Examinations at 16

So Michael Gove is for ‘rigour’ – no surprise there, as it’s a word that means relatively little and sounds good. Like ‘family values’, no-one can be against rigour. But it’s worth asking what GCSEs are for, and the benefits or otherwise of changing them.

Employers are going to be increasingly uninterested in GCSEs. With the raising of the age of participation, GCSEs are increasingly less often the final point of an educational journey. They do have value for assessing readiness and ability for post-16 learning, whether that is academic or vocational. And they do provide a basis for assessing core skills, knowledge and competence – though even that leaves a series of questions unanswered. Literacy – of course. Numeracy – no doubt. Problem-solving – absolutely. But what about teamwork, about oracy and public speaking, about learning enthusiasms of your own? They all seem to me valuable for future life and ought to be assessed.

Universities, like employers, will have almost no interest in GCSEs – whether they are graded A*-G or 8-1. Universities are (inevitably and properly) obsessed by the A-levels system and whether this is a good preparation for degree courses.

So GCSEs are important only as a gateway into post-16 education. And of course they should be rigorous, and so on, but they also ought to be comprehensive. Bemoaning coursework and modules and saying that end-of-course examinations are all that matters is just nonsense. I can think of very few areas of work or later study in which study over two years is assessed in one go. Even the most traditional universities have intermediate examinations and most courses have some elements of modular assessment. Of course there is cheating – intentional or not – but the benefits of modular learning are clear – some, not all, pupils achieve better with this form of assessment.