in Maths, (go to second Excel file, table 8) or vice versa: 60% get a C in English, and 55% do so in Maths. With O levels, fewer than a quarter of all students got a C in these subjects. In 1997, just a third did so. Today it is nearly half. More to the point, as a far more intelligent piece in the Guardian shows, what matters most is whether and where improvements are taking place. And the evidence is that improvements are fastest in the poorest schools in the poorest areas, and in academies serving those communities.

Trust in politicians

I have a comment piece in today's TES, making an unfashionable case for politicians to take decisions, and arguing that they are more likely to be guardians of standards than supposedly independent quangos. You can read the piece here. Here's an extract:

"I doubt that making the exam regulator more independent will stifle the sneerers so long as we still have competitive eam boards with little incentive to make exams tougher. Or a sytem of marking where an A or a B, a Level 4 or 5 varies in value from year to year, and paper to paper. Nor will it alter the mindset of commentators who long for the days when few went into higher education rather than the 42% of young adults who go to university now.

"But there’s a more fundamental problem here: independence reinforces the notion that politicians can’t be trusted. Yet because they are elected, politicians are more likely to act as guardians of standards than independent agencies, especially where those agencies become creatures of a prevailing professional orthodoxy....Schools and education policy should not be the preserve of the professional elite. If society – through the ballot box – wants standards maintained or improved, then their elected politicians should be held accountable for providing that reassurance.

"But they can’t do it by handing all their power to unelected quangos, whose instincts may be towards introducing measures that militate against what the public wants.... Of course ministers should have no power over grading decisions. That would be wholly improper. But they should be able to make strategic policy decisions in the public interest, including whether to allow coursework, permit resits or have national tests for 11 and 14 year-olds. And teaching unions or teachers who don’t like such policies should be able to influence, criticise and quiz ministers, in the same way that parents, students and employers can. However, without responsibility, politicians have no power."

Too many retakes?

Whatever the impact of Ed Balls' move to give the exam regulator greater independence - something that seems to have caused irrational excitement with normally reliable commentators - it risks ducking the real issues around the examination system. One is the perennial question of whether it is a good idea to have competition between exam boards. A second is raised by this morning's Times Educational Supplement: why are pupils allowed to have unlimited retakes at A-level? David Blunkett and Tessa Blackstone resisted attempts to allow unlimited retakes (just as they insisted on requiring a minimum amount of synoptic assessment in A levels) when they were at the Department for Education and Employment. That was not what independent advisers advocated, and later ministers changed the position. We are now moving away from coursework to controlled assessment again at GCSE. But it is worth remembering that in all the battles on standards, it has been politicians not regulators who have - with the exception, to be fair, of Ken Boston on coursework - insisted on keeping measures that are most likely to maintain standards.

An end to dumbing down debates?

Ed Balls is announcing today that he intends to split the functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, so that testing and exam regulation are 'independent' of ministers and answerable to Parliament. This is not a new idea, but it is doubtful it will make a whit of difference to the annual dumbing down debate each August. After all, the competitive exam boards will remain, and they have no new incentive to lift standards (a single exam board would be better). In itself the split is not necessarily a bad idea, but there is a real danger that without ministerial pressure to continue regular externally marked testing of 11 and 14 year-olds (such tests for 7 year olds have already been largely abandoned) the testing system will be effectively passed over to schools. The unions have long lobbied for teachers to mark their own tests, as now happens at 7 where Balls is now rightly taking remedial action to deal with a slip in standards since. National testing could be replaced by sampling, fine for statisticians, but useless for measuring the performance of individual schools or stretching individual pupils. The legislation to split QCA must make very clear that national externally marked tests for all are here to stay, and it is the responsibility and duty of the new body to ensure this happens. Otherwise the danger is that this measure will have the opposite effect from that intended: it could lead to some real dumbing down of our whole system of accountability.

Congratulations are in order

Today sees hundreds of thousands of young people getting their GCSE results. They deserve congratulations for their efforts and successes. It may be true as David Frost, of the British Chambers of Commerce, asserted on the Today programme (sound file) that those without five good GCSEs have fewer opportunities than those without, though it is worth remembering that 71% reach that standard by age 19, and the proportion of youngsters reaching this standard has been rising steadily. It would have been nice, if surprising, to have heard Frost urging those who didn't reach the standard to continue in college or on apprenticeships. Simply excoriating their failure hardly helps his members. Moreover, contrary to the Tories' claims this week, core subjects are on the up: 62% of young people get a C in English and 55% do so in Maths, and science entries are up though some languages are down. And that improvement has been strongest in the schools that have set challenging floor targets, reducing the number of schools where fewer than 25% of pupils get five good GCSEs from over 600 in 1997 to 47 last year. By contrast, the proportion where more than 70% of pupils make the grade rose from 83 to over 600. Those teachers and schools that have continued to make such strong improvements also deserve our congratulations.

Do we really need modular GCSEs?

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is apparently planning to allow up to 50% of GCSE marks for modular examinations which would be taken during the course, rather than at its end. I wonder how wise this is. The combination of coursework and modularity has been central - justified or not - to the whole accusation about exams being dumbed down, especially A-levels. Now QCA is sensibly cutting some GCSE coursework. But few would argue that it is easier to get a good grade if you can repeat a component several times. Who is asking for these modular GCSEs? I can't believe teachers or students want the whole two years before a GCSE turned into a permanent exam (just as QCA are cutting the A-level modules). We should at least retain one examination which is based wholly on a synoptic assessment of what young people know at the end of their studies rather than mixing it with modules that cast aspersions on their achievements.
UPDATE: I have been contacted by a diligent QCA press officer who points out that GCSEs can currently be either unitised or linear (this has been the case since 2001). "We have to renew the exam criteria every 8 years or so, and we are asking what people think of unitisation," he says. He also points out that awarding bodies almost always offer GCSEs as linear (final exam) qualifications, even though they could offer unitised versions if they wanted to. So here's hoping they still will in the future.