The pandemic threw new light on problems that have existed for decades. National Education Union (NEU) members, who worked so hard to set up online learning, got to look, quite literally, into children\u2019s homes.\u00a0They saw the huge disadvantages that some face \u2013 the crowded rooms shared with brothers and sisters or parents, damp on the walls in temporary accommodation with patchy phone connections and no broadband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is not news to many educators. The NEU\u2019s No Child Left Behind<\/a> campaign identified that an alarming 4.3 million children are trapped in poverty in the UK, which works out to nine students in every class of 30. The impact of the pandemic only made this worse. Our freedom of information request, for example, confirmed that children with parents in blue collar jobs have been much less likely to be able to work from home \u2013 and will have been more exposed to Covid-19. Less resources, less support, more health risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The pandemic also laid bare other discrimination \u2013 the implicit bias in our exam system. In summer 2021, the algorithm that assessed the first distribution of exam results<\/a> led to children in independent schools doing much better. This lifted the lid on the rationing of grades that happens every year in GCSE exams. Following Labour\u2019s reforms in 2009<\/a>, after universities complained they were having difficulties selecting prospective students because of grade inflation, exam boards, along with the exams\u2019 regulator, have limited the percentage of higher grades to just eight per cent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Grade rationing is also expected to be a big discriminatory feature of the summer 2022 results \u2013 even if exams are marked more generously. We already know that children on free school meals are likely to have missed more education throughout the pandemic. In fact, while 54 per cent of private schools reported that all of their students had access to appropriate devices for remote learning<\/a> during the early 2021 lockdowns, the corresponding figure for state schools was 5 per cent. During the Omicron wave in early 2022, state schools were more than twice as likely to report<\/a> high staff absence rates as private schools. The pandemic has further perpetuated inequalities in an already unequal system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This brings us to the question of what we should do about GCSE exams, not just in the immediate, but also in the future, whether to reform or abolish them altogether?<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, consider the current system. Sixteen-year-olds sit 30 separate GCSE exam papers (some longer than an hour) across three weeks in the summer. They generally aren\u2019t allowed reference books of any sort \u2013 memorising is key \u2013 and there is practically no other form of assessment that contributes to their grades. Their teachers spend months working on exam technique because they want their pupils to do well and their school wants to succeed in league tables. Those with means will have private tutors to ensure their achievements. Then, once completed, the pupils\u2019 scripts are marked by examiners, and exam boards distribute the grades by a process called \u2018comparable outcomes\u2019, which rations the number of grades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are many problems with the current structure. As well as narrowing learning far faster than other countries, England tops the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) league table for rote learning<\/a>. We test recall, but we aren\u2019t assessing or developing skills in the subject.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, the system of 30 all-or-nothing exams following months of cramming is a major contributor to adolescent anxiety and mental illness, exacerbated by the system of rationing grades. One third of children are told they have failed English or maths, yearly. Unsurprisingly, the high stakes for schools lead to many so-called \u2018unexplained exits\u2019. Many of those over-represented<\/a> in the shocking 69,000 so-called exits<\/a> are poor, black and disabled children, and those with emotional and social needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our entire system is clearly so bad for disadvantaged children that those on free school meals make up one third who fail each year. And let\u2019s be clear \u2013 they haven\u2019t really \u2018failed\u2019, they just haven\u2019t scored as well as another child in this exams race system. Even if every teacher and student worked twice as hard, still a third would be told they have failed \u2013 and it would undoubtedly be the same less privileged set of children. We are rationing success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All of these issues are why the NEU has set up an independent commission<\/a> to seek to change our assessment system. It is important that that we have an open discussion, because while the current system might seem \u2018normal\u2019 to many, it doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a moment here and there are alternatives.\u00a0It\u2019s not just the NEU that recognises this. The Times<\/em> is running an education commission<\/a>, as is the global learning company Pearson and former education secretary Kenneth Baker\u2019s think tank.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We should be thinking much bigger about the change that many of us seek. For example, we must reconsider whether any high stakes exams at 16 should continue if all young people are staying in education or training until the age of 18. Should we instead give every 16-year-old the opportunity to take on a different sort of challenge, alongside formative assessments by their teachers? Shouldn\u2019t our assessment system be essentially criterion- and not norm-referenced, so that we can remove the barrier of rationing grades?<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is not a case of school students not being asked to work hard or challenged. It is also certainly not \u2013 as opponents claim \u2013 that we are against preparing children for the world of work. We are in favour of preparing children for a fulfilling life and part of that is preparing for work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Saying we are against a narrow curriculum, against tests which prioritise recall and don\u2019t assess the skills you need in that subject, is in no way lacking in rigour. Saying we want students assessed for what they can actually do \u2013 their creativity, teamwork, initiative \u2013 is in no way being soft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We need a significant reform of our exams system for children when they reach the age of 16 \u2013 and teachers, students and parents need to shape that change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The pandemic has turbocharged educational inequalities. Kevin Courtney outlines what needs to change<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":41,"featured_media":46138,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[64,3],"tags":[3115],"class_list":["post-33245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-education","category-work-trade-unions","tag-kevin-courtney"],"yoast_head":"\nThe future of GCSEs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Creating change<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
This article first appeared in Issue #235\u00a0Educate, Agitate, Organise<\/em>. Subscribe<\/a> today to support independent socialist media and get your copy hot off the press!<\/h3>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"