Few issues in post-16 education spark as much debate as GCSE resits. Each year, thousands of students in further education colleges, sixth forms and schools must retake English and maths if they did not achieve a grade 4 at 16. For many, this process feels less like a second chance and more like punishment – and too often the result is a sense of repeated failure rather than real progress. That is why we believe it is time for a resit rethink.
GCSE English and maths resits were introduced with good intentions. The policy is based on the premise that a grade 4 is a passport to future success, ensuring that young people leave education with the foundational literacy and numeracy skills they need for further study, work and life.
But in practice, for those who did not achieve this grade at 16, a one-size-fits-all approach to resits does not work. The current system forces students – who have already struggled with the traditional GCSE model – to retake the same assessments, often with limited teaching time and little adaptation to their specific needs. of the almost 70,000 students entered for English and maths resits, only 35 per cent and 24 per cent respectively achieved grade 4 or above, JCQ data from the November 2024 post-16 resit window shows.
This is not just frustrating for learners, but also a challenge for colleges which must stretch already thin resources to deliver courses. Talk to anyone in their senior management teams about the timetabling challenges of finding classroom space for large numbers of resit students, and you will understand the logistical challenges this policy presents.
We need a more pragmatic, effective solution. The first step is to acknowledge that the needs of post-16 resit students differ to those of school-age learners. From our conversations with college leaders, we know that many arrive in FE settings with low confidence in their literacy and numeracy abilities.
They may be focused on vocational studies and find it difficult to see the relevance of GCSE topics to their chosen career paths. They also often have fewer contact hours with teachers than in school, making it harder to build the skills necessary to succeed in an exam-based qualification. English and maths lesson attendance is often lower for students who otherwise have good attendance for their chosen vocational or technical subject areas.
Short-term changes within the current GCSE framework could make a significant difference. Adjusting assessment structures, such as reducing the volume of exams in maths or streamlining English assessments to focus on core literacy skills, could help overcome barriers to success. Allowing students to bank credits across multiple exam sittings – rather than requiring them to pass all components in one go – would also recognise incremental progress and keep students engaged.
But incremental adjustments can only go so far. In the longer term, we must go further by introducing a post-16 GCSE English and maths route designed with post-16 students in mind.
This must maintain the rigour and credibility of the existing GCSE while addressing the reality of post-16 education. The content should be relevant to the lives of post-16 learners, focusing on practical applications of literacy and numeracy skills rather than abstract academic concepts.
A more flexible assessment model, including options for on-demand and adaptive testing, could reduce exam pressure and better reflect students’ learning. It could also reduce the logistical challenge of finding spaces for students to sit their exams, whether that is in a large exam hall or in multiple rooms, each requiring qualified staff simultaneously. We remain committed to working with the sector to build a solid recommendation for these qualifications.
This is not about lowering expectations or reducing ambition. The goal is to ensure that every young person leaves education with the confidence and skills they need – through a reformed GCSE, an alternative but still rigorous qualification, alongside a more flexible approach to assessment.
With the curriculum and assessment review set to deliver its interim findings soon – and a full report expected later this year – there is a rare and timely opportunity to think differently. We must take the opportunity to make the immediate changes that would improve the resit experience for our current learners while we develop viable alternatives. But this is ultimately the moment to move beyond minor tweaks and consider bold, evidence-led reforms that genuinely support post-16 learners.
ABT! There must be something happening behind the scenes if an awarding body had broken cover to nail some colours to the mast.
It’s rarely comes up in polite conversation, but we shouldn’t forget that for awarding bodies re-sits are repeat business, and they are businesses. For the sake of balance, we also shouldn’t forget that many providers will continue to take on students to fill classrooms in the knowledge that they have very little chance of success (whether they are swimming against the tide or complicit is a matter of opinion).
Either way, it’s remarkable (no pun intended) that pandemic related GCSE grade inflation hasn’t featured in this piece. In the last couple of years, as grades have largely returned to ‘normality’, those requiring resits had been those further away from a good grade, for no other reason than being victims of circumstance and the timing of their birth.
Conversely, this also means there are young people out there with certificates, but possibly below the level of those now coming out of the system with the same grades. But the system doesn’t appear to want to recognise this as an issue or deem it worthy of support.
It seems to be increasingly prevalent that uncomfortable truths are ignored for a more simplistic sanitised version of the truth, which prevents the sector from learning and improving. This seems very peculiar in a sector specifically tasked with learning!
Colours to the masthead…I currently teach GCSE maths resit classes in an FE setting and it’s hard work.
Not only from the students but from vocational curriculum colleagues too, who sells our students short by stealing their maths time for vocational tasks and by directly undermining maths by quietly telling the students that they don’t actually need maths and that it doesn’t matter. The maths requirement for a qualification is then “fudged” and the qualification awarded. Otherwise the college looks bad.
But GCSE maths IS a lifetime qualification; a vocational BTEC or whatever probably isn’t because teenagers today are very unlikely to remain in the same industry for all their working life whereas they will need their maths GCSE for any worthwhile job, all through their working life. Even those who do remain in one industry will need to “move with the times” and upskill.
A good maths (and English) GCSE tells an employer that a job candidate can learn things, that they can be trained to do things and this is the key to the importance of those qualifications.
Learning to solve algebra or geometry (or to analyse a text) isn’t an abstract skill but a vital training ground for “growing the brain”, learning the importance of method plus process and above all developing life-long thinking skills. Even for those young people will “never use maths” in their lives.
In an education system increasingly criticised for teaching our young people “what to think” it is increasingly only in maths and English where they can learn “how to think”. Don’t take that away from them by dumbing down the outcomes. Change the system to provide better teaching and learning opportunities to enable them to progress.
Encourage them to be aspirational and inspire them to succeed. Don’t just make excuses for why they failed ( or were failed by the system ! ) yet again.
How is literacy in English, the ability to read this sentence and understand it, an *abstract academic concept* ?
Numeracy – different – powerful calculators a ‘fact of life’ – why would we test skills that can be superseded in daily life?
The real villain is the Foundation Level – 130/200 still not a passing grade?
But 30%~ IS a pass on the higher tier?
This is *let’s pretend* – we will pretend it’s OK- but it seriously is not.
Creating expectations just as difficult as it ever was, it seems..
And many of those with ehcps staying in education have to resit until they’re 25 or get the grade! It’s cruel.
The best teachers to teach these subjects are in High School. Before Gove came and vandalised the GCSEs we had early entry. This worked because students took exams in year 10, most passed but the ones that didn’t actually got motivated by seeing others in their year pass. We had a Maths pass rate of 80%+, Today it’s around 66%. The solution is to allow early entry and retakes in year 11.