Imagine an exam where 80 per cent of students don’t achieve the required grade, yet are still forced to take it. Nobody would invent such a system, right?
But absurd though it may sound, this is the reality of the current compulsory resit policy for students who haven’t attained at least a grade 4 in GCSE English and maths in secondary school and therefore have to retake these qualifications in post-16 education.
Last week’s GCSE results showed that 79 per cent of students aged 17 and over who took GCSE English language and more than 80 per cent who took maths, fell short of that coveted grade 4 ‘standard pass’.
This is misery on an industrial scale. It means that more than 117,000 students missed the benchmark in English and over 153,000 in maths.
If the goal is to support young people to gain confidence in literacy and numeracy, this system is doing the opposite. It’s demoralising and ineffective.
The reality of the resit policy
The requirement is driven by a labyrinthine set of funding rules applied to colleges and sixth forms, which was introduced by the last government in 2014.
On face value, the policy’s intention sounds reasonable, recognising that GCSE English and maths are gateway qualifications for education and employment, and providing students with additional opportunities to obtain them.
However, the reality is that the grading system is stacked against them. The way it operates more or less ensures that around one-third of all students fall short of grade 4 English and maths each year.
Since these students are the ones required to resit, it’s unsurprising that most do not improve upon their original grade.
The exam system as a sift
Some experts argue that if standards rise, more students will pass. But in practice, this doesn’t happen and we are only ever likely to see minor shifts in grading.
In fact, the whole point of the exam system is to act as a sift - it’s deliberately designed to rank students, determining who progresses in which subject choices in post-16 education, apprenticeships and careers.
That is one thing for, say physics or geography, but quite another for GCSE English and maths because so much hinges on these qualifications.
The lack of a ‘standard pass’ hampers future opportunities far more than it should. These GCSEs have also become a measure of literacy and numeracy standards in our society.
We therefore want to get all our students to reach the standard of a grade 4 because it’s beneficial for them and for the economy. But this cannot happen because that is not how the exam system is designed to work.
A new kind of assessment
If we genuinely want all students to be proficient in maths and English, we need a different kind of assessment - one that is ‘criterion-referenced’ against a set of pre-determined standards without comparing them to others.
A good example is the driving test, where the goal is to ensure drivers are safe and competent, not to rank them.
This isn’t about lowering standards. Passing a driving test requires significant effort, but it’s at least notionally achievable for everyone, unlike the current exam system where one-third are destined not to achieve the required grade, and many more will fall short again.
If literacy and numeracy are essential for everyone, we need assessments that reflect this, allowing all students to take them when they’re ready to succeed - not just by a certain age.
A clear alternative
GCSEs in maths and English could still exist as academic qualifications, but proficiency in these subjects should be something that all young people can achieve and which is valued.
The resit policy must be scrapped. It is brutal and counterproductive.
But we also need a clear alternative - one that supports students rather than crushing them. Labour’s curriculum and assessment review has a golden opportunity to make that change.
Pepe Di’Iasio is general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders
For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter
