GCSE and A-levels — after two years of disruption, what next for the exam system?

Analysis

At least this year’s GCSEs and A-levels publication days have gone off — so far, at least — without any major hitch, and candidates seem to have been spared the confusion and grief that marred the examination season of 2020.

But even as record results were being reported, it was clear that the disruption caused by the Covid pandemic had taken a toll. It came as no surprise when analyses of the figures revealed that the attainment gap had grown between young people from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds and their better-off peers — particularly those in independent and grammar schools. Students, and their teachers, who had access to devices and good connectivity during the school lockdown, and were able to access remote learning, performed better in their GCSEs and A-levels than those who did not.

Those defending this year’s teacher assessed grades believe they are fair and robust. There is good cause to feel this way. A teacher knows the standards of work their students have achieved and are capable of, and the level of effort they have put in, better than anyone. Arguably, a system of continuous assessment presents a more accurate picture of attainment than a random three hours in an examination hall on a given day, when a student might be unwell, have had a bad night’s sleep or find the exam process nerve-wracking and daunting.

Nick Gibb, the schools minister, lost little time this morning pledging a return to full exams in 2022, but why the haste?

Rather than pretend the last two years did not happen and that the proverbial genie can be squeezed back into the bottle, a grown-up discussion now needs to be had about the way forward for examinations, and GCSEs in particular. Given all students are now expected to stay on in education and training until 18, are GCSEs still needed? Should there now be more on-line assessment to mitigate the possibility of future lockdowns? Would it be more useful to assess students on completion of a module of work, rather than on a snapshot of what they’ve learned over two years using terminal exams? It is known that several awarding bodies are working hard on developing computer-based exams. It would be interesting to hear from them how they are faring.

There is no easy or fool-proof way to assess students in a high-stakes, educational system where schools are judged by results and find themselves accountable to parents and the government. But we need to try to find a better one than we have.

Ministers, aided by Ofsted, cannot continue use exam results as a stick with which to beat schools and teachers without hugely increased levels of funding to “level up” the have-nots with the haves. This does not mean introducing Latin in a small sample of state schools but investing in technology, ensuring that teachers are equipped and trained in its use, and that every child has access to devices and good connectivity.

Thousands of schools leapt years into the future, literally overnight, when the pandemic forced upon them remote learning, and will now use that new expertise to enhance their curriculum delivery. But many could not and, without support and funding, they now risk being left even further behind when they were already lagging.

If it is serious about levelling up, it is here that the government’s educational recovery plans should begin — with a deep dive into the lessons learned from Covid, by listening and learning from the experiences of schools and looking at how these new ways of working can be utilised to shape an education and assessment system that is fit for purpose, and fit for a digital future that has already arrived.