Geoff Barton, General Secretary of the Association of School and
College Leaders (ASCL), will today (Saturday 16 March) warn about
the negative impact of the GCSE system on thousands of pupils
saying: “Why do we insist in rubbing their noses in
disappointment?”
His comments, in a speech to 1,000 school and college leaders at
ASCL’s annual conference in Birmingham, follow yesterday’s
publication of an interim report by
a Commission of Enquiry into the ‘Forgotten Third’ of pupils who
fail to achieve at least a Grade 4 ‘standard pass’ in GCSE
English and maths.
The Commission was established by ASCL to look at how to improve
the prospects of these young people. Grade 4 in English and maths
is the minimum requirement for many further and higher education
courses, and for many jobs. However, 187,000 16-year-olds did not
achieve at least this grade in English and maths in 2018.
A system called ‘comparable outcomes’ roughly establishes the
percentage of pupils achieving the respective grades at GCSE by
looking at what cohorts of similar ability have achieved in the
past, and this means that around a third fall below the Grade 4
standard, year in and year out.
In its interim report, the Commission has outlined a series of
key questions, including whether students should continue to
have to resit English and maths GCSEs post-16, which is currently
a government requirement, saying there is strong evidence the
policy is not working and “is a significant waste of student
potential and teachers’ resources.”
Speaking today, Mr Barton will say: “What does it feel like on
GCSE results day to go and collect your results when you have
gained a Grade 3 in English and maths? As soon as we deem a Grade
4 a ‘standard pass’, and a Grade 5 the more aspirational ‘strong
pass’, where does that leave you with your Grade 3? What are we
as a nation saying to a young person who after 12 years of being
taught by teachers through early years, primary and secondary
education, gets a Grade 3 and then two years of mandatory resits.
Why do we insist in rubbing their noses in disappointment?
“Last summer, there were nearly 190,000 children who didn’t
achieve at least a Grade 4 in English and maths. This year,
because of the way our examination system works, determined not
to allow accusations of grade inflation, there will be a similar
number.
“How can it be right that so many young people emerge without
qualifications which are viewed as a passport to further study
and future employment? We do this in the name of rigour
apparently. But are we in fact judging the success of the
majority by the perceived failure of the minority? Because our
system is predicated on the fact that for all those top grades
and students pictured in local newspapers jumping for joy,
thousands of students must score 3s, 2s and 1s. Those
international jurisdictions we are exhorted to admire wouldn’t
consider it reasonable to assume a decent education system has to
be based on a third of its young people not achieving the
national standards.
“Surely we owe them the dignity of a qualification?
“Chaired by distinguished educationalist Roy Blatchford, ASCL’s
Commission of Enquiry into the ‘Forgotten Third’ published its
interim report yesterday, raising questions about the nature of
the current GCSE English language examination and exploring other
ways of recognising achievement in the basics. It will publish
its final report in June, and before the usual suspects sound the
predictable warning about the danger of prizes for all, it is
maybe worth reflecting that the interpretation of education as a
sporting event is what has got us into this mess in the first
place.”
And Mr Barton will also question whether too much pressure is
being placed upon the GCSE system in general.
He will say: “That groundbreaking qualification designed for a
different era, in which students then either left school or
proceeded to college or the sixth form, is buckling under the
weight of expectations. We use it to judge the child, the cohort,
the teacher, the head, and the school. And in the process of
reform, we’ve ended up with a system in which the average
16-year-old is sitting more than 30 hours of exams. How can that
possibly be necessary, given the GCSE should chiefly be there to
help a young person make the right choice in post-16
progression?”
