The implications of the changes
Making the current GCSEs linear Back
16.These changes will apply to all GCSEs. However, we are conscious that awarding organisations might have designed their current specifications differently if they had been required to develop linear specifications. Therefore, we want to understand the ways in which schools and colleges use these qualifications, in order to make arrangements that are manageable and do not adversely affect teaching and learning.
17.In most cases, the proposed changes will mean that candidates will have to enter all the assessment units at the end of the course, at the same time as they enter for the subject award.
Examination series
18.Currently GCSE units can be taken in November, January and March examination series, in addition to the main examination series in May/June. If students are sitting all their examinations at the same time as entering for the subject award, there will be no need for units to be available in the November, January and March series. We are proposing to put in place regulations to restrict GCSE sitting to May/June in order to minimise the impact on teaching and learning time in centres and to ensure that students can spend the full two years on their studies for a particular subject.
19.However, we are mindful of the importance of English and mathematics GCSEs as requirements for further study and employment. Our advice to the Secretary of State recommended a November re-take opportunity for English and mathematics, so that students who need these qualifications do not have to wait 12 months for another opportunity. Therefore we are proposing that the November series should remain for English, English language and mathematics linear GCSE qualifications.
20.We are proposing to add the following statement to Appendices 2 and 3 of the GCSE, GCE, Principal Learning and Project Code of Practice.
Awarding organisations must offer GCSE assessments (external assessment and moderation of controlled assessment) once a year (summer). The only exception to this is for GCSE English, English language and mathematics qualifications, where assessments may also be offered in November.
Controlled assessment
21.The proposed changes will not mean that controlled assessment tasks must be undertaken at the end of the course. Controlled assessment in many subjects takes place over several weeks and months. Centres will have to enter candidates for any controlled assessment units at the same time as they enter the candidates for the written papers (that is, at the end of the course) but the controlled assessment tasks will still be scheduled at the discretion of the centre (as far as this is permitted by the specification).
22.Controlled assessment unit results will be able to be carried forward if students wish to re-take the qualification. This is because students re-taking qualifications may be taking examinations at a different centre that cannot supervise the controlled assessment task(s). It is also the case that students wishing to re-take qualifications in November will not have sufficient time to repeat the required controlled assessment tasks.
23.As a consequence of the move to linear assessment, students will be permitted to carry forward their controlled assessment unit result(s) following the initial aggregation. Paragraph 5.35 of the GCSE, GCE, Principal Learning and Project Code of Practice (2011) will apply.
5.35 Where candidates repeat non-modular qualifications, moderated marks for their internally assessed work may be carried forward during the lifetime of the specification.
Possible exceptions
24.In some cases the specifications have been designed so that candidates can enter for a single award and then a double award.
25.In order to minimise the need for changes to existing specifications where this occurs, we are proposing to make an exception for some specifications that include such shared units. Candidates will be permitted to carry forward unit results, 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 (but not where the units have already been used in a short course). This will avoid the need for candidates to re-take units they have already entered. The following example illustrates where this would be possible.
Example
26.A candidate enters all units for GCSE business in summer 2014 and in summer 2015 wishes to enter for GCSE business (double award) which shares some units with the single award GCSE business. The candidate’s unit results from summer 2014 can be carried forward and used to generate the double award grade in summer 2015.
27.We are not proposing to make exceptions to allow students to carry forward unit results from a short course, in order to aggregate to a full course GCSE. This would undermine the Government’s policy objective that a student should sit the GCSE qualification at a single sitting.
28.We are considering making exceptions for pilot qualifications already being delivered in centres. We will consider these on a case-by-case basis, taking into account relevant factors such as the length of time the pilot has still to run, and whether or not there is evidence that a change to linear entry would affect the objectives of the pilot.
Taking English as an example, presumably there is nothing to stop a year 10 student sitting the exam at the end of Year 10 and then re-taking in either or both Nov and June of Year 11. If this is the case, some students will still get more than one chance to obtain their final GCSE award before the Summer of Y11.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The choice of students sitting a modular GCSE course should not be taken away. In my department there has been a lot of time and money placed into delivering GCSE modular Mathematics and I know the same can be said about other departments in other schools.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the resit rule for maths and English has not been thought through. Should a student fail to meet the entry requirements for a subject, they would NOT be allowed to get onto a course: we would not wish the student to potentially dilute their learning time at A level on the possibility of getting a higher grade on a retake: they’d be better off doing something else.
On the other hand, not allowing students to build on their success in a short course to order to gain a full award seems at odds with the idea of mobility and rewarding attainment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I fail to see why English and maths require different rules. If it’s ok to have 2 bites of the cherry with some subjects, because they are so very important, why not treat all the same?
Retaking exams is motivational and encouraging for students. It mirrors the plethora of second chances offered to them in the real world. Will there be no resits allowed for university undergraduates who fail a unit in the second year of a three year course, for example? Or chances to review educational and governmental policy in the light of public opinion or further research?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The changes to the English specification sound as if we are returning to exactly the same scheme we had for legacy GCSEs. In English a student would be entered early in Year 10, carry forward Controlled Assessments (like their old coursework) to retake in November and then carry them forward again to enter for a third time in June of Year 11. It may say linear but the difference between that and modular would be hard to spot. Many, if not all, schools would do this for English and maths and it would seem to undermine the idea of two years focusing on learning rather than testing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ofqual consistently refers to ‘two year’ and ‘three year’ GCSE courses. I am uncertain when this description crept in. A couple of years ago when schools in my area were being reorganised we chose to run one year GCSE courses (using double time) to minimise potential disruption. Presumably this would now be outlawed. Similarly although the assessment in English Language and Mathematics may take place during KS4 the learning certainly is not a 2 year course. We build on the stage students have reached at KS3. I was under the impression that students will not be allowed to enter GCSE at the end of Y10 as suggested by an early contributor. I hope that I am incorrect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ending modular courses is totally stupid and not thought through. Students gain confidence by passing modules and are encouraged by succesful results.Students who do not pass can have a second chance. Where will it end? Does a driver failing the practical test have to resit the theory!!! What about degrees that have credit for modules will degrees now all be judged on exams at the end of the final year! Have ofqual consulted teachers and students??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m in favour of the linear system rather than modular. Some of our pupils have become demotivated by poor results in exams they were not ready to take at the end of year 10. English is about maturity of thought, interpretation and expression: surely pupils are more confident and achieve better at the end of year 11? As well as this, I feel very sorry for pupils who have to spend the full 2 years of their GCSEs taking constant modular examinations on top of Controlled Assessments – it’s testing continuously, rather than real teaching and learning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Modular exams have totally watered down the examination system. Pupils are constantly sitting and resitting modules, to the deteriment of their other subjects. The whole system has become devalued. Can you really hold a pass in a modular exam in the same esteem as a full two year GCSE? I don’t think so. No wonder we are falling behind the rest of the world. The controlled assessments, too, are just coursework by another name – and one day they too will be seen for what they are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a head of Science, we have effectively transferred from content to skills based teaching, any return to terminal exams instead of modules will lead to a return to content based teaching and put science back into the dark ages. Modules are crucial to keep student interest and allow us to more effectively track and target individual students. Linear exams were a disaster in science and were only a benefit to the highest ability child
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
With Humanities; History and Geography, we like the january retake window or certainly the ability for students to take the exam in January. (of the last year maybe?). Geography for example, would have 3 exams at the end of the course.If students could take one of these ‘early’ it would help.
Why treat Humanities differently from English and Maths.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alot of thought has been put into what happens with English and Maths GCSEs. My concern from reading this is the lack of review regarding controlled assessment which is universally unpopular among students and teachers alike.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We have had great success in Design and Technology by allowing students to sit their theory exam in June of Y10 and then concentrate on coursework in Y11. This has spread the exam load on students allowing them to concentrate on other subjects in Y11 with the exception of a few retakes. I urge Ofqual to allow this pattern to continue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One major concern is we have just started a 3 yr GCSE course, so we can really focus on delivering a quality triple award science . The intention was, of course, to build up the Core/Additional/Further over Y9/10/11.
Now I see that this cohort must be examined at end of Y11 only ( 2014). GCE O level was only a 2 year course!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This sounds remarkably like the system that was in place when i did my GCSEs. There was nothing worse than learning something in year 1, then not using it for a year and being expected to remember it all for exams a year later. The modular system to me sounds wonderful, to be able to actually do the exams after you have studied the content more emulates real life.
In life if you dont do it every day, you forget it, just like all the first year of a GCSE. I found GCSEs so frustrating having to study stuff i had long forgotten and it showed in my marks. Please dont go back to the old ways!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here at WNC college we teach the single science GCSE, a 1 year course. The students, many are coming back into education after starting a family or career change etc, sit Physics and Chemistry in March and currently get a second chance to do any they get less than a grade C on alongside taking the Biology exam in June.
For this type of student I suspect that these changes will mean that more will need to retake in November and this may stop them from progressing to their next course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe many teachers commenting here have justified concerns on behalf of their students; however are not taking account of the wider societal impact of modularisation.
The year-on-year improvement in student grades, whilst down to a number of factors, including improved teaching methods, is seen as an indicator of ‘easier’ taught content or assessment. One of the aspects of this is multiple re-takes which were not available to previous generations, which modular assessment affords the opportunity of.
I am not saying this theory is 100% correct, but certainly employers and universities are seeing some glaring gaps in students’ skill sets, compared to 10 or 20 years ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Please can someone confirm whether students will be able to re-sit more than once? So – a student taking GCSE English may start the course in Y9,complete the CAs, and then take the exam at the end of Y10, and re-sit in Nov of Y11 if necessary.
Would they then be allowed to re-sit in the Summer of Y11 too? And the Nov of Y12? Is there any limit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As Science HoD i think the suggested changes are frustrating and far too radical. We currently offer triple award Science to a large proportion of our cohort (25%), am i right in thinking that without a modular option they would have to essentially sit nine exams in the final exam series? If this isn’t the case then i can only assume that the syllabus is going to change AGAIN to have one final exam for each discipline. We are adjusting to the new changes for our current yr10 (40% etc…)which has involved significant modifications to the exam timetable and teaching sequence – more change is not necessary, especially on such a short time scale!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why does this not also apply to MFL considering that this forms part of the Ebac? Surely all those subjects in the Ebac should be treated equally and introduced at the same time. Considering how much damage controlled assessment is making to language learning skills and teaching (whilst honing the ability to learn tracts and repeat them parrot fashion without understanding the how and why) the sooner that we lose controlled assessment and return to linear exams the better. Then we might just have the time to teach the requisite skills, vocabulary and those all important independent learning skills. MFL inclusion cannot come quickly enough and will help weaker pupils in the long term.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Science can’t cope with this amount of change, we are only just changing everything for the present y10’s (late finalisation of specification, different controlled assessments, all written exams, extended QWC questions, longer exams, changes in content)and no modules will make it very hard for the triple science students, not only the 9 hours of science exams but all the other 10 subjects too, all in summer Y11. When it was all linear students didn’t study for as many GCSE’s and the expectations where much lower. The pressure on conscientious hard working students could be too much, for some with high target grades it is already so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is ridiculous to pull the plug on Modular courses after such a short space of time. As HOD of History it has made perfect sense to learn about one topic in Y10 and do an exam in it, then another in Y11. This has put us on alot more of a level playing field with other subjects, as the amount of content covered for our subject is huge as well as the high skill level. As part of the Ebbac should humanities and Languages not have the same re-sit system as core subjects?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Apols to anyone who has already raised this point.
My pupils follow a modular Mathematics GCSE, the total amount of maths they show through the various exams is greater than that in the linear scheme.
The elephant in the room is of course, ‘Do examinations show true long term learning/skills etc. or mearly that at the moment an examination was taken the candidate was capable of a particular grade’
I think it’s a mixture of the 2 dependant on the individual, but a modular system allows the pupil to demonstrate more knowledge, thus a return to the linear system is a lowering of standards, is that irony?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Having been around for a few years I have seen many changes to the way Mathematics is taught, what is taught and how it is assessed. I don’t know about other subjects but have they too been subjected to so many changes? It was not too long ago that the recommendation was to fast track through the GCSE course, enter early then consider doing an AS module in KS4. Now the recommendation appears to be no early entry and that we concentrate all of our examinations into a 2 month period with no opportunity for students to lighten the load by entering for some examinations a few months earlier.
In my experience, no matter how much emphasis you put on studying, how many times students are taught/reminded how to do something, how much pressure you place on students to perform in examinations, there will still be a large percentage of children that will never grasp certain concepts, never conquer exam nerves and will never be acedemic.
There seems to be such an emphasis on how we are slipping behind compared to other countries yet has the government look at the whole picture? Do they strive to create a nation of acedemics? Surely pushing students to gain so many GCSE ‘passes’ will have a negative effect on the economy. Entry levels into further education will have to increase else too many students will fulfil the criteria. Is it perhaps better to look at why some children cannot grasp certain concepts and perhaps acknowledge that they are skilled in other ways that are equally valuable but perhaps not so statistically pleasing.
A Doctor may well be more qualified than a farmer but does that make their contricution to the economy more valuable? I think not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m in favour of scrapping modules. Why?
As a maths teacher:
- I find pupils suffer exam fatigue
- There is too much valuable class time spent on revising and sitting external exams
- Because they’re doing them from year 9, they fail to grasp the importance of them and as a result don’t do enough home study and revision in years 10 and 11
- the way marks/grades are awarded for modules it is too complicated for pupils, parents (and some teachers!) to understand.
- with modules you don’t get the benefit of looking back at work you did last year to get a better/deeper understanding of it before being examined on it. (e.g. once you’ve cracked some harder algebra, algebra you may have struggled with 18 months ago will be a breeze)
As a parent:
- my son misses out on indoor PE lessons as the hall is far too often in use for exams. Schools weren’t designed/built for modular exams!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0