The government is currently formulating plans to improve the accuracy of exam results next year. Amidst concerns about grade inflation, suggestions are being made that an ‘A**’ grade may be useful in identifying the most talented students. Blame seems to have been laid at the doors of hard-working teaching staff, who have dealt with gathering data for A-Levels, GCSEs and BTEC qualifications whilst balancing this against everyday hardship faced by many key workers during the pandemic. 

It seems as though the government seeks a mere band-aid solution to a complex problem. Maybe a 1-9 system would provide a better sense of grade scale from now on, giving different names for grades may reduce the employment-related impact on those who took exams this year, but this is a complex problem that requires discussion from all sides. Rather than putting disproportionate blame on staff who have endeavoured to do their best in trying circumstances, why not consult the teachers who will be instrumental in taking education forwards? 

The government- rightly or wrongly, we will find out sooner or later- has taken an ‘extraordinary times call for extreme measures’ approach when tackling the pandemic. Things that otherwise would apply do not, and things that, a few years ago, we would never consider doing must now be put into practice. 

Why not take the same approach to education? When a student tries as hard as possible but still cannot achieve a grade 4 in Mathematics and English, should there not be a way around this? In extreme circumstances, there needs to be the option of taking a more basic qualification, with the aim of giving students the skills needed for life. Unless you want to be an architect, I am not sure that trigonometry is essential. Shouldn’t schools have the resources to cater for those who may not want to go to university but still have an important role to play in our society? GCSE Maths and English is not the be all and end all. 

I know of students who have had the misfortune of getting stuck within a repetitive cycle, consisting of failure, revision, hard work, exams, and failure again. It must be devastating for those individuals. Granted, I know that there are students who simply don’t try, but surely they too should be able to get on with their lives. Pushing students into taking academic tests is not good for them, nor is it good for schools or the teachers who, frankly, have to coach students to achieve the near impossible. 

There is a more fundamental problem here. For all the talk of ‘diversity’, not enough funding goes towards the teaching of critical thinking, debate and discussion. Every ideology, from Nationalism to Marxism, should be called into question. On the contrary, teachers worry about what they are made to teach and what they can say in front of students. 

I was lucky enough to receive a massive amount of encouragement, as well as the opportunity to compete in, and later help to run my school’s debating club. Not many other state schools will be lucky enough to have such a club. Indeed, most of the competition we faced came from private schools, but the rewards from participating make it worthwhile. Similarly, the introduction of more choices of study would be a good long term investment. I struggle to see why neither the left or the right would not support such a move. It would provide students with more choice, allowing them to pursue what they enjoy and value most. It would also allow for further focus on what they are most likely to achieve, realising the full potential of each student, allowing for a diverse economy and contributing to a lower level of unemployment. As the pandemic continues to bring about job shortages, the government must not drop the ball. Helping students to access apprenticeships, work experience, and education in alternative subjects is essential to the future of our economy. A broader array of subjects at both GCSE and A-Level would prepare students for long, successful careers. 
I have also spoken to many who argue that the current system is too heavily reliant on examinations at the very end of the course. This doubles the disadvantage faced by those prone to stress. As far as I can see, a good employee is one who can adapt to novel and difficult situations (a highly effective marker for intelligence), but also someone who is consistently conscientious. Consistent hard work does not really enter the equation if the exam at the end says that you did not have it on that particular day. Why not, therefore, assess students 50% on coursework and 50% on exam results? Measure hard work as well as cognitive ability. 

Many put forward the argument that this may lower the performance of boys, and many say that girls are more effective at managing their coursework...but surely the answer to this is simple? Make coursework management a part of the teaching. Help students who struggle and find ways of catering to each individual student. If one likes group work but another is more motivated by competition, then it is possible to engage with that and encourage students in a way that suits each of them. 

It is true that making changes to the way things are run will not always produce the desired end result, but if this were an issue upon which the government had the political will to work cross-party, I am sure that things could be greatly improved. The most important thing would be to allow for discussion, with expert opinion playing an important role.

Maybe this would be a good time to try something different. Talk to the teachers and understand the pupils because education should not be a political nightmare.