Scrapping GCSEs

It was somehow inevitable that, eventually, Michael Gove would take a look at GCSEs and hark back to the days of the old O-level - and it was even more inevitable that many in education would rise up in indignation at what he said. It's a reflex action for many - if Gove says it then it must be wrong/stupid/Victorian.

But Gove, on this, is talking sense.



We desperately need to review the exams that students sit at 16.

When I was a pupil there were O-levels and CSEs. The O-levels were for the academic high fliers and the CSEs were slightly more practical but, largely, for those who weren't academic.

GCSEs were introduced in the late 1980s to try to have one qualification that fitted everybody. Sadly, as is the way with one size fits all qualifications, it is an experiment hat has failed.

GCSEs are tailored at the average. They are a half way house between academic and vocational and, let's be honest, in most cases fail both. They prize mediocrity and fail to stretch the academically bright whilst still being too academic for those who struggle with such forms of examination.

GCSEs have been allowed to fail for far too long.

In an attempt to make it seem that everything was rosy with GCSEs successive governments have allowed slippage in standards to an extent that actual grades in GCSEs have become meaningless.

Yes, students may well work hard for them. Yes, they may be assessed more often than in final examinations. Yes, teachers are working very hard to get their students the best grades possible.

But none of this addresses the real issue - GCSEs are overly easy for the academically able who have been failed by a system that is aimed at the average student. High fliers now coast their way through GCSEs. They aren't stretched. They're not really being prepared for A-levels, let alone degrees. They are ale to freewheel their way to an A* with little effort.

Meanwhile, the students at the other end of the academic spectrum struggle. They can't cope with the aount of academic assessment required and really shouldn't be sitting exams that are so unsuited to their skills and abilities.

Yes, when I told my O-levels back in 1981, CSEs were looked down on and sneered at. hey were the exams for "thickies" - but in the past three decades surely we've learnt that vocational skills are as valid as academic?

The left wing politicians, and even the Liberal Democrats, are opposed to re-introducing a two-tiered system for exams. Why? Every few years everything should be reviewed even if it is working, to see if it can be made to work better. Some things will be changed and improved, other things left alone. Reviewing something is a good thing.

In many ways, we already have a two-tiered system. We have GCSEs (half academic/half vocational) and we have BTECs (vocational). The problem is that too many students are taking the wrong course and there's too much crossover between the courses.

The other problem is the way that BTECs - a totally different type of course and assessment - are given "GCSE-equivalent" status - as if to say, these BTECs are all well and good, but it's GCSEs that really count. And, in order to counter the ridiculous anti-vocational lobby the BTECs have been given huge numbers of GCSE-equivalnce - which has meant that some schools have replaced GCSEs with BTECs as they will score better in league tables...

What is the problem with a course and an assessment being vocational? Vocational is good, just as academic is good. They are different from each other. They suit different students and that should be encouraged and applauded.

Surely a better system would retain the BTECs but make them more vocational and minimise the academic aspects of them, scrap the neither here nor there GCSEs and introduce a new academic qualification that will look to street those students who are more suited for that?

The other thing that needs to change is that the concept of failure needs to be re-introduced. It is pointless that everyone passes an exam. It makes the qualifications meaningless. Yes, when I failed my O-level French I felt deflated but it was the correct mark - I was hopeless at French. There is nothing wrong with being failed if it helps you focus on the things you are good at. There are whole generations of students who haven't failed at anything because it might upset them too much. Such nonsense must stop.

If someone's not very good at something they should be told.

I hope Gove looks to replace GCSEs, and that they are more academically rigorous, but I hope he brings back failure as an acceptable mark for the sake of future generations.