Are we heading towards a situation in which some secondary schools will find it impossible to demonstrate improvement? This is a risky question to ask, given the very low tolerance of “failure” these days.
This year’s GCSE results were slightly better, but stories are emerging of static, declining and dramatic shifts in performance, and of dismay from some heads. This type of turbulence has been going on for some years and may no longer be newsworthy, but we do need to understand the longer-term implications.
There is a perfect storm of changes. The policy of “comparable outcomes” means GCSE predictions are based on primary test results. If a cohort of pupils exceeds expectations then the regulator, Ofqual, brings the GCSE grades into line. Improvement becomes a mirage as schools can only be as good as their intakes and one pupil’s exceptional performance needs to be balanced by another’s disappointing one.
When news of this practice hit the headlines in 2012 Ofqual’s Glenys Stacey explained [pdf] that this might make it harder for “genuine increases in performance to be fully reflected in results”. She was right – but that is not all. The eradication of retakes, modular exams, coursework, speaking and listening tests and certain vocational qualifications has occurred at the same time.
Some of these changes may be justifiable. Unlike the government, I don’t believe the Labour years were a failure for schools. Most heads, teachers and schools got much better in that period. But some schools were also lauded (by governments on both sides) for “rapid improvement” that was partly built on vocational qualifications counting as multiple GCSEs. There have also been, as I wrote here two years ago, opportunities for unethical and unscrupulous practices, bordering on cheating.
But the remedies are converging on schools with a vengeance, hitting those in the most challenging circumstances hardest.
The idea of a “coasting school” has been given a tough new definition. The new GCSEs will raise the bar again by attempting to shadow “average” grades in the other Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa)countries.
The Progress 8 measure [pdf], aimed at ensuring every pupil’s progress counts rather than just those on the C/D borderline, could be fraught with unexpected consequences if, as predicted, it proves harder to demonstrate good improvement with pupils from some backgrounds. The “we are improving but you just can’t see it” argument is a hard one to advance without being accused of making excuses or having low expectations. But unless we recognise what is happening, genuine improvement may be stymied.
It is right to have the highest expectations of all children, but equally we need to acknowledge that “disadvantage” takes many forms. Children eligible for free school meals come from a wide range of ethnic and social backgrounds, often with very different attitudes to education. Schools with disproportionately high numbers of pupils from the most difficult homes will become increasingly vulnerable in this maelstrom of change.
As long as high stakes accountability is linked almost exclusively to exam results, the demoralising effect of barely being able to stand still, let alone improve, will probably make the recruitment and retention of great heads and teachers – and lets not forget these are the people who are the key to sustaining real improvement – even more difficult than the evidence suggests it already is.
Ultimately, the young people in those schools, tied to an exams treadmill they can never conquer, will pay the price. The gaps in attainment between children eligible for free school meals and the rest, which actually widened on the coalition’s watch, will continue to yawn.
I would like to suggest two reforms to deal with this conundrum of maintaining exam integrity and morale, demonstrating improvement and providing a stimulating education.
The first is to tackle our woefully unjust school admissions system once and for all. It is outrageous that some schools can engineer intakes that automatically guarantee better results than their neighbours. The second is to loosen the ties between accountability and exams, possibly abolishing GCSEs altogether. It feels like a qualification that has had its day – and more eminent people than me, such as Sir Mike Tomlinson and the Institute of Education’s assessment expert Tina Isaacs, suggest this.
It would still be possible to have rigorous assessment at 16 without the full range of subjects being examined. It might speed the passage to a real baccalaureate-style qualification at 18 and make education a more engaging experience for children.
A more generous interpretation of what constitutes success could then be shaped around new forms of assessment, removing some pressure from the heads and teachers making a difference in our toughest communities. We need our teachers more than ever, so this isn’t a problem we can ignore.
