Letter: Exams that help pupils to achieve their potential
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Since standards, it seems, are crashing down all around, commenting on your leading article on the GCSE (2 September) is risky. However, it is necessary to correct some unfortunate errors.
Examination groups already compete. They are already private (profit-making) organisations. They have already been rationalised to four groups. Quality control over syllabuses is exercised by the (government-appointed) Schools Examination and Assessment Council, which also scrutinises the work of examination groups. Would a board with 'especially high standards' be one which failed more candidates? Such a board would be more likely to lose the custom of schools obliged to publish results in the (government-inspired) league tables.
Outcome measures of education are a matter of public concern; it matters whether the aptitudes of children are being fully developed in schools. Examinations are one (though only one) imperfect measure of students' attainments.
One criticism of the O-level and CSE structure which was replaced in 1986 was that it proved an exceptionally poor way of measuring the achievements of children across the ability range: it did not fully enable them to demonstrate what they knew, understood and could do.
Those being assessed need to feel, as they did not before GCSE, that assessment will positively accredit their efforts and attainments. If GCSE has widened the scope of assessment, it has done so to reflect more sensitively the abilities of teenagers. Whether this reflects a 'decline' in standards, or a 'broadening' or simply a 'change' rather depends on one's perspective.
It is important that education develops the potential of children and reflects the wider (though often conflicting) demands of the community. The debate about whether standards have fallen or risen, and the search for heroes or scapegoats, is less important than the debate about what we want schools to achieve with children, and who we are going to trust to achieve it.
Yours sincerely,
CHRIS HUSBANDS
University of East Anglia
Norwich
3 September
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments