For years, rigid rules and a shocking failure rate in compulsory GCSE retakes have been one of the exam system’s dirty secrets. At last this dire situation is getting some of the attention it deserves. This year, nearly a quarter of all maths and English language entries in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were for students aged 17 or older on a repeat attempt – with just one in six of those retaking maths managing to pass.
By calling this a crisis, Jill Duffy, who heads the OCR exam board, has thrown a spotlight on the problem. But admitting that there is an issue with resits, as officials are now doing, is only the first step. There are differing views about what ought to happen next.
Reforming GCSEs is outside the scope of the review being led by Prof Becky Francis. But a proposal to ditch compulsory resits is on the table. The Sixth Form Colleges Association wants a second attempt to be followed – for those who fail – by a modular alternative. This would mean students not being forced to endlessly repeat the parts of the courses they have mastered, and focusing instead on the gaps.
Nick Gibb, the former Conservative schools minister, has predictably set his face against change and demanded that all schools follow the example of the best. But while big variations in results should be drilled into, and successes learned from, this is not an adequate response. Many subject experts believe that the qualifications are poorly designed if their purpose is to serve as a universal gateway to the world of work. Rather than sticking to vital competencies (such as numeracy, statistics and reading comprehension), the current versions include calculus and geometry (in maths) and quasi-literary analysis (in English language).
It is a great shame that these issues were not grasped more effectively by Labour in opposition. Changes to the curriculum and exam system are a painstaking process. Prof Francis’s review is the best chance of breaking a destructive cycle. But the Department for Education’s recent record of engagement with the further education sector – where most resits are taken – is not good. There is no secondary English specialist on the review, and teacher shortages and challenges around provision for special educational needs and disabilities remain concerning.
Resits must also be seen in the context of a wider debate around the future of post-16 education, including the pledge by ministers to abolish courses that they see as unwelcome competition to T-levels. As with resits, critics of this policy are most worried about less academically able pupils with lower test scores. Even the government’s own figures show a gap, with tens of thousands of students on the threatened courses, including some BTecs, potentially unsuited to newer alternatives.
With a skills white paper due in the autumn, it is not too late to tackle unanswered questions. A better balance between ambition and pragmatism can surely be found. Plenty of jobs in the UK do not require calculus or textual analysis. T-levels were meant to boost less academic, more practical teenagers. This year’s resit figures are a worrying addition to existing evidence that these are the pupils for whom the system works least well. Ministers must be absolutely confident that any changes they introduce make things better, and not worse.
