Every year we’ve come to expect the same reports in newspapers, that exams are getting easier to pass: it’s hardly news, just regurgitated articles by the office junior who’s covering while everyone else is taking their annual leave. It’s a tricky position to be in as a teacher: surely if GCSEs and A-levels were getting easier then it should follow that our jobs are getting easier too. Are they?! And I also find myself torn when the results come out. The mixed feelings arise from wanting my pupils to do well and wanting them to get what they deserve – two different things most of the time! I want them to do well mainly for selfish reasons, so that I look like a good teacher, so my results look good within the department and so the department’s look good to the school and LEA; so the kids look back and think of me as the one who got them through the exam, and so that they remember my subject as one worth doing. On the other hand, I’ve known my classes for at least two years and I’ve seen the pupils that work consistently hard and those that piss around, and I want justice done! Although there is always that category of kids who work hard but just haven’t got what it takes to get the grade they think they should receive. And then there are the kids that have given me grief for two years, been lazy and disruptive and always handed in coursework late but yet still come up smelling of roses.
The other advantage I have as a teacher is actually seeing what’s on these GCSE papers. There’s nothing
else to do to stay awake while invigilating except read through all the exam papers and have a go at the
questions without the luxury of pen and paper. Some of them are, frankly, common sense. But they are the
common sense we’ve accumulated as we grow up, so that as an adult we know this stuff but as 16 year olds
it’s all quite new. I’m thinking in particular here of child development and design and technology papers.
There are other papers that I really couldn’t attempt from where I am right now: maths and physics in
particular! But I’m sure that if I was taught the subjects for a while I would be able to take the papers
at the end of my tuition. This is because they require knowledge of facts and formulae that I have long
forgotten. But what all these papers have in common is the extent to which the questions are broken down
into sections, ensuring that pretty much every child will be able to write something. Which to me is a good
thing.
The hardest papers I have seen for GCSE as I wander round the exam hall are those which don’t break down the questions to such an extent and require extended writing. Surely this is the kind of stuff that sorts the wheat from the chaff. It’s one thing to be guided round the answers, but another to present what most people would recognise as a more traditional method of examination. The papers I’ve seen recently that ask pupils for extended written answers with not much guidance are English, modern languages, R.E. and history. So I would agree that there are differences in GCSE exams, which can be summarised as:
There is a place for each of these skills in the workplace. If we think solely in terms of vocational
requisites, I’d prefer my car mechanic to have common sense, practicality and knowledge of the right answers.
If s/he can also discuss the social consequences of the industrial revolution then all power to her/him,
but it’s not needed for that job. For my doctor however, I’d prefer them to have the common sense and the
right answers, but also the intelligence that allows them to think on their feet and think laterally, which
is demonstrated in GCSE papers requiring extended answers, whatever the subject. Should my future doctor
receive a greater reward at GCSE level than my future car mechanic, albeit in different subjects? Both have
the ability to save my life, whether by recognising faulty brakes or faulty heart valves.
Besides, the more practical GCSEs like design and technology require pupils to produce sophisticated practical products that demonstrate their skills, so the written paper is only a small part of what they have assimilated and demonstrated.
Let’s face it, nobody hops straight from GCSEs into their vocation without further experience or training: my future doctor takes the traditional route of A-levels, medical degree and on the job training; my future car mechanic may take a modern apprenticeship or college course or learn on the job in the family business. Even those who leave education at 16 face a steep learning curve once in the workplace: having to adjust to longer hours, budgeting their wages, dealing with adults in the office or shop floor, picking up the idiosyncrasies of their particular job. Does it matter to an employer if the new shop assistant knows how glaciers are formed? Not usually. Does it matter to an employer that the new employee buckled down to their GCSEs, showed versatility, the ability to retain information, the adaptability to think laterally in an exam situation, plus the basics of literacy and numeracy? It should do. Whether GCSE results are able to show all these things is another matter.
Which brings me on to my next point. I wouldn’t say that GCSEs are necessarily getting easier; rather it’s easier to gain high marks in GCSEs. Most schools now expect at least a few of their pupils to ace all their exams. We even have A* results because A was no longer deemed special enough. For bright kids, A is no longer a reward for hard work and intelligence – it’s expected. It’s not the icing on the cake; neither does it show that pupil is exceptional in the subject. The same can be said for grades at A-level.
Let me take you back in the mists of time now. Well, first stop: last week. I was scrabbling through my
paperwork to find my DfEE number for some reason. Along the paper trail I found the prize giving programme
from my school when I was a 16 year old. The school I attended has always been top of the league tables in
its LEA, and still is now. It’s selective and my fellow classmates went on to become doctors, lawyers,
accountants, movers and shakers, entrepreneurs and of course teachers. We were the first year to take GCSEs,
and I can remember very well the panic and confusion that my teachers let slip. One militant teacher had
joined a pact with others in the area to teach us only two of the three areas we should have covered in
that subject, telling us there was no way we could cover all three sections in the time, and that we only
needed to know two of the sections for the exam – we just wouldn’t have a choice of questions. Another
teacher came to every lesson faintly disguising despair, as throughout the two year GCSE course no definitive syllabus
was sent out and it was mostly guesswork as to what to teach us! Most of my teachers were suspicious of the
coursework element and many openly expressed their difficulties in making sense of the marking guidelines
for coursework essays, and consequently many of our GCSEs were 100 percent exam based.
I had a quick look through the prize giving programme from my own GCSE year. Let me reiterate that this school was selective and renowned for the best results in the LEA. Out of the 90 or so pupils only two gained 9 grade A GCSEs. This was exceptional! Outstanding! A couple of pupils gained 8 grade As, a couple had 7, and a handful had 6 grade As. I don’t recall national league tables at that time, but I do remember that our school had the best performances in the LEA – there was always fierce competition with one other school but we always managed to beat them! Today I’m sure these results would be expected in most schools, and would be nothing to shout about. The results of my peers, if trotted out today, have become meaningless: there can’t possibly be any comparison with the GCSEs of yesteryear. The same goes for A-level results.
So what can we do about this? What should we do? Perhaps we need to think what the significance of GCSE results are anyway. They are not the be all and end all. (Just don’t tell the kids this!) A year or two down the line, GCSE results don’t count for much, merely the pass or fail in English, maths and science for many jobs and entrance requirements for further and higher education. The only people that GCSE results really matter to are those whose education stops at that point, and generally the fact that they quit education at that point speaks for itself. It’s no longer the case that most children leave school at 16 and only the academically able stay on: after all our government is doing everything it can to keep kids in education or training until they’re 18, including paying them!
For the majority of kids, GCSEs are a benchmark. Although they are continually tested at school, GCSEs
are the first time they get a certificate from an outside body showing how they did – whether this is
comparable to everyone else in the country is a matter for debate elsewhere, as there are discrepancies
between the different exam boards, in course content and also in the way work is graded. GCSEs show the
kids where their strengths and weaknesses are, they force them to juggle a number of subjects and projects,
and they are something to keep teenagers on task when there are so many distractions for them elsewhere.
But GCSEs do not automatically equip children for the world of work or higher education: this comes later. So yes, it’s
great for kids when they get good results, mostly they do work hard – even if some of them write more during the
exam period than they do for the previous two years! – and it’s a rite of passage more significant these
days than they key to the door. But should there be so much emphasis on their significance? From an
ideological point of view, most probably, but really? – well, I think my own opinions are obvious by now.
added 29/8/05
© Copyright laws apply to the contents of this website. 2003-2005