How we intend to implement the changes and proposed changes to regulatory documents
Making the current GCSEs linear Back
13.The GCSE Qualification Criteria set out the requirements that all GCSEs must meet in order to be accredited by us and remain regulated. The current GCSE Qualification Criteria (2007)2 specify that unitised specifications must allow only one re-sit of an assessment unit, and must allocate a weighting of at least 40 per cent to terminal assessment.
14.Paragraph 7 of the GCSE Qualification Criteria currently states:
Unitised specifications must:
- contain a maximum of four assessment units in a single award
- allocate a weighting of at least 20% to each assessment unit
- allow only one re-sit of an assessment unit with the better result counting towards the qualification
- allocate a weighting of at least 40% to terminal assessment
- ensure results for a unit have a shelf-life limited only by the shelf-life of the relevant specification.
15.We are proposing to change this to the following.
For subject awards up to and including summer 2013, unitised specifications must:
- contain a maximum of four assessment units in a single award
- allocate a weighting of at least 20% to each assessment unit
- allow only one re-sit of an assessment unit with the better result counting towards the qualification
- allocate a weighting of at least 40% to terminal assessment
- ensure results for a unit have a shelf-life limited only by the shelf-life of the relevant specification.
For subject awards after summer 2013, unitised specifications must:
- contain a maximum of four assessment units in a single award
- allocate a weighting of at least 20% to each assessment unit
- require that 100% of the assessment is terminal
- not permit unit results to be carried forward from one examination series to another, except in the following cases:
- where those units have already been used to aggregate to a GCSE single award and a candidate wishes to re-use the unit result to aggregate to a double award in the same subject, or
- where a candidate wishes to carry forward the result from one or more controlled assessment units which have already been used to aggregate to a GCSE single or double award in order to re-take a whole qualification.
The 40% rule is madness. If a student takes four units and wants to resit just one, then they will need to pay for a second unit unnecessarily. This will be seen by parents as a way for exam boards to make money at their expense; and in these cash strapped times will ensure that only rich students (or wealthy schools) will be able to afford to allow the students to resit. This is manifestly unfair and not in accordance with the equality of access inherent in the foundation of the state school system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
at least with the 100% rule you may have done something to alleviate this problem!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would be grateful for a more detailed explanation of how this will affect Performing Arts courses such as Music / Dance / Drama GCSE. Also, we have spent a lot of time and resources investing in the BTec for Music Technology and Dance for candidates who are better suited to this route rather than the GCSE route – what happens to these now?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The GCSE results will plummet in 2014. How will that reflect on Michael Gove?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You put loads of money into education then find it hard to accept that results rise.
You introduce vocational qualifications to meet the needs of some students then you’re surprised by the large uptake. (What do you expect when a couple of hours work suddenly results in four GCSEs)
You change the syllabus regularly and wonder why the quality of resources is declining.
I guess when all exams become terminal you’ll start to wonder why our younger generation is so stressed.
Why not leave things alone for a while and give us a chance to develop schemes and strategies that will meet the needs of students rather than chasing our tails always trying to catch up. Oh and whilst I’m at it, how about how about giving us some notice next time !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am deeply concerned about the incredibly fast pace of change. How will exam boards be able to publish new specifications in time to allow teachers to plan effectively, when reducing subjects with more than four assessments down to only 4? In Science, as just one example, 6 modules will need to be changed to four assessments. What will happen to students currently in Year 9, who have started modular GCSEs over 3 years (which is a very common practice), and will be sitting modules this school year? Will their learning be wasted? Will the taxpayers money which has been used to pay their exam entries be wasted? Complicated rules about carry-forwards, included in these proposals, will not prevent thousands of students seeing their education negatively effected by the scrapping of courses they are already on. Schools have only just assimilated the significant changes brought in by unitised GCSEs and controlled assessments. As the leader of an 11-18 school, I know full well that my colleagues and I will also have to accommodate similar changes to A Level at the same time as these – leading to extraordinary amounts of change-related turmoil and stress with consequent effects on student achievement. All combined with schools having to adjust themselves to a new inspection regime. These GCSE changes, which I think would be mainly reasonable if introduced with a longer lead-in period, are brought forward by a Department entirely lacking in joined-up thinking. As a result, the education of young people will suffer. Hopefully you will listen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sounds fair enough to me but there are year 9 students taking module examinations this year.
What happens to them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are the pedagogical reasons for these changes? I cannot find any documents detailing WHY you recommend these changes. Certainly not any evidence-based ones. The consultation seems very cynical – it is not about the changes – not interested in consulting on that – but only about how to implement the changes. This is not real, meaningful consultation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Has the viewpoint of learners been considered in any depth? Most students take 10 subjects at GCSE.. if all assessments are terminal in the summer term .. that would be between 20 and 40 exams for each student in their final summer term.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As I Mathematics HoD I am hugely concerned about the proposed changes. Summer 2012 will be the first cohort of students to complete the new GCSE 2010 specification. And before this has had time to run through for the first group of students you are already proposing changes.
As a HoD we all had to spend an enormous amount of time finding out about new courses on offer from the exam boards and preparing for the change. The exam boards were told they could only offer one specification and unilaterally chose to offer modular.
How can we plan effectivley and prepare our students as best we can if the goalposts keep moving?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As an English techer and HoD I cannot believe the changes being suggested. We have just started to feel confident with the new GCSE Specs and now there is to be more change! The freedom offered by finally being able to re-sit Units and the strategies put in place to make the 40% rule work seems like a waste of time; money; thinking; meetings; analysis; sharing and planning- all tax payers money. I could have spent that time teaching kids to read and write. Aren’t we in a recession…? seems as if the Govt are oblivious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where is the research evidence to support these changes? Who is supposedly going to benefit? The students who will have the stress of revising two years worth of work in at least 8 subject areas all at the same time? If anyone says ‘Well I did it and it didn’t do me any harm’ then they clearly don’t remember those days as I do – it was a nightmare and I was an academic student who went on to study to postgraduate level. Or maybe its those thousands of students who suffer from hay fever in the summer and feel constantly below par? Or those students who are ill for a week and miss out on their one shot at subjects they have been working hard at for 2 years? Or is it my colleagues who conscientiously wrestle year upon year with yet another change in the curriculum before the last one is embedded? Evidence please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I too,teach English and am a HoD,hours, lunch hours, after school hours,evening hours,weekend hours have been put into developing schemes and resources for the “new” GCSE specs, only for us to find we are going to have to start again.However, it seems to me that we are to blame if we allow this to go ahead…are they telling doctors which scalpel to use to make a cut? It is time for us to put down the red pen in protest. Enough really is enough, we have to make a stand- aren’t we the teachers, they are just politicians.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with the change to linear but would wish to see a reduction in the number of examinations – for example some GCSEs in science would have 6 examiantions at then end. These should be combined to reduce the possibility of clashes and also will focus teachers on higher quality revision when they are fewer examinations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I too would very much like some clarification on how this is going to affect subjects such as Dance and Drama. We have spent the last two years putting an enormous amount of energy into planning for the new unitised specification and now the goalposts are changing yet again. I see absolutely no merit in insisting that practical work is all performed in a huge chunk at the end of a two year course at the same time as pupils have so many written exams. I wholeheartedly agree that teachers need to be given time to work with new specifications and continue the wonderful work that they do. Please trust us, just for a couple of years!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do bear in mind that everytime you are proposing/forcing a change you are taking away precious time and tax payers money away from the very students whom you think will benefit from these changes. This money could have been well spent on providing more resources for the learners and I dread to think of the time it would take the teachers and HoDs to get their head around these new specs. ‘Time’I am sure which they all feel is better spent on teaching and learning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am a HoD of Humanities (Hist/Geog) The sheer amount of information that students need to learn for these exams is more than we would ask an adult to undertake. 3 History exams on 3 different topics is too much for a 15 year old to be successful in. We currently get students to sit an exam t the end of Year 10 and the majority of them do not need to resit that exam, it is only the minority. These subjects were seen as being ‘too academic’ in my school and had a poor uptake at GCSE. The modular model made it seem more accessible to more students. The amount of man hours it has taken to get these 2009 Specs in place has been enormous not to mention at a huge financial cost to us. How different will these new specs be and when we will the draft ones be ready?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a subject leader in Science I am tired of how someone always sees it fit to move the goal posts just when we start getting things moving in the right direction. The changes to education curriculums are too many too fast and too frequent. With curriculums and exam styles changing so frequently how reliable are the comparisons that you officials make. together with the huge costs that schools have to incur, teachers are constantly bogged down with learning the next new development and implementing the NEW changes than actually get on with their jobs, that is TEACH.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So the Government is keen to encourage more students to take ‘triple award science’?. Does it really think the prospect of 9 hours of examinations needed to get GCSE Biology, Chemistry and Physics will do this?
Modularisation of GCSE science courses has been hugely benificial. A linear approach will leave many students feeling overwelmed by the large amount of content needed to be recalled at the end of the course. There will be 3 consequences of this:
*a dramatic drop in standards shown in GCSE science papers
*a drop in numbers of students taking separate Biology, Chemistry and Physics GCSEs
*decreasing numbers of students taking A level sciences resulting from declining confidence amongst students. The importance of modular GCSE results helping student confidence and feeling able to move on to take A level sciences should not be underestimated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I dont know about anyone else but as a teacher of science I am sick to death of all the specification changes. It seems we just about have bought the resources, written the schemes of work and got our heads (and that of the learners) round the latest style of assessments – then lo and behold its all change and we have to start again – of course standards are dropping us teachers are spending so much time implementing changes we dont have time to teach!! In 11 years I am on my fourth lot of GCSE and third lot of KS3 changes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is going to put an awful amount of pressure on 16 year old pupils. I can see many students voting with their feet and not turning up. What a waste of exam entry fees that will be. I would also like to agree with the earlier comment that there seems to be no empirical research to support the need for these changes. Why are they being made? Why not, if the changes must be made, wait until the present specifications, designed for modular use, run their course and then replace them with linear ones? This is change for change sake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I feel that having just got our heads round the new GCSE with 6 Units it is absolute madness to change again. It will have a detrimental effect on the education of those students studying the new course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that the linear system heavily penalises some students who would be able to achieve their potential through a modular route.
What is proposed for all the students who “fail” exams due to their lack of literacy, rather than their lack of subject knowledge and interst?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The new specs for science for OCR complicate the two year scheme and necessitate the teaching of two parallel courses not two consecutive ones as far as we can tell, the coursework seems to have to be handed in the same year its done and also the same year the terminal 40% is done so again limiting time to do them and mark, I may have this wrong but the short time we had from spec to teaching was a big problem, stop for a while to allow catch up from schools we are trying to do the best for the pupils here!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Will Short Course GCSE be affected by these changes?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I also deplore the waste of time and resources yet another change to GCSE specs will require. We have just started a new science course at great expense in terms of time and money. The course has been designed to be modular – most of the modules stand alone and there is little building of concepts. If the course were to become linear it would be necessary to change it substantially. By all means remove the possibility of re-taking modules but leave the course alone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where is the research that demonstrates modular GCSEs lead to a reduction in standards or are otherwise flawed? it is very worrying when examination systems are changed at what looks very like the whim of the current Minister. The modular courses were introduced at great time and expense, and centres have trained and geared up for these, also at great time and expense. If these changes are to be made, this should be done on the basis of rigorous and valid research.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is a suspicious absence of any reasoning for the proposed changes and who is calling for them – it is certainly not the teaching profession. Are the proposed changes intended to benefit students and improve standards? It is certainly not obvious how they would achieve that as the proposals would seem to benefit able students who have the ability to sit a large number of terminal examinations and penalise many weaker students. If there is educational research which supports such changes, then this must be shared with us before we can even begin to take the proposals seriously.
If a fully linear system is introduced for all GCSEs then we can expect a return to the days when many less able students leave school without qualifications because they simply don’t bother to turn up to the examinations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Having just starting teaching the new specificatin for Science, I am horrified by the thought of having to prepare for another change in 2012. Funding and resouring new specifications are beyond the budget of most schools and so will seriously impact on the quality of the learning experinece for most GCSE students. It is also unacceptable to expect staff to prepare for yet another change just 12 months after the last re-write of the Science GCSE specifications.
However if the move to linear has been decided then there needs to be a reduction in the number of exams per GCSE. No student should need to sit more than 2 exams per subject in a linear course as many students are doing 8/9 GCSE at the same time and so would be facing 16-18 exams. The shelf-life for controlled assessment should be 2 years and not one so that schools have the opportunity to fulfil the the requirement over Y10 and Y11 rather than just in Y11; most students should have the opportunity to do at least 2 pieces of each type of coursework.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Having just started teaching the new specificatin for Science, I am horrified by the thought of having to prepare for another change in 2012. Funding and resouring new specifications are beyond the budget of most schools and so will seriously impact on the quality of the learning experience for most GCSE students. It is also unacceptable to expect staff to prepare for yet another change just 12 months after the last re-write of the Science GCSE specifications.
However if the move to linear has been decided then there needs to be a reduction in the number of exams per GCSE. No student should need to sit more than 2 exams per subject in a linear course as many students are doing 8/9 GCSE at the same time and so would be facing 16-18 exams. The shelf-life for controlled assessment should be 2 years and not one so that schools have the opportunity to fulfil the the requirement over Y10 and Y11 rather than just in Y11; most students should have the opportunity to do at least 2 pieces of each type of coursework.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In a ‘Nutshell’ my question is. Just why are we doing this anyway?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There seems to be an assumption that exams are sit down 2 hour written papers – examinations are not a homogeneous species. All subjects are not best suited to a terminal written examination. Assessment that is fit for purpose, matching the current wide range of disciplines taught in our schools, has come a long way over the years. Subjects with significant practical content like art, drama and dance often involve an examination that lasts many hours spread over several days or weeks.
In the current OCR Drama specification the use of distinctive modules allows the candidates to demonstrate a greater depth of knowledge and breadth of skills than would be possible with just a terminal exam. It is not an issue of ‘bite sized’ information retention that we test, but distinctive processes of performing, directing, devising and designing.
I have sympathy with concerns about resits, principally on issues of cost, however revisiting tasks and coming at them a second time is not necessarily negative in a learning context. In the OCR Drama specification, like many similarly examined subjects, resits are not really a feasible option. The time frames, practical aspect and often group nature of the examinations make this impossible.
Please in your deliberations do not adopt a model of one fit to suit every instance. Very well thought out and successful ways of teaching and assessing are going to be compromised if all the new GCSEs have to follow one formula.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a current HOD (Geography/Citizenship) like many of the contributors above I am horrified at the prospect of changing the courses so soon after the last re-write of our schemes of work. Lessons and progression pathways are planned directly to the modular course. The time and cost implications are substantial.
Following the introduction & announcement of the Ebacc measure many lesser able students have opted for Geography in our centre; attracted by the tiered papers & modular approach. Aspirations are high and the current course promotes this, as learners have greater opportunities to show their achievements during the course. I fear that these gains will be wiped out by the proposals.
The current modular system in the subject has three examined units(Edexcel specB). Potentially these would be examined at the end of the course when students, who regularly take ten GCSEs could potentially have to face over 20 examinations. Is placing this amount of pressure on students really allowing them to achieve their potential? In addition shelf life of controlled assessments will no longer be feasible, as it would allow no flexibility for completion in year 10.
My final concern is the lack of empirical evidence for these changes. Show me the research please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An Exams Officer’s point of view:- If we are to move back to linear specs, it would be common sense for one entry code, or two if F or H, as it used to be, with covers all units, given that they all have to be entered in the same series.
In the interests of putting candidates first, admin processes should be simplified as much as possible. There are always people new to the role of Exams Officer, and candidates should not fall victim to admin errors due to over-complicated entry processes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0