Should GCSE maths resits be scrapped?

Yesterday evening the Telegraph reported that the compulsory resitting of English and maths GCSE for those that don’t achieve at least grade 4 might be scrapped as an outcome of the current Francis Curriculum and Assessment review, with a Whitehall source reportedly stating that “scrapping of mandatory resits for English and maths GCSEs was likely to be on the cards”. This comes at a time when entries for GCSE resits are at an all time high, whilst achievement at grade 4 or better has dropped slightly from last year in maths.

Several possibilities have been mooted for reform of either pre-or post-16, including the Royal Society’s “driving test” style qualification for post-16 students, a return to a more modular style of assessment post-16, or OCR’s proposal to introduce a GCSE short course in maths during key stage 4 that students would sit at the end of year 10, forming part of a larger full GCSE maths qualification that students would sit at the end of year 11. Other, existing possibilities include expanding the use of functional skills qualifications, which is already allowed for students that achieve grades 1 and 2 at GCSE and has only just over half the take up at level 2 compared to the number of GCSE resits, or including qualifications like Pearson Edexcel’s level 2 Award in Number and Measure in the conditions of funding for post-16 so that these could be offered as an alternative.

Whilst all of these are worth consideration, they are clearly littered with problems. The biggest, and most obvious of these is where these reformed qualifications would sit in the larger qualification landscape. Currently, grades at GCSE provide students with either a level 1 (grades 1 to 3) or level 2 (grades 4 to 9) qualification in mathematics. The level 2 qualification in maths, rightly or wrongly, currently serves as a gateway to many post-16 opportunities, with most level 3 (A-Level or equivalent) qualifications requiring students to either have, or at least continue to work towards achieving, the equivalent of a grade 4 or better at GCSE maths. In addition, grade 4 in maths is a requirement for many career or university pathways. It is hard to see how any alternative qualification could significantly increase pass rates at level 2 whilst remaining comparable to GCSE maths. If, for example, three-quarters of the roughly 30% of students who don’t achieve a grade 4 in GCSE maths by age 16 went on to achieve a pass in an alternative level 2 qualification post-16, this would raise huge questions over the comparability of the two qualifications and pose a real risk to the status of GCSE maths.

The knock-on effect of this in schools would be devastating, with considerable numbers of students likely to “down tools” on GCSE maths study and simply wait it out until they could access the (clearly easier) alternative qualification at college or sixth-form. Given that schools in deprived areas, generally speaking, have lower achievement at grade 4 or better at GCSE, this could mean as many as 50% of students entering key stage 4 in these schools effectively opting out of GCSE maths study, further exacerbating the divide that already exists between outcomes compared to students in more affluent areas, and playing havoc with school accountability and league tables (not to mention behaviour). At a time where pressures over accountability and Ofsted are already a leading contributor to teacher, and especially leader, stress and retention issues, putting already disadvantaged schools in a position where engaging students in GCSE maths study is even more difficult would drastically exacerbate this situation. Coming also at a time where the government is trying to boost the number of people entering careers in STEM fields, action that is likely to reduce the overall number of students gaining a GCSE grade 4 in maths in favour of an alternative, less demanding, qualification would seem to be counter to that aim.

So, what is the alternative? It would seem to me that a possible approach would be to de-couple an alternative qualification from our existing qualification structure, whilst working with employers to ensure that such a qualification provides the clear indications for skills in numeracy and data handling that they report as lacking in the current workforce. This stand-alone qualification would not, therefore, be able to replace GCSE maths as a gateway to future qualifications, meaning that GCSE maths would maintain its importance within the qualifications and accountability landscape, but might provide employers with the evidence they need that a person has shown the necessary skills to be a valuable part of their workforce. If such a qualification provided a more nuanced account of a candidate’s skills than simply a numerical grade or a pass/fail indicator, instead generating a skills map showing competencies demonstrated over the different domains of the qualification, this would allow employers to assess whether an applicant had the necessary knowledge and skills for the role that they were seeking.

The only other possibility I can see is to remove GCSE mathematics from its position as a gateway qualification. This would almost certainly mean also having to remove or reduce its status as a core subject, and its prominence in school accountability measures – lest it lead to the damaging issues that I described above. Whilst I know there are many educators out there, including some in the maths community, that question the standing of maths as a core subject that all students must study until at least 16, given the aim highlighted above regarding increasing participation in STEM careers, and the clear links between attainment in mathematics and life time earnings, any such move to reduce the importance of mathematics in the school curriculum would likely only serve to widen the economic gaps that already exist in our country.

The current approach is clearly far from perfect, but I think that the option and opportunity to resit GCSE maths remains an important part of the offer for those students that don’t secure a grade 4 in the subject at 16. There are changes that could be made to the current system that might make things slightly better. Removing the November resit or limiting the availability of it to students who only narrowly missed out on grade 4 or have already achieved grade 4 and are simply looking to improve would be a starting point. This would mean that other students who were further from grade 4 have time to benefit from more real teaching rather than just going through an endless cycle of exam preparation with post-16 teachers being forced to try and secure marks quickly at the expense of a proper learning experience. In the future online assessment world, we could also look at the possibility of students being able to “top-up” their current GCSE, with competencies at the first attempt being recorded and attributed to the student, with that student then being able to focus primarily on demonstrating improvement in their weaker areas (whilst also having to show they have retained the fundamental knowledge and skills that are important in everyday maths). Changes to enhance the current system would, it seems to me, be much more likely to improve the situation for all stakeholders than the unintended consequences that would almost certainly arise from huge wholesale changes in either the pre- or post-16 maths qualification landscape.