Time to take another look at the exam system

By Ed Mayne

Over the last week students up and down the country have received their exam results. I’d like to congratulate every single one of them for all their hard work. This article does not seek to undermine their achievements.

My year group at school was the second to take the current modular A-Level exams. I therefore sat exams every summer for four years in a row. Firstly GCSEs, then AS-Levels, and then A2s, followed by end of first year exams at University. I’ve genuinely grown to hate the annual criticism of the exams themselves that takes place every results day.

This year was no different. From the breakfast bulletins onwards critics were wheeled out to air their views, both in print and on TV. And yet this year one critic stood out for me. He wasn’t a disgruntled examiner or a politician looking back to the good old days when exams were tougher. He was introduced as a teacher.

He said the increasing number of good GCSE grades for the 23rd year in a row was genuine. But he put this down to improved teaching methods. He wasn’t saying the papers were getting easier and he wasn’t saying students were getting cleverer. He said it’s currently just too easy to prepare students to pass them.

Tony Blair famously believed that middle England wouldn’t let the A-Level go. He presumably felt the same way about the GCSE. Any Education Secretary that made steps towards changing the system was promptly removed. But the current system has fewer and fewer admirers.

Universities say it doesn’t distinguish the brightest pupils easily enough. Employers say it doesn’t adequately prepare school leavers for the world of work. And most worryingly of all, studies have shown that a worryingly large number of pupils leave school with an inadequate grasp of literacy and numeracy.

To make matters worse, private schools and private tutors will give those with the ability to pay the option of sitting more exams in more subjects, unfairly disadvantaging students from poorer families, particularly when it comes to University selection. Enterprises have sprung up where students can be taught to “cram” for their exams for a fee, literally giving wealthy families the opportunity to buy good grades for their children.

Preparing for national curriculum exams has become no more than a routine exercise for pupils, teachers and examiners. As the aforementioned critic rightly asked, is this what we really want from our exam system? I think it’s time we looked at this again.

The A-Level was set up in 1951 basically to be a University entrance qualification. At this point the school leaving age was just 15 and therefore most people who sat it had University in mind. Others had the option to leave school with an Ordinary Level (O-Level) qualification at 16, which has of course now been replaced by the GCSE. Now that the school leaving age will be increasing to 18 surely we have to restructure the exam system accordingly?

The International Baccalaureate in my opinion is too broad. Yet the A-Level is too narrow. Neither seem to get the balance right between teaching practical skills for life and encouraging academic learning for the joy of learning, both of which should be a key part of the curriculum.

My preferred option would be to replace GCSEs and A-Levels with a Diploma awarded to all students on completing secondary education. It would focus around exams in 3 specialist subjects, vocational or academic, at 18 years of age together with assessments of literacy, useful numeracy and practical science. Provided that elite schools didn’t boycott this I believe it would be a preferable and fairer national curriculum that could encourage creativity and originality rather than just preparation.

Debating reform of the exam system leads to other important questions. Should there be continual assessment or formal exams prior to the final year of school? How much coursework? Why not replace grades with marks in each subject? Could we even make it easier for some students to repeat years if they didn’t reach the standard they want? These kind of questions need to be asked as the school leaving age increases.

As for the Universities, although I am instinctively anti-exams, I think the only way to satisfy them would be an entrance exam. Universities could then collectively assess the specific qualities they require. Schools could then cater for students that aspire to go to University accordingly.

All options should be put on the table. But I do think we have to look at this again in order to make the annual complaints about “exams getting too easy” a thing of the past.