Main Edition
US
FR
September 14, 2023 - 1:15pm
Latymer Upper School, a top independent school in Hammersmith, West London, has just announced that it will be dropping all GCSEs apart from English and Maths, instead creating its own qualifications designed to more creatively “stretch” its pupils. The assessments would keep traditional written exams, but also include vivas, group work projects, presentations, online assessments and fieldwork.
Latymer is not the first to break away from the GCSE system. Bedales, one of the most expensive schools in the country, already offers Bedales Assessed Courses (BACs) alongside GCSEs in subjects such as Ancient Civilisations, Digital Game Design and Global Awareness. Sevenoaks School in Kent created Sevenoaks School Certificates (SSCs) in 2010 for eight subjects including Music History and Technology Robotics. There has also been a huge surge in the number of private schools taking IGCSEs, while institutions such as Rugby and Wellington have moved to the broader International Baccalaureate over A-levels.
In many ways, moving away from the outdated GCSE model makes a lot of sense: teachers can redesign and update the curriculum to focus on skills such as critical thinking, creativity, communication and collaboration, all of which will be vital in an automated, AI-driven world.
Yet there are risks to this approach. If Latymer is assessing and awarding its own qualification, then there needs to be some process of rigorous moderation to make sure that teachers aren’t simply marking their own homework. The assessments also need to be designed in a way that ensures pupils — and schools — don’t “game” the system. Exams are still the best leveller we have: we know that coursework, controlled assessments and other internal tests no longer work in a world where private tutors, ChatGPT and plagiarism-evading software are only a click away.
One also wonders how state schools will feel about this departure. Many academies and free schools equally want to innovate: School 21 in Stratford, for example, does impressive work with oracy, while XP School in Doncaster teaches its timetable through projects rather than subjects, with a focus on US-style “expeditionary learning”. Yet for all their supposed autonomy, they do not have the freedom or flexibility, as private schools do, to move away from GCSEs, as they risk being crucified by league tables and by Ofsted.
As the private sector makes these changes, state schools may feel embittered that they are still being forced to drill students for old-fashioned (and potentially harder) public exams. Many state schools already feel frustrated that they are not allowed to do IGCSEs, and could feel increasingly stifled by the rigidity of GCSEs as they watch other schools pioneer new courses. In addition, Latymer’s inclusion of presentations and oral assessments will surely be ideal preparation for the pressure of an Oxbridge interview, and university admissions tutors may be swayed by the more interesting, eclectic and up-to-date content offered by private schools.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe second to last paragraph is instructive of the real problem. Why doesn’t the government look at ways to bring the state sector up to the private level in the ways described? Rather that than the thrust of the rest of the article which is private schools are doing something nefarious? Of course the answer was obvious – parent led and run academies – but there has been so little innovation in the state sector (and what there is being discouraged) that no head teacher with their head screwed on would bother. Mediocrity is encouraged and any upset to the status quo (sacking the worst-performing teacher in a school, developing sporting achievement, performance-related pay) is condemned as heresy.
In my experiences, good teachers get out of education fast and do something more worthwhile. It’s no longer a viable career path.
I didn’t get any sense the author thought the private schools were doing something nefarious. If anything it pitched it as the state schools will get left behind.
I thought it was pretty good really. The problem of teachers marking their own homework is real. Universities do this and it really shows. One benefit of standardized exams is the markers can be people from totally different parts of the country to the teachers.
When you say “universities do this and it really shows” is this an argument against marking your own students’ work? It has happened in universities for hundreds of years without problem. Or is it just now that a heightened profit incentive has forced universities – even formerly reputable ones – to inflate their students’ achievements? I remember a lecturer at university took pride in only ever giving 60% (a 2:1) as the highest grading in his classes. Needless to say I only took a couple of his courses before deciding that I really needed a decent grade over the supposed rigour of his teaching/marking.
I tutor maths and sciences at GCSE level for both state and private school pupils. I went to Cambridge University (1981-1983). In my experience, both GCSEs and IGCSEs in Maths and the three Sciences provide an excellent introduction to these subjects. They are hard work, intellectually challenging, and cover a vast array of topics quite rigorously. I have no idea how one could expect pupils to go onto A levels in these subjects (or the IB) without doing the existing GCSEs first. Nor is it obvious to me how they could be improved. The GCSEs are more “applied” than the IGCSEs and possibly slightly harder as a result, but there’s not much in it in my view. I have no idea therefore why people would be so critical of GCSEs in general and I wonder if people know what they are talking about? Perhaps this idea that they are outmoded is more appropriate with regard to the humanities. I note however that Sevenoaks School for example only developed its own certificates for a few peripheral subjects rather than the main ones. I think there’s a lot of unnecessary hand wringing and doom and gloom about everything at the moment. Let me assure you that in Maths and Sciences at least, GCSEs are totally fit for purpose.
I think the issue is more with the selection of subjects than the GCSEs themselves. A lot of stuff is taught in too much depth, or stuff that ends up being useless, whilst other things aren’t covered at all. There’s a lot of “life skills” stuff that people my age were never taught and which would have been infinitely more useful than a lot of material that was in there, for example. Also GCSEs were hopeless at teaching computer skills or logical thinking in general.
What was wrong with the old CSE, O-level and A-level régime?
I’m sorry but schools shouldn’t be able to simply make up their own qualifications. If every school did that then it would render the exams meaningless as there would be no way of comparing the pupils at different institutions.
Which is worth more? Mathematics Grade C on a Leeds Secondary Cert, or a Mathematics Grade 2 in the Birmingham Grammar School Programme?
Or it might mean that universities/companies might have to do a bit more digging into a candidate’s background than taking a grade as sacrosant. Companies already have to do this with university students – a 2:1 at some universities is comparable to a 2:2 at others. A 1:1 at some is worth nothing without applied skills.
Change is desperately needdd. When GCSEs were invented in the 1940s, 93% of 16-year-olds left school. Now 93% stay in education. They are well past their sell by date.
Though it would be nice if pressure on OfQual would work, I suspect that it would be better for innovation to take place by individual brave schools, so demonstrating the value, and providing a model for OfQual to copy. No one has ever accused of “being creative or innovative.
If I remember correctly, before WW2 the school exams were referred to as “matriculation” and were not taken by many as they were the road to the small intake by Universities. After WW2 “O” levels and “A” levels were introduced and taken by those who were in private education and the grammar schools. Increasingly some secondary modern school pupils took them. Then in the late sixties GCSE exams came in, firstly for secondary modern school pupils and then, as comprehensives became the norm GSE and O levels were merged, so that by the mid seventies the present format was established. Subsequent grade inflation means that the exams became easier, and less discriminatory.
The first year GCSEs were sat was 1988. I know this because I was in the first year that sat them.
I left school in 1975 and there were CSE and GCE ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels.
GCSEs were introduced in the 1980 because O levels were difficult. They wanted an exam that everyone can sit and no one would fail.
As to “skills such as critical thinking, creativity, communication and collaboration, all of which will be vital in an automated, AI-driven world” this is the same bol***ks that they used to introduce the GCSE
You are referring to CSE’s (certificates of standard education) as opposed to GCE ‘O-Levels’ (general certificates of education) which were both available to sit prior to the introduction of the ‘one-size-fits-all’ GCSE’s (general certificates of standard education) introduced in 1988 which amalgamated both the CSE and the GCE examinations into one final examination.
That was what I said. I just did not mention CSEs
The first round of GCSEs were in 1988. You are referring to O’levels, which were replaced by GCSEs.