Introduction
1.The Government set out its policy aims in the White Paper, The Importance of Teaching (2010). Some of these aims focused on changes to the current GCSE qualifications, namely:
- to ensure that GCSE examinations are taken at the end of the course
- to remove the potential for the re-sitting of units
- to ensure that greater account is taken of spelling, punctuation and grammar in GCSE qualifications.
2.We have a statutory duty to consult on any changes to the criteria for accreditation of qualifications. This consultation is therefore being undertaken in advance of any revisions. Three changes are proposed:
- a change to paragraph 7 of the GCSE Qualification Criteria to make GCSEs linear (see paragraphs 13 to 15 of this consultation)
- an additional statement in Appendices 2 and 3 of the GCSE, GCE, Principal Learning and Project Code of Practice to restrict the availability of assessments to summer only, with a re-take opportunity for GCSE English, English language and mathematics qualifications (see paragraphs 18 to 20 of this consultation)
- a change to the GCSE subject criteria for English literature, geography, history and religious studies, and the addition of an appendix to the Guidance for Awarding Bodies on Assessment of Quality of Written Communication, to impose a requirement to award additional marks for spelling, punctuation and grammar (see paragraphs 31 to 35 of this consultation).
3.Section 128 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 sets out our statutory objectives. The proposed changes link directly to two of these objectives.
(2) The qualifications standards objective is to secure that regulated qualifications –
- give a reliable indication of knowledge, skills and understanding, and
- indicate a consistent level of attainment (including over time) between comparable regulated qualifications.
(4) The public confidence objective is to promote public confidence in regulated qualifications and regulated assessment arrangements.
4.The consultation is open from 26th September 2011 to 4th November 2011. A longer consultation period would lead to a delay in announcing the way in which these reforms are to be implemented and there is a potential risk for the first cohort of students if they and their teachers do not have sufficient time to prepare for these changes. We have already met with key stakeholders, including awarding organisations and representatives of both teaching associations and groups representing disabled learners to discuss these changes ahead of this consultation.
5.We have undertaken equality analysis to assess the potential impact of the proposed changes. Review of equalities issues is, and will continue to be, ongoing and we invite respondents to make any comments on equalities issues in answer to questions 7 and 12.
This is statement about the whole proposal.
My first reaction as a Maths teacher of 30 years standing, is oh no, not again.
We are currently on our 4th GCSE in 6 years:
3 tier with coursework, 2 tier with coursework,2 tier without coursework, 2 tier with functional skills, and we made the decision to go to modular 5 years ago (so a self-imposed 5th GCSE) BECAUSE THE MATHS SYLLABUS IS HUGE. We also teach GCSE Statistics which has nowhere near as much content as Maths and when I look at other subjects’ textbooks it is obvious the content of many is much less than ours. We have had to invest in new textbooks for every change and will have to do so again……..the publishers must be delighted with this proposal.
Please leave us alone, we do a good job for our students, under very difficult circumstances. Every new Secretary of State wants to make their mark, it is all short term planning with scant regard for the infrastructure of school departments.Yet another National Curriculum, yet more changes, it is no wonder there is a national shortage of maths staff.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I echo all of Debra Collins sentiments – my school is in exactly the same position. Couple all of this with the fact that, for the purposes of league tables, the school is very much dependent, not only the performance in maths as an individual subject, but on the cross-over of performance of pupils in English and maths. The job is becoming ever more difficult and it seems that every time we establish a system which is successful and benefits our students, we are told that this is wrong and we have to adopt a different scheme. This is not only detrimental to our students but soul-destroying for the many dedicated professional maths teachers remaining in this country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree that some stability would be greatly appreciated; there appears to be significant ‘tinkering’ which rarely leads to long term improvement. However, I greatly support the proposals to limit to summer examinations and linear courses – the trouble of constantly interrupting teaching for examinations has limited benefits. If the syllabi are left intact and only the assessment methods modified then I see no problem with stability of resources, schemes of work etc.
I also support the changes at GCE; the January modules cause considerable problems within the lower sixth due to revision and interruption of lessons. One request would be to move the dates of examinations, where possible, back out of May to June – it is very difficult to prepare students for examinations so early in the season.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree – stability please. Administration of new curricula is getting in the way of teaching. It looks like we might manage to get one cohort through the new Science syllabus before it all changes again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would say there is no room for stability any more.
Look around the world. In China, the students have to sit exam twice a term from 7 to 18 years old! From year 8, they have 8 45 minutes lessons every day to 5 pm and can’t finish homework until 9 pm.
Of course it is stressful for teachers, students and families. But when the kids grow up, this is the challenge they will be facing anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thinking of the bigger financial picture of education, yet another change particularly in Maths makes no sense. This will be change too far and cost too much in resources, particularly time. Why can they not leave us alone to get on with our jobs of providing the best education possible. Instead we are forever spending our time revising SOW, assessments etc time which should be spent on supporting our pupils not doing more admin.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Students are achieving better now than ever before. More students believe in themselves as achievers than ever before. This is due to diverse curriculum opportunties that can be tailored to students’ individual needs. Many students are able to aspire to a future, that up until relatively recently, was beyond their reach. Qualifications based upon continuous assessment play to the strengths of some students in the same way that end of programme exams play to the strengths of other students who are able to memorise and recall. These programmes do not need to be mutually exclusive. We all learn in different ways and this is something that should be embraced as opposed to excluding those students who do not learn in the way that dominated the education system throughout the twentieth century. Where in the proposed reforms are the skills required to navigate a rapidly changing and increasingly technological society? But this is, of couse, not a consultation on the wider issues, but a consultation on the process of what has already been decided upon, without consultation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The proposals seem to ignore the fact that different people learn in different ways. Just because someone does something in a different way does not make their way less valid. Some peole find it easier to learn their work in sections, consolidating one area before moving on to another. This seems to me to be a quite sensible way to learn and to assess. Boards offer modular and linear exams so what is the problem? Teachers are free to choose the route which their candidates are most likely to gain success. Surely QCA and Ofqual have insured that all these exams demand the same rigour? If not, why not? It appears to me that these proposals turn back the clock to a time pre-GCSE. Remember O levels were aimed at the top 25%, not as GCSEs are, at 90% plus of the school population. The less able need the feeling of security gained by taking exams in stages – success encouraging success. Sadly, and I speak as someone who is a teacher and examinations officer in a highly successful independent school, these proposals smack of elitism and are the products of people who do not know how the vast majority of schools in the state sector work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I appreciate the comments by teachers about workload and change. My wife is a secondary school teacher. I strongly agree with the proposed changes. GCSE’s currently are a mockery, and it is not in the childrens interest to have seriously devalued exams. Coursework allows unashamed cheating and plagiarisation. It may seem tinkering to some teachers, but it is a return to the old system we grew up with, which worked fine, and will ensure proper standards. Long term it will reduce teacher workload if the emphasis moves from continuous assessment. My wife recently had a student fail their GCSE due to not bothering to submit compulsory coursework in spite of being repeatedly warned this would result in failure. His failure to submit coursework was in part due to being permanently excluded from school for violent conduct. Having failed the exam, the parents appealed, the exam board have allowed him until December to submit the coursework, which he has done twice – both unsatisfactory, so he keeps getting another chance until he finally achieves a pass. Actually its a BTEC so really 2 GCSE’s (although I really don’t think anyone outside of education statistics junkies believe that – especially when timetabling allocates about 2/3 the time compared with a GCSE). As “Meg” above noted – its a tough world out there, and nobody outside the closeted world of education has any respect for the current qualifications. Before somebody tells me its unfair on some children, I would like to point how unfair it is on me that I cant run 100 metres in under 10 seconds (or 11, or 12, or 13…). We are not all born equal – in part the exam system is a measure of that. Otherwise its pointless. I would also like to point out that among my 4 children I have some academically gifted and others less so. The less academically gifted are talented musicians and sportsmen, and more importantly valued and loved human beings regardless of their academic achievements. They do not need fake easy pass qualifications to pretend otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The possibility of resits allows students who were ill or bereaved at the time of the summer exam to have another go without waiting awhole year.
A year 10 module helps to motivate the students, but sometimes the standard is very low.
If we pay too much attention to spelling and punctuation, we could be dismissing some bright studentsj who are mathematical and scientific rather than literary. Obviously English language needs to be strict on these points. My main concern as an examiner for RS, is that handwriting is becoming steadily less and less legible.Either more emphasis should be on handwriting in the Primary Schools, or there shojuld be more encouragement to use laptops in the exam.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with several points made above quite strongly (i) the feelings of many teachers I speak to are that change is a politically motivated necessity, not an educational one (ii) change has already been decided upon, this is akin to consulting the condemned on the mode of execution (iii) please ensure there are no changes to syllabii whatsoever. We have not implemented the last batch of ‘improvements’ and we are an outstanding school driven by a very dynamic HoD (iv) would A**, A*** and A**** grades not satisfy the Secretary of State sufficiently with less disruption? (v) I have no philosophical objection to these changes (in fact I rather agree with them insofar as it might satisfy people that there exists both equivalence & rigour) but surely this is an abject failure at the level above schools (OfQual et al.) that has been ignored by the political class and modifying things at school & student level is misguided at the very best.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it is really helpful to assess students at the end of Year 11 when they have study leave and have completed their full courses. The increase in modular exams over the last few years has put increasing pressure on young people, some of whom are sitting almost 50% of their GCSE examinations during normal school time in Year 10. I know many students like having some exams finished so they can concentrate on fewer areas of study in Year 11, but this implies that learning is just for an exam; learn, pass, forget or learn, fail, retake. Changes will mean Year 10 can enjoy a love of the subject without the pressure and focus of the exam, which can be concentrated on during Year 11 (when they write much better anyway).
However, there does need to be scope to allow the needs of all learners to be met. Where students are in danger of exclusion or struggle with aspects of their learning, teachers should have the option to allow early entry and a modular approach to study. One size does not fit all and we need to ensure all young people achieve to the highest level they can without the endless rounds of assessment to which they are currently subjected.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As Head of English in a fully comprehensive rural school, I cannot agree at all with the value of returning to linear courses. In the first instance, the ability to tailor entry patterns to individual students’ needs and abilities has resulted in more positive outcomes for students and in raised self-esteem. This is surely the number one priority; the best outcomes for every student. Linear courses will not provide this which is why the new modular GCSEs were introduced and why different assessment “windows” were encouraged. In addition, these changes mean, yet again, hours of time in redesigning courses and planning schemes of work for teachers who have already spent hours of thime doing this over the past two years in preparation for the New Specification courses which started in 2010. Please let us do our job which is to teach and help students to achieve thier full potential. The pressures placed on Maths and English departments, in particular, by the league tables, with three level progress, achievment and attainment all being closely monitored makes things hard enough for teachers in these subjects; adding a new level of pressure by having an “all or nothing” end of the course exam will be detrimental to staff morale, student progress, and school standards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Schools already have the choice to do all exams terminally but the vast majority choose not to do so for good reason. I would not want to return to an enforced linear system which will only favour those who are able to sit lengthy terminal examinations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a retired maths teacher who can still remember the wonderful pre GCSE days of being able to teach relevant material to the non academic pupils. One school I taught in had classes doing GCE, CSE mode 1, CSE mode 2 and then our own CSE mode 3 and this allowed us to keep pupils interest across the range. GCSE proved to be a one size fits nobody straitjacket that killed interest in maths for too many pupils. Now the next generation of know nothing ex public school politicians want to change it yet again. The best of luck to you all still in teaching I can now look on from the sidelines and say been there and through that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is extremely hard to “improve” when you are not given a chance to reflect on the past. We DO need stability so we can develop good practice and contantly changing the way we assess students is effectively pulling the rug from under us every time! How can a subject like maths change so many times in so few years!? Curriculum changes within maths have become laughable and with ever diminishing time allowance, it is harder than ever to find time to modify a SOW or assessment that fits with the latest government idea on how to teach. Information regarding changes is often released late in the academic year and gives schools very little time to prepare for September, not to mention the book companies that chuck out books that are quickly put together for financial gain. Luckily we kept our old linear books (6 or 7 years old?) and intend to use these again, saving ourselves a vast amount of money. We have been bitten already by new books for new courses – never again. A linear course will reduce workload and the need to support students through resits but this is not going to improve standards or benefit less motivated students. Only reduce resit administration – good reason eh?
Teachers are now coming in for a bashing for “coasting”. I’d love to meet these people so they can tell me how to do it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The quality of our GCSEs when measured by PISA is unsatisfactory; 30 years of grade inflation has left employers with a very difficult task. In 1975 approximately 50% of the population at the age of 16 secured 5 or more O levels. The same differentiation now takes until the age 21 (50% of the cohort are encouraged to get a degree) only now that market differentiation costs the students approximately £50K in tuition fees and maintenance costs and a further 5 years of study. If employers do not have a robust and meaningful public examination system to use as the basis for a selection criteria for potential employees then they will simply use a different selection criteria (how about what school tie you wore and do you know which way to pass the port around). I work in an inner city comprehensive in the North of the UK were nearly 30% of our Y7 cohort are on FSM. These students need a robust assay of their skills and abilities so that they compete on a more level playing field with individuals who have many, many more advantages. Linear GCSE with increased content are essential so that they can compete in a global market place on merit. Literacy and numeracy are the corner stone of a person’s ability to secure employment. I would ask that when setting exams the required level of literacy and numeracy is not in excess of the level of the subject that the exam is trying to assay. eg literacy/numeracy at a GCSE level A grade should not be required to access a question that would secure a level C grade in that subject.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Am I correct in thinking that since the introduction of Modular exams, so called standards have increased? Therefore, reverting back to the linear exams will reverse the trend.
Secondly, do the powers that be think this will prevent resits? How about: end of year 9 (attempt 1) end of year 10 (attempt 2) end of year 11 (attempt 3).
Schools will always look to maximise exam entries to hit targets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Although on some counts I agree that the constant resitting should not continue, I do continue to believe that education should not only be assessed in one way. As an AST I spend a lot of my outreach work supporting teachers and students in schools who all have very different ways of learning. Surely the way we assess needs to reflect this? The buzzword recently has been personalised learning and although we have to be realistic in how we accomplish this, surely seeing how much a child can remember on one day after a two (or potentially three) year course, is truly ridiculous. Many learners struggle with summative assessment and as a progressive profession we are looking at ways to formatively assess and develop assessment for learning. Why can’t the people who actually spend time with pupils and who know what they are doing be involved in the decision making?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I prefer the linear option and glad it is going back to that.
Also, I think it’s a good idea to have a focus on spelling, punctuation and grammar to improve the standards of literacy across the country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0