/ THE NUT’S RESPONSE TO THE
OFFICE OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXAMINATIONS REGULATION (OFQUAL) CONSULTATION ON GCSE REFORM
JUNE 2013

INTRODUCTION

Implementation

  1. The short timetable for implementation of the introduction of new GCSEs, Alevels and a new National Curriculum will be detrimental to young people’s education. The profound changes which are envisaged cannot be achieved quickly. There must be sufficient lead-in time for schools to understand and examine the changes and to prepare for their implementation.
  1. The introduction of the new GCSEs alongside changes to A levels, new vocational qualifications at level 3 and a new National Curriculum, will put undue pressure on schools. New qualifications should not be introduced without first being piloted in full and modified as necessary. This may mean a longer lead-in time, but it is fairer to learners.
  1. Graham Stuart, Parliamentary Education Select Committee Chair, has warned about the dangers of three different education systems in the United Kingdom.

“There is a rush towards separate examination systems for England, Wales and Northern Ireland without careful reflection on what might be lost or consensus that this is the right thing todo.”

  1. An example of ahastily introduced reform was the implementation of Curriculum 2000 modifications to AS and A levels. The short development period allowed little time for the major changes that were introduced. In the event, the period of the first awards in 2002 proved difficult for all concerned, leading to considerable political fallout and shaken confidence in the new qualifications. The rushed introduction of these reforms caused particularly problems for schools and colleges, giving them little time to familiarise themselves with the new examinations. Unfortunately, the lessons that could have been learnt from such rushed implementation have not informed the introduction of these new qualifications.

The Purpose of the Reformed GCSE: Chapter 2

  1. The case has not been made for a wholescale reformof GSCEexaminations. Research, carried out by Ipsos MORI, has shown that confidence in GCSEs remains high [Seven out of ten teenagers (69%) agreed that they had confidence in the examination].[1] TheGCSE remains an appropriate qualification which is well regarded by teachers and students. The Government is mistaken in replacing it with such a narrow qualification, which is based entirely on a ‘one size fits all’, three-hour examination.
  1. The NUT’s own commissioned YouGov surveyof 2,008 adults (2012)revealed that only 21 per cent of parents believed that the Government’s plan to rely on a three-hour end of course examination was the best way to judge their children’s academic achievements. Sixty per cent of parents of secondary aged children taking part in the survey said that GCSEs in their current form provided young people with, ‘good breadth and depth in a range of subjects’.

Key Design Features: Tiering

Assessment Arrangements

  1. It is not the role of Ofqual to proclaim that “exams set and marketed by exam boards should be the default method of assessment”. Ofqual’s role, under legislation, is that it: “should be charged with securing standards in qualification, promoting public confidence in qualifications, assessments and tests and promoting awareness and understanding of qualifications, assessments and tests and the benefits of regulation and securing an efficient qualifications system”.[2] The NUT believes that making definitive statements about the ‘positive’ aspects of one particular assessment feature is outside the remit of the regulatory body.
  1. GCSEs, introduced in 1988, were designed to cater for a broad spectrum of pupils, encompassing at least 80 per cent of the student population. This was to include a substantial proportion of the 40 per cent of students in previous cohorts for whom O level examinations were inaccessible and who therefore left school with no public recognition of their achievements.
  1. Tiering in examinations has gone some way in enabling lower ability students to access qualifications and to progress through a GCSE examination system that has attempted to meet their needs. Schools have developed policies for entering students for tiered examinations.
  1. In a survey undertaken by the NUT during November 2012, teachers eloquently explained the benefits of tiering arrangements in examinations:

“Tiering can often facilitate stepped achievement when otherwise there may be demotivating barriers. Removal of coursework may remove opportunities for more practical learning and subsequent assessment. To identify, at the outset, a single form of terminal assessment-based takes no account of fitness for learning and drives it towards narrow-based knowledge and understanding.”

  1. Tiered papers have the potential to assess the full range of students’ abilities. Differentiation in lessons is universally recognised as essential and is expected in every classroom. Reducing testing to a‘onesize fits all’ examination is counter-productive and dismissive of a whole array of talents that young people bring with them. GCSE, as a tiered examination, gives students the opportunity to sit a range of differentiated papers and to teachers the opportunities to assess their success and attainment.
  1. There is also the danger that the pressure on schools to prepare all young people for athreehour examination will, in effect, force them to focus on narrow areas of knowledge, excluding other areas by default. Some young people will be subjected to a testing system that does not suit their particular learningstyle. This privileges and benefits some students, but penalises others.
  1. Creating one untiered examination for all young students, to include those with learning difficulties and other special educational needs as well as those applying to higher education courses, will be challenging with little guarantee of success. Reducing internal assessment to such an extent will impact negatively on the motivation, engagement and thus the attainment of vast groups of young people.
  1. Professor Robert Coe, Director of the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring at Durham University, has said:

“Coursework and modular exams have been getting a bad name recently but there are good educational reasons for including both in assessments. The problems come when you combine them with a high pressure accountability system that includes league tables, closing down schools that don’t meet ‘floor targets’ and the general perception that exam results measure educational quality. The truth is that no kind of assessment can really withstand this kind of pressure. If the new exams better reward the kind of learning we actually value, then the change will be very welcome.”

  1. It is vital that tiering in examinations should be retained in some subjects. There are very real child welfare, educational and social consequences of asking whole cohorts of candidates to attempt one single examination paper which may be quite unsuited to different levels of achievement across the spectrum students in a wide range of educational settings:

“We believe that it will be extremely difficult to assess the necessary range of student achievement without the use of tiered examinations. It is inefficient and ineffective to try and discriminate the full range of abilities of students with a single examination. We are highly concerned by the lack of explanation of how students with practical and creative rather than academic strengths will have those recognised in a way that is valued by them, their parents and their future employers. Failure to tackle this default will create a legacy of demotivationthat is all too familiar from the days of O level.”

(Wellcome Trust – 2012)

Linear Qualifications:Chapter 3

  1. The NUT does not believe that General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) courses should become available ‘solelyon a linear basis’. Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are still retaining modular qualifications. The Education Minister for Northern Ireland, John O’Dowd, has announced that he will not be following England’s lead in stopping modular courses, but, instead, will let schools decide what is best for their pupils.

The Issue of Modularisation in Examinations

  1. The NUT believes that the proposed reforms do not take heed of the evidence which exists about the educational benefits of modular units. Research studies undertaken, such as by Hodgson and Spours[3], the Institute of Education (IoE), outlined the potential that a unit-based qualification system would have.

This involves:

  • improving the quality of information, advice and guidance for students because a unit-based qualification makes it easier to compare and contrast course programmes;
  • the promotion of parity of esteem between qualifications because it shows the similarities and differencesof particular qualifications;
  • the improvement of resourcing and timetabling in institutions by allowing resources to be specifically linkedto the number and nature of units in a course programme; and
  • the increase in motivation of learners by providing them, in the shortterm, with objectives that short courses provide.
  1. The NUT believes that Ofqual should as a matter of urgency reconsider whether or not there are good educational arguments in favour of certain subjects continuing to be offered in a modular format. The NUT believes that it is preferable for Awarding Bodies to be able to offer both linear and modular GCSE courses so that courses are available to meet the needs of a range of students with different abilities and learning processes.

Key Design Features: Reporting Student Performance: Chapter 4

  1. The NUT is concerned that the move to a grading system described by a numerical scale might have the consequence of young people struggling to achieve at the higher end of an open-ended scale. With new qualifications becoming more challenging because of the linear structure and end of course examinations, candidates could struggle to get the grades they have aspired to. If four grades also relate to a 5-8 numerical scale, this could result in more than half of the population ending up with a grade 1or 2 on the 8 point scale.
  1. In light of the fact that Scotland, North Ireland and Wales are keeping their own distinct qualifications, there will be inconsistency across the grading systems in GCSE examinations. A debate needs to be had about how standards across the three countries will be efficiently regulated with variable assessment measures in place.
  1. Different test formats should, therefore, be investigated in relation to establishing fairness in high stakes testing systems, including the one being proposed by the Government. Setting one exam for all young people will certainly result in some young people becoming disengaged and demotivated.

“When differentiation is by task, assessing accurately across the full range requires a very large number of questions and a high level of testing time. Such a system would be prohibitively expensive, time consuming and also has repercussions on motivation. This is an obstacle to setting a single examination for the entire population.”[4]

  1. There is also evidence that some learners face counter-productive levels of test anxiety around GCSE examinations, an effect which is greater for specific groups of vulnerable learners. Anxiety can influence high ability students to the extent that even this group can fail to show what they really know in the test. (Pintrich and DeGroot: 1998; Putraen: 2009)
  1. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has concerns regarding an inflexible examination system. The Director General of CBI, John Cridland, commented that schools are forced to prioritise short term ‘cramming’ over aproper grounding in basicskills.

“Emphasis on exam and league tables has produced a conveyor belt, rather than what I would want education to be, an escalator.”

(John Cridland, Director General (CBI))

  1. International evidence, from high performing education systems, also suggests that more formative assessment during schooling would be beneficial alongside public exams, as it would make better decision-making while helping students broaden their achievement at 18.[5]
  1. Ofqual is misguided to suggest that a qualification system entirely reliant on afinal three-hour exam will be:

“… a levelling of the playing field that advanced equality of opportunity by subjecting all pupils to the same assessment exercise.”[6]

  1. A wealth of evidence about how to assess pupil attainment is being ignored. Research indicates that there should be a combination of both test scores and grades leading to a more valued assessment of achievement.

“Compared to a single high stakes test, grades represent student performance over an entire school year on a variety of classroom assignments, which more comprehensively assess the domain of knowledge and skills that compromises each academic discipline. Furthermore, teacher-assigned grades usually produce more equitable achievement than standardised tests.

An accountability system based on multiple achievement indicators might also command strong political support because the public embraces the notion that schools should develop non-cognitive outcomes, such as good citizenship.”[7]

Gender and Achievement

  1. The debate about gender and achievement is a complicated one. Ofqual’s Equality Review is limited and misleading as it does not appear to recognise or understand the stereotyping of both girls and boys which often occurs in debates about different types of assessment measures. New stereotypes have been created surrounding the debate about gender and achievement. Boys are represented as ‘damaged boys, at the mercy of ‘feminist’ teachers, out-performed by girls or are represented as ‘problem boys’. The new stereotyping for girls is presented as the ‘overachieving girl’ – the winners in the race for qualifications, leaving boys behind in their learning.[8]

“Various’ educational initiatives have been implemented to redress the inequalities that still exist for boys and girls inside the world of education’. However, it is the positioning of girls’ achievements relative to boys’ achievement (and vice-versa) within these initiatives that, perhaps, limits their success.

A less relational positioning of boys versus girls would enable girls’ educational successes to be viewed in the context of their own goals and expectations and would acknowledge that not all girls are achieving at similar levels. Boys’ perceived under-achievement would also be valued not as an unusual problem for all boys, but only as aproblem for certain boys at certain stages of schooling. Acknowledging the limitations of examinations will move us towards more ethical representations, descriptions and understanding of girls’ and boys’ achievements.”

  1. The NUT believes that Ofqual should explore further the impact of stereotypes about gender on different forms of assessment and on teacher assessment and should engage with a far wider pool of research about gender and education.

Full and Short Course GCSEs: Chapter 5

  1. The NUT believes that the value of short courses in GCSEs in subjects such as religious studies, citizenship studies, PE and ICT should not be underrated. Short courses in subjects other than the core subjects contribute to making the curriculum relevant to young people by appealing to their own individual interests and needs. These short courses are an effective approach to move learners towards progression in their studies.

Regulating the Reformed GCSEs: Chapter 6

  1. The NUT believes that the quality of assessment in the new GCSEs must be based on the principle that examination papers should be designed to test both skills and knowledge, as well as including a range of generic and specific questions. Ofqual states that it would like to see more extended writing in examination papers with a ‘reduction in inappropriate overtly structured bite-sized questions’.
  1. This is contentious. Such questions may cause unfair outcomes as there arewhole cohorts of students who do not achieve well in examinations, especially if they are asked to write at great length. Questions in examinations should be more accessible and meaningful to candidates across the wide range of ability, with corresponding mark schemes that are able to categorise and evaluate the wide range of answers produced.
  1. Putting together examination papers of varying degrees of difficulties within single three hour examinations in order to meet the needs of candidates with varying levels of achievement will be challenging and could increase the rise of mis-grading if these papers have low levels of validity and reliability.

Forms of Assessment: Chapter 7

  1. Subject content in examinations can be validly assessed by other forms of assessment other than written examinations. Teachers’ judgements are often used to asses aspects of pupils’ work that cannot be validly assessed by end of course examinations. Such assessments are already in use in many well-established high stakes jurisdictions.[9]
  1. The interaction between students and teachers during the production of work that is teacher assessed can involve positive, formative dialogue. Black and Wiliam, in their work, ‘Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment’: 1998-2009’, claimed this kind of assessment produced improvement of up to two grades at GCSE if implemented. Formative assessment has, therefore, been adopted by many governments internationally as a way to boost achievement (e.g., Chile, Hong, New Zealand, Norway and Scotland).

Equality Impact Analysis: Chapter 8

  1. The proposals to move from a modular to linear qualification system will leave little internal assessment in most subjects and will have significant impact on students who share protected characteristics and who are protected by the Equality Act 2010. Ofqual’s literature review concludes that the elimination of coursework could be “said to reduce teachers’ under-expectation, stereotyping and prejudice in assessment”. This is a very sweeping generalisation and an astonishing allegation about low teacher expectations and levels of unconscious bias. The NUT believes that there is enough evidence to indicate that the new GCSEs will be detrimental to the achievement and well-being of particular groups of young people and that the equality impact assessment has not been properly carried out.
  1. Children’s charities, educational professionals and disability campaigners have raised fears that the Government’s proposed reforms to GCSEs in England could increase the likelihood of disadvantaged young people failing in school. Young people with special educational needs (SEN), or pupils who do not live in a supportive home environment and have long-term health conditions, are likely to be disadvantaged by the introduction of tougher examinations. Three-hour examinations will test academically able pupils’ ability to recall and present information under test conditions. For many young people, however, including those with special needs, internal assessment is a more appropriate measure to test their knowledge and ability, and to set appropriate goals and planning.
  1. Ofqual states that the responsibility will fall to examination boards to meet the needs of specific groups of learners under examination conditions to ensure that, ‘assessment permits reasonable adjustments to be made’, by permitting additional time and rest breaks. The NUT believes that this is not a solution to the barriers faced by SEN learners who cannot access an examination system that meets their needs. Alllearners should be given the opportunity to achieve through an appropriate curriculum alongside accessible assessment measures.
  1. Lorraine Peterson, Chief Executive of the National Association for Special Education Needs (NASEN), has said that the new GCSE system will be “really challenging or just inappropriate” (13 June 2013). Around 20 per cent of the population is currently identified as having special educational needs. The Government, therefore, wrongly assumes that all children will achieve through ‘higher standards’ in examinations. It hasnot offered any realistic solutions to the problem of how large groups of the population will cognitively be able to succeed in such a system.
  1. Hilary Emery, Chief Executive of the National Children’s Bureau (NCB), has also commented that the reforms “are designed to ensure more young people failed”, and called for the Government to rethink them (June 2013).
  1. Young people who move home or school will also be at greater disadvantage, as well as looked after children; young people in custody; young people accessing health treatment; and those living in short term accommodation.
  1. Research, undertaken by Peter Burke and Adrian Carey[10], indicates that:

“Flexible course structures and delivery systems will permit each student to construct abespoke programme of study, based on modules, to meet their needs and interests and out of which they can gain credits towards a variety of qualifications that will enable them to progress to another tier of education or to another sphere of employment and training.”