Ofqual has published full details of the new maths and English GCSEs which will be introduced from 2015.

In a report published today, the qualifications watchdog confirmed there will be a new grading scale that uses the numbers 1 to 9 to identify levels of performance, with 9 being the top level.

Maths, English language and English literature will all be assessed by exams, without coursework.

There will be no tiering of papers for English language and literature, but higher and lower level papers will be retained for maths.

Most exams will only be sat in the summer, apart from limited cases with English language and maths where students who were 16 on the preceding August 31 will be able to take them in November.

Ofqual’s chief regulator Glenys Stacey explained why the grading system had been changed.

She said: “For many people, the move away from traditional grades, A, B, C and so on, may be hard to understand. But it is important. The new qualifications will be significantly different and we need to signal this clearly.”

In a public consultation on the new GCSEs, the Association of Colleges (AoC) raised concern about students who failed to achieve a C grade at English and maths, simply being forced to resit the same exam in FE.

It said there should be pre-GCSE stepping-stone qualifications and a better link between functional skills and GCSEs — which it claimed would make it easier for post-16 students to gradually improve up to GCSE level.

The AoC also disapproved of plans to scrap coursework and base the assessment entirely on end-of-course exams.

It stated: “We are concerned a return to fully linear GCSEs with 100 per cent end assessment by external examination will not suit some young people.

“Research shows that end assessment favours boys, while continuous assessment and coursework favours girls.”

The AoC also raised concern that students with special needs could struggle to cope with high pressure exam situations.

The government also confirmed on October 28 that the new maths and English GCSEs would be incorporated into apprenticeships instead of functional skills from 2017.

Roger Francis, from vocational training firm Creative Learning Partners Ltd, raised concern this would rule out many less academic young people.

He said: “If the new GCSEs become the only standard for future apprentices, then there is a serious danger that thousands of young people who simply cannot cope with the rigours of an academic course will be disadvantaged and unable to complete an apprenticeship.”

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers also commented in its submission to the GCSE consultation.

It stated: “They [the reformed maths and English GCSEs] must be flexible enough to meet the needs of learners in work-based settings, where high quality programmes such as apprenticeships and traineeships are not linked to the academic year.”

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply to Steve Waters Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 Comments

  1. GCSE’s within Apprenticeships? Are the employers supposed to shut up shop when all their apprentices are out sitting external assessments at the same time in rented village halls or hotels in June? And if they fail they’ll have to wait another year to resit really sensible idea? What are these decision makers on? Why don’t they come and spend a couple of days with a functional skills tutor delivering in the real world !!!

  2. A “new” grading scheme from 1-9 with assessments by summer exams. Sounds like the “old” O Levels to me although the grading has been inverted for some unfathomable reason.

    As our company is a specialist English and Maths provider I welcome the emphasis on raising literacy and numeracy levels which is seemingly becoming more and more critical but why continue the association of GCSE with failure? Learners who may have struggled academically select an ideal vocational Apprenticeship in which they could excel only to be faced with the hurdle of an exam based English or Maths GCSE that they couldn’t clear when at school.

    Apart from the practicalities of delivering GCSEs with recruitment taking place 12 months a year but with exams only in the summer we already have a far better solution with the more practically based and equally robust Functional Skills qualifications. By all means raise standards and stretch all Apprentices to achieve Level 2 Functional Skills but reverting back to an exam based GCSE that they struggled with at school is simply perverse.

    Apprenticeships are supposed to provide an alternative progression route for vocationally minded people not reinforce the view that if you can’t pass academic qualifciations your chances of a successful life and career are effectively zero.

    Functional Skills is definitely the way to go for Apprenticeships and they cannot and should not be considered an easy option. It only seems like yesterday when everyone was calling for FS to be delayed because they were too hard & now after a general acceptance that actually they’re rather good we shoot ourselves in the foot once more……

  3. I have 25 years experience of teaching English in secondary schools and 5 years experience as an educational consultant in English and Literacy with a local authority. I am now involved in delivering apprenticeships for a private provider and am a qualified assessor and Internal Verifier. I am, therefore, in the fortunate position of having a perspective from both the 11-18 school sector and Further Education.

    I agree with Ann and Adrian. I am extremely concerned about the changes to GCSE’s and especially to English Language for the following reasons:
    * Michael Gove has made the changes on the basis that the GCSE’s have been ‘dumbing down’ and are not delivering the skills that employers need. There is not a shred of research evidence for the former.
    * The move to a more academic English curriculum will not deliver the skills that employers need and is based on an outdated concept of ‘academic rigour’ which presupposes that testing by final exam ensures the raising of standards. There is again not a shred of research-based evidence for this.
    * The reliance on assessment only by exam is not compatible with FE or Higher Education where many courses are examined through written coursework. Indeed, the highest academic achievement that can be awarded is a Doctorate which is assessed via a thesis and a Viva or oral examination. Does this mean that Doctorates are not academically rigorous?
    * As Adrian pointed out, the return to numbers is reminiscent of the GCEs that I studied when there were grammar schools, no coursework and no tiered examinations, apart from the inexplicable reversal of the ranking so that now a 1 is the lowest achievement and 9 the highest.
    * Given the return to numerical assessment, I presume that the numbering of levels at Key Stage 3 will disappear. If nothing is put in its place, we will return to the days when students postponed the ‘most important’ learning for Years 10 and 11. This is not conducive to good education. ‘Teaching to the Test’ will be even harder for teachers to resist.
    * As other contributors have pointed out, Functional Skills were introduced to provide the very skills which employers claimed that they needed. What will happen when GCSE English replaces Functional Skills in English?
    * The consequences of the proposed changes are likely to be that fewer trainees and apprentices will be able to achieve the equivalent of the current A* to C (presumably 9 – 6 in the new system). So, what will happen to these students?

    The speed at which these proposals were adopted by Ofqual, the lack of research into whether the current GCSE system is less academically rigorous (whatever that means) and the possible consequences of the new exam structure for students on work-related courses have led to major changes to assessment which based on ill-informed, ill-conceived prejudices and outmoded prejudice. The consequences for students, particularly those for whom a traditional academic education are inappropriate, will I fear be serious and potentially damaging.

    If you agree with me, please sign my petition on change.org