💾 Archived View for rochelimit.uk › articles › 20230617_politicians_want_students_to_fail.gmi captured on 2023-11-14 at 07:29:43. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-07-10)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It has been a long time since the venerable GCE O-Level courses were retired in 1988, and with it the idea that more than 40% of 16-year-olds will fail any particular exam by design. Since 1975, when grading was standardised, A to E grades were passes, with a failing U for the remainder.
From 1988 these courses were replaced with the GCSE, the General Certificate for Secondary Educations, aimed at allowing education which allowed almost every child to receive a grade, and the concept of pass and fail were largely retired as educationally unhelpful. The grade range was increased at first to A to G, with a U still technically available but in practice mostly unused unless exam papers were not submitted. Later an A* was added to increase discrimination at the top. A to G were all passes, and typically one to two percent were graded U, ungraded.
Roll on to 2017, and GCSEs are reformed, with one change being that the grades now run from 9 down to 1 (and U for the unlikely 'ungraded' as before), with a 1 being approximately equivalent to the old G grade. The biggest difference though is not in the specific grading as defined in regulations, but in the political viewpoint. The government of the UK, in the form of the Department for Education, "recognises grade 4 and above as a 'standard pass' … a credible achievement … that should be valued as a passport to future study and employment." Those not reaching a grade 4 in English or Mathematics are required to continue to study them for another two years.
Even the government doesn't use the word 'fail' in its documentation, and certainly no 'standard pass' is mentioned in the GCSE regulations, so it is worrying to see schools, parents and children all talking about the need to 'pass' GCSE exams by reaching a grade 4. Children who get a 3 are referred to as having 'failed', rather than 'achieving a grade 3'. This was never an issue with the letter graded GCSEs before 2017, but the government seems to believe that insisting on 'rigorous standards' is a way to motivate children.
It is understandable that when a minister of state dismisses low grades as fails, parents and children are going to absorb the denigration, but teachers ought to know better. Taking a child with learning difficulties or a chaotic and traumatic home life, and helping them to progress from a grade 1 through to a grade 3, coaxing and supporting them as they go, should be celebrated. It used to be, but the 'fail' label has permeated throughout the education sector of the UK. It is a political fiction and it should be challenged for the sake of the education of the most vulnerable in society for whom a grade 3 can be seen as a great success.