Seeing as all sorts of folks have decided now is a good time to try to get rid of (or at least, reform) GCSEs, I thought I’d offer up my opinions. I should start by saying that, on the whole, I’m in favour of retaining exams. If the last two years have taught us anything it’s that for all their problems (and despite all the noisy rhetoric to the contrary) no one has been able to suggest anything better. Exams continue to be the worst possible way to assess children apart from all the other ways. The problem with all forms of teacher assessment is not that the assessment is undertaken by teachers but by human beings. Our cognitive flaws are well enough understood to make it clear that the fairest approach to assessment is to use standardised testing. But that said, there are many problems with the current incarnation of GCSEs.
English language
I’m going to restrict myself to commenting only on the two English GCSEs: language and literature. Let’s begin by reviewing some of the issues with English language. I’m not the first – and I’m sure I won’t be the last – to point out that the English language GCSE is the most iniquitous of all the GCSEs children sit. In every other exam subject, children’s results are dependent on their teachers teaching the content of the courses, but the fact that it has absolutely no specified content means that the broader students’ cultural knowledge, the better they’ll do. This means that children from advantaged backgrounds tend to do better despite what schools do. Students from more disadvantaged backgrounds are so dependent on schools bucking the trend and avoiding the trap of believing English is a ‘skills based’ subject that they are statistically much less likely to succeed. The more you happen to know about the unfamiliar texts that pop up in the exam, the better you’ll do. English teachers find themselves in a bind. Superficially, the endless treadmill of making students sit past papers and drilling them for a very narrow test, seems like the best bet for exam success but, in fact, it is the very narrowness of this approach that guarantees more socially advantaged children outperform their less fortunate peers.
Perhaps the quickest, simplest solution would be to start specifying content. If students were examined on what they’d actually been taught rather on some vague, ill-defined ‘skills,’ the playing field would be substantially levelled. My suggestion would be for exam boards to produce an anthology of texts to be studies and emulated. This should include material on the development of the English language and the ways in which it has changed in recent years. I would also include an opportunity to comment on grammatical and rhetorical choices made by writers. This could make it a more effective bridge to the subject as studied at A level. I’d probably want to ditch the ‘descriptive writing’ component which essentially assesses students’ ability to write stories. Quite why this is considered valuable is a bit of puzzler.
To allay concerns about narrowing the curriculum and teaching to the text, the anthology could be made available mid-way through Year 11. This would still be far from perfect, but would at least allow students to be assessed on whether they have learned a body of knowledge.
English literature
Unlike English language, the literature GCSE follows clearly prescribed content. Here though the problem is, perhaps, one of too much rather than too little specification. Currently, students are assessed on whether they are able to respond to a narrow range of literary texts, arranged around such arbitrary groupings as ‘modern texts’ ‘Victorian novels,’ poetry (which must include the Romantics) and, of course, a Shakespeare play. It’s perfectly possible for students to perform well such a course and yet know little about literature.
My suggestion is that the study of literature would both be more interesting, and more rounded, were it to include some of the concepts that underpin an expert knowledge of the subject. To this end, I would like to see students assessed on their understanding of metaphor, their appreciation of narrative techniques, their ability to see the links between structure and content and the extent to which they understand the contexts in which a literary was written and is read. On top of this, the GCSE should introduce students to the broad sweep of literature. We should expect students to know something about the orignis of literature in English as well as a nodding familiarity with some of the great works and writers. Such a course should still retain some of the close analytic skills which are so inextricably associated with literary criticism, but by opening the subject out to the study of literature itself, rather than just individual works of literature, students would be exposed to a far broader – and arguably more useful – domain of knowledge.
Clearly there’s not much flesh on these proposals. I’m not expecting anyone to leap upon my ideas as the future of English but I would like to think that possibly this might begin a debate about how we can reform the English language and literature GCSEs. If any readers are interested in discussing these ideas further I’d welcome the opportunity to improve on what I’ve laid out above.
Like you, I’d like to see this debated, David. I think it needs to be more fundamental than you’ve outlined.
Is it possible to reform English GCSEs without (re)defining what is English as a subject and what’s happened to its Purpose? The problem is that most English teachers know nothing of our subject’s history and evolving nature (nor do they care). That limits any informed debate. Almost all the English teachers I’ve worked with in the last 10 years really do seem to believe the function of English is to teach literacy at KS3, pass exams at KS4 and pass even more exams at A-level in order to go to university.
I don’t feel English has improved in the 25+ years I’ve been teaching. It seems to now repel the sort of children who once would have claimed it was their favourite school subject. I don’t even think that we’ve improved our skills in teaching “English”. We’ve just become better at preparing students for exams while simultaneously alienating the students who would most benefit from our teaching.
Personally, I’m not in favour of making English ape Classics more than it increasingly does.
Perhaps it’s time for one of those periodic inquiries into English that happen every so often?
You would like to ‘see students assessed on their understanding of metaphor, their appreciation of narrative techniques, their ability to see the links between structure and content’ in Literature GCSE. Surely ‘writing stories’ in preparation for GCSE Language is an authentic way for them to learn these things by doing them – yet you claim to see no value in story-writing. I’m a bit puzzled.
Hi Clare
Even if I was an uncritical fan of creative writing, I’m not sure get students to write stories in the English language GCSE is a good way to assess students understanding of these concepts in the English literature GCSE.
Are you perhaps suggesting that there should be only one combined English GCSE?
Hi Gary – I quite agree. I hope you’ll be pleased to hear that my new book, Making Meaning in English begins by setting out a history of English as a school subject and by asking what it’s supposed to be *for*.
Can I ask what ‘aping Classics’ might look like?
HI David, I think you hit upon a key problem – what is the Eng Lang GCSE for – is it a gateway to Eng Lang A level or is it a literacy test. IMHO it should be the former – but then it would need to be optional and they should have a literacy or communications based qualification like Functional Skills [but better] to test literacy. Or they could go on the fact that ability in essay based subjects is normally linked to literacy and use the scores in those subjects as an indicator. [I know the govt say Lit or Lang counts for literacy but in reality most universities still insist on Lang and many employers too].
Another interesting issue is that how stories can be used – a key problem for me as a teacher is the lack of enthusiasm and interest in education the current curriculum creates in young ppl. I think this factor is ignored and it is a huge issue for our whole society. Story reading and writing can be a part of this – although I appreciate it isn’t a skill students are likely to use much, but how much of our subjects will they use post education beyond the qualification itself – another can of worms!
Finally just a word of warning – exam boards are terrible at anthologies. I have never seen an anthology that didn’t make me feel depressed, and some [AQA Eng Lang/Lit A level] have consistently been unteachable, if not unreadable. So a review of how these are created with some teacher input might be advisable.
Thanks for the blog.
[I am not sure if this posted before as it isn’t coming up]
Thanks for your interesting post on one of my favourite topics. 3 brief points –
1 You are right the exam does not know what it is for – literacy test or gateway to A level Eng Lang. It is used as the former and should not be in my opinion. It should be optional and a gateway to A level in Eng Lang [which should be renamed Linguistics]. There are a range of better options for measuring literacy – stand alone exams that measure real literacy skills [like the Functional Skills exam or something better and new] or a mark given based on performance in other essay based subjects.
2 I understand your point about stories in exams but I do think that it is worth remembering how much we learn from stories and how dry the current curriculum can be. A major issue in classrooms is how little curiosity and passion the content we teach creates in young people. Stories could be a tool for addressing this but they should not be just in there for the sake of it.
3 I would be concerned about asking exam boards to create an anthology. Without exception they have produced a selection of dreadful collections over the years. [AQA Lang/Lit anthologies are without doubt appalling]. Perhaps some/more teacher input into this process might be overdue?
Thanks again for your post.
How do you feel about exams as a mode of assessment in English? I think there is a place for them, but it is far too overstated at the moment. I don’t have a problem with assessing ‘story-writing’ , but ‘writing a story’ under exam conditions is pointless. Like you, I’m unsure what it’s actually assessing. I don’t think we can meaningfully talk about reforming the content until we accept that this is primarily what inhibits our subject’s ability to reach out to the disadvantaged and alienated as it once did.
I agree that the imaginative writing task in Language GCSE is too contrived and time-limited to be a good way to assess pupils’ ability. I do think though that the practice of writing fiction as part of the subject that is ‘English’ is the most powerful way of understanding how narratives work and how language is used to have impact on the reader. Surely we wouldn’t want all the creative and imaginative elements of the subject to be eradicated? They seem more important now than ever. I don’t like the increasingly polarised approach to Language and Literature teaching (different teachers, different timetabled lessons, different department plans etc. – mostly driven by SLT who often don’t have a full understanding of how the subject works) but I haven’t thought about combining the two. I’d be interested in yours and others’ thoughts on this. Thanks for responding and thanks for highlighting the issue in your blog.
I think Clare makes a good point about polarising Lang and Lit. I hope that is not what my response seemed to suggest. I think originally Lang was about studying non-fiction language usage. If it went back to that it would be an excellent and important GCSE to take. The problem for me is when it is solely used as a measure of literacy. This polluted the exam and it has gone further and further awry. I think story telling in non fiction is a very relevant to student’s lives and very interesting topic to teach and could be an excellent focus for this exam.
[…] One of the difficulties with designing a 5 year curriculum in English is that divide between KS3 and KS4. GCSEs assessment forces the subject through some interesting contortions. To do well in Literature at KS4 students need to know a small number of texts in detail; they benefit from learning quotations and the minutiae of character, plot and theme. To be successful in Language, students need to be widely read, posses large vocabularies, have an encyclopedic knowledge of ‘what the examiner is looking for’ on particular questions, and to have had extensive practice at writing in a very narrow range of forms. (I’ve written about some of the reforms I’d make to the English GCSEs here.) […]