ASCL’s warnings about the danger of piecemeal changes to GCSE were realised in the volatility of this year’s results, says Brian Lightman. However the real worry is the damaging effect it is having on our most disadvantaged students.

Missing the mark

Over the years the period in August leading up to the publication of exam results has become one of intense media activity. Well in advance of any hard data, the speculation begins.

So, for example, one tabloid headline this year warned that thousands of students would be disappointed with their A level results.

This was certainly not the case in a year when the results were most definitely a good news story.

Contrary to what some commentators would have us believe, the changes to A level this year were relatively limited. The main one was the removal of January modules. This was one change that we knew about well in advance and for which schools have prepared well.

The other relatively recent innovation had been the introduction of an A*grade at A level. Students and teachers quickly recognised that the most selective universities would be requiring this grade and not just an A. They worked hard to prepare for it and teachers made sure that their teaching covered the most challenging content needed to access this high grade.

As well as being a tribute to the professionalism of teachers and the commitment of their students, the increase in A* grades should be a cause for real celebration about the continuing improvement of our education service. There can be no accusations of grade inflation because of the steps that the regulator has taken to prevent this. It must, therefore, be genuine improvement.

So there was celebration, and it was pleasing to hear some politicians, including the Secretary of State, making positive statements about this.

Yet that celebration was not reflected in much of the way that the results were reported. Instead, the focus, astonishingly, was on the drop in the pass rate of 0.1 per cent – yes, that is one-tenth of one percentage point, described hilariously in one headline as a ‘shock drop in A Level results’.

Tiny fluctuation

Now I do not pretend to be a statistician but it is difficult to believe that such a tiny fluctuation can be statistically significant. However, it was blown up into a big story that claimed to prove that Michael Gove, when education secretary, had reversed the trend in grade infl ation that had been going on for 32 years. Clearly, politics are far more important than facts.

Most importantly, however, all of this emphasis on tiny statistical trends seems to entirely miss the point about what we actually need from our education service.

We need ever-increasing numbers of students to achieve the best possible outcomes, which demonstrate high levels of knowledge, understanding and skills. We need more students pursuing STEM subjects – science, technology, engineering and maths – to the highest levels and we need the same students to demonstrate the kinds of transferable skills that employers require.

In these respects, too, we have success stories this year. The uptake in maths has increased substantially as has the uptake in the extended project. There is still more to do and we need urgently to see the same kind of developments in modern foreign languages.

The profession has been working hard on these challenges and can take much of the credit for the successes. The public debate needs to focus on why these matters are important and how everyone – employers, politicians and parents as well as the members of our profession – has a part to play in enabling our young people to prepare for work in a highly competitive global economy.

‘Comparable outcomes’

And so to GCSE. Although the new GCSE examinations have not yet been introduced, the changes to existing qualifications have been wide-ranging and introduced in a piecemeal fashion. We have consistently warned decision-makers that this approach could have unintended consequences and would be difficult to implement.

It would have made so much more sense to introduce a new replacement examination for GCSE in one go with a realistic implementation plan and timescale. The application of ‘comparable outcomes’, accompanied by a letter from Ofqual warning us of likely ‘volatility’ in results, made everyone jittery.

When the results were published the statistics were largely meaningless; the cohort was completely different and entry patterns had changed. That, of course, did not stop those statistics from becoming the headlines in the media with all kinds of questionable conclusions being drawn.

Governors must certainly not infer that a drop in results means a drop in performance.

In the days and weeks following publication of the results it became obvious that our concerns had been more than justified. Inevitably and unimpaired by fact, the hawks argued that this was the end of ‘grade inflation’.

They insulted the profession with claims that those whose results had dipped were simply getting their ‘comeuppance’ for ‘gaming’ in previous years.

But the facts are far less conclusive than this. We are investigating feedback from a significant number of schools that is not easily explained. While in some cases it will be partly because speaking and listening have been decoupled from the main GCSE grade, it is difficult to understand why this would be the case if ‘comparable outcomes’ have been applied.

It would also appear that a significant number of those whose grades dropped were not in schools that had been relying on early entry.

My fear is that the changes to GCSE will present a major setback to the coalition’s social mobility policy and the great efforts so many schools have been making to raise aspirations and achievement using the Pupil Premium.

‘Volatility’

At the time of writing, ASCL is investigating further what underlies the ‘volatility’ experienced by a significant number of schools in this year’s results. Meanwhile, we are raising the following matters with policy makers:

Good teachers prepare young people for examinations. As well as providing a broad and balanced curriculum they ‘teach to the test’, practising examination techniques and ensuring that all aspects of the syllabus have been covered. That is not ‘gaming’ – it is good teaching, which goes on in all sectors, including selective and independent schools.

Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds do not receive the assistance at home that those from more advantaged backgrounds receive. State schools have been highly successful in compensating as far as they can for this. One strategy that has benefited many such disadvantaged students has been the opportunity to take an examination more than once. A well thought through and implemented early entry policy can make a big difference. That too is not ‘gaming’.

The new GCSEs, still to be introduced, have been implemented without adequate consultation. This was exacerbated by the rush of consultations issued during the summer holidays, without adequate opportunity for the very teachers who will be tasked with preparing students for these exams to engage with them. This needs to be addressed before more unintended consequences arise, and a detailed implementation plan that ensures that relevant information is communicated to all stakeholders needs to be put in place.

It is absolutely right that we should be continually raising our ambitions and aspirations for our students. Making examinations more difficult and less accessible for many students does not help us to do this. The profession needs to be fully involved in deciding how to achieve this.

We have heard positive messages from the new Secretary of State Nicky Morgan about the kind of relationship she wants with the profession. ASCL will, as always, contribute constructively and proactively to the important discussions that need to take place.

Brian Lightman is ASCL General Secretary

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us