Are GCSEs on the way out?

Independent schools are increasingly seeing the GCSE qualification, in its current form, as an irrelevance that is "clogging up" the secondary school system.

Eton College is the latest independent school to review its future use of GCSEs - although it has denied as "untrue" reports that it was "abandoning the GCSE wholesale and introducing the International Baccalaureate".

"But it is clear that by cutting the number of GCSE exams and allowing pupils to take AS-levels earlier, it would be possible to give pupils a broader and more demanding education," says a statement from the school.

Should GCSEs be scrapped? What should take their place? Have you done the International Baccalaureate - what were your experiences?

---

The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:

This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.

Your reaction:

All that I see today is exams getting easier Ian Kearns, UK

In 1988 my fellow students and I were amongst the first people to take GCSEs. At the time the coursework was well structured and the exams were fair; okay a few mistakes were made but nothing major. All that I see today is exams getting easier and students being prompted in the right direction on 'how to complete coursework' in the correct manner. From what I have seen, the GCSEs are worth nothing.
Ian Kearns, UK

Exams as a whole are really far too judgemental for 21st Century Britain. They were suitable in my time, but now they just seem completely out of place. The idea of saying that one person is better than another on the basis of what schools do is almost laughable.
Steve, UK

It seems to be taken as obviously true that GCSEs are easy and O-Levels hard. How incredibly disheartening for all those pupils who worked hard and passed their GCSEs, and how incredibly insulting for teachers who have worked hard to make sure all pupils get a chance and not just those good at exams. Having been at the crossover between the two, my perception was that they were different kinds of exams, not better or worse.
Katherine, UK

Yes, get rid of GCSEs and let pupils take as wide as possible a range of subjects at AS-level. Kids can't possibly know at the age of 15 what they want to do with their lives, and making them choose 2 or 3 subjects narrows down their future prospects. A system more like the only-slightly-less-in-depth Scottish Highers would be better - I ended up with 7 in a diverse range of subjects. And as for university - nearly all first-year courses are repeats of A-level/higher material to get everyone to the same level so it makes no great difference.
Tim, Scotland

Every student should be required to re-take core subjects until they achieve a minimum pass grade CRG, Bradford, UK

My Husband is half Spanish took both GCSEs here in the UK and an International Baccalaureate in replacement of his A' levels when his family moved to Spain when he was 16. He enjoyed both. The best thing about the Spanish and European systems is that if you fail a subject you retake a year. So you may be in a class of younger students re-taking English or Maths. Every student should be required to re-take core subjects until they achieve a minimum pass grade. Obviously this would only work, if schools had money and teachers! But surely a better educated workforce and public makes for a better Britain ?
CRG, Bradford, UK

If we are to join Europe in all aspects, surely we (Europe) should have a common education system with common exams at the end so no matter where we choose to settle or work, each country knows the ability of people they are employing through common qualifications
Paul Mann, England

GCSEs were introduced to provide equality of opportunity. However, this has been distorted into equality of achievement.
BrianW, UK

I don't think that GCSEs should be phased out altogether, but I do think that schools should offer more vocational qualifications too. The GCSE can be kept to assess skills in maths, English, and science, but more needs to be done to provide skilled workers for the modern age. Too many students are leaving school and going on to do dead-end degrees in subjects such as media studies.
Andy, UK

Having completed an Access To Higher Education course, I can see no reason why the style of this could not be adapted for GCSE students. As a mature student, upon completion I had evidence of having given presentations, workshops, as well as the more usual essays. When I was doing GCSE and A'Levels at school we were neither required nor encouraged to explore the diversity of skills needed for either higher education or the workplace. It is vital that a high level of academia is balanced with a more varied methods of examination, where pupils are required to do more than just turn up for an exam!
Matthew, UK (Reading)

Due to the itinerant nature of my childhood, I received very little formal education. I was deemed too 'thick' to sit 'O' levels, so was consigned to CSEs and left to do as well as I could. I did better than expected, but was so lacking in confidence, that I took the first available dead-end job and stayed there for seventeen years. Redundancy allowed me to go to college for the first time, where I acquired the necessary qualifications to go to university. There, I worked very hard and achieved a first class degree. I have since earned an M.Phil, and am now in the final year of my PhD. The school exam system holds pupils back and deprives them of the confidence they need to make something of their lives. As Jonathan, UK, says, it simply produces pupils who can do exams, rather than people with useful skills to offer
Jo, England/France

The Baccalaureate has the advantage of being a wider based education (including a modern language) and a recognised qualification in Europe - it has to be the way forward.
Amy, UK

Course work is also a poor indicator of knowledge Catherine, UK

Having sat my GCSE's a mere four years ago, it is true that they are not a true test of a pupil's knowledge. They are a test of how well you can pass an exam in which the questions are the same year after year but re-worded. Course work is also a poor indicator of knowledge as teachers mark it and hand it back with points on how to improve it. Why don't the teachers and examiners just take them for us?
Catherine, UK

This Labour government have made GCSE'S easy so that thousands pass, this makes their education claims look very good. Its time we had new exams, set by totally independent boards, with no government imput, then there is no fiddling. The old O levels were a good standard, but they were replaced by easy GCSE's.
Lester Stenner, UK

Surely GCSEs were not there to replace O levels, but to give those unlikely to do well in the O level examinations something to aim for? I see little point in bringing in what appears to be a wider but shallower target and forcing individuals to study in areas they are not suited for at the expense of progressing further in areas they could excel at. This forcing square pegs into round holes is too prevalent in present day thinking, in my opinion. If there are problems with today's secondary school system, then I don't see that scrapping the lower level examination courses is any solution.
Gary, UK

The current system is designed to mask the failings of poor schools by fitting everyone into a narrow spectrum. Let's have challenging exams for the academically able and meaningful vocational qualifications for others.
Frank Church, UK

I happen to like the idea of a wider base to education, but such a radical overhaul needs to be planned and introduced over many years, not over one or two summer terms. We have had too many rashly thought, confusing and ultimately changed/failed attempts at "improvement" - and it's the kids that suffer
Barry, UK

I am currently a GCSE student from London. I found out from friends who have done their GCSEs that the exams are becoming easier, to compensate for this the exams are becoming more quantity rather than quality. I am studying to sit 12 GCSEs whereas my brother who is 7 years older than me only sat 9 GCSEs.
Anja Clark, England

The idea of one exam for all is a sound one Fred, England

The truth is that GCSE's are now considered a joke by most employers. The idea of one exam for all is a sound one though, I was made to do CSE and had to pay to sit 'O' level, they didn't want to loose out on school performance figures if I failed the subjects. I passed the 'O's and didn't bother turn up for the CSE's! The fact of the matter is that good schools find GCSE's too easy because they have been 'dumbed down' so that the poor schools can pass them!
Fred, England

GCSEs, O-levels and the rest are not "qualifications" - they don't qualify you to do anything. They are certificates of achievement, and as such don't need a pass/fail criterion. Grading GCSEs from A-F (or Z or wherever it goes to these days) means employers and education institutes can choose people who have achieved to a particular level - fully aware that this does not guarantee future achievements will be comparable.
Stew, UK

When I took my GCSEs five years ago, there was a two tier system: the brighter students were put in for the higher tier which allowed them to gain the top four grades, while anyone else was put in the lower tiers, which didn't. I don't see much difference between this system and the older 'O' Levels/CSEs which was replaced by it. A GCSE is not the equivalent of an 'O' Level, but a Grade of A*-C is. The real problem seems to be that schools, driven by league table success, are training students as 'examination machines' rather than linguists, scientists, or historians etc; and, arguably, that exams are being made easier. The GCSE in itself is not a bad thing, and is surely LESS confusing than the older system, but they must be overhauled in a way to encourage individuality and academic excellence, rather than just good grades.
Jonathan, UK

The old O-levels did not offer a better picture of capabilities Paul Johnson, UK

The old O-levels did not offer a better picture of capabilities. Just saying we should go back to 'the good old days' is not helpful. Reducing coursework and just having exams is not fair, I perform brilliantly in exams, and could have walked such a system. Coursework however, I found a lot more difficult, yet that is more representative of what I do every day at work. I can't remember the last time my boss asked me to remember an equation from memory, he does frequently ask me to follow a process to design something.
Paul Johnson, UK

The problem lies in the assumption that one exam (and one set of grades from A-C) will do for all academic abilities. In truth there is a vast gulf between even pupils of average ability and potential Oxbridge undergraduates. An exam that is suitable for the former is therefore a waste of time for the latter and vice versa. What was wrong with the O level and CSE system when people knew were they stood and had qualifications of value for what they wanted to do?
Simon, England

Eton thinks the GCSEs are too easy for their students to complete. Having the benefit of the most outstanding Education on offer they are probably right. This just shows how far below the 'mediocrity' line State Education really is. Bring back the 'O' Level and higher standards, then the true picture will emerge
Helen, UK

I took my GCSEs last year and will be receiving my AS level results in just over a week's time. What's the point in all the studying though if in a few years time, the exams we're taking now will be dead and forgotten.
Adrian, England

Successive governments have monkeyed around with this country's education system, and we no longer know what is what! A levels are now AS or A2 levels, or GNVQ advanced (or have they scrapped these now?); vocational qualifications have changed beyond recognition to NVQs and "modern" apprenticeships (with "technical certificates"); and the FE college/poly qualifications are branded as foundation degrees. Employers, students and parents no longer know what qualifications mean, and what they demonstrate ability at. The IB is just another ministerial whim, and will complicate things further.
Mark, England

What should take their place is a challenging set of examinations with little coursework Steve F, Notts

What should take their place is a challenging set of examinations with little or no coursework aspect that are a real test of students' abilities (rather than their parents' or someone from the internet) and thus can become an acknowledged indicator of academic performance. Let's call them 'O' levels.
Steve F, Notts, UK

When I was at school there were O levels and A levels. I was in the fast stream of a state grammar school and took my O levels a year early (and A levels as well). GCSEs have been discredited as only grades A to C count. The main problem is that GCSEs and A levels have been made easier to compensate for the pathetic education provided in gigantic comprehensives. Bring back proper, testing exams and scrap pretend university courses. Those who succeed will have something to show for it and others can alleviate the skills shortage by becoming plumbers and bricklayers.
Roger Jackson, England

Exams at 16 should stay, but the GCSEs at present do very little for higher ability students. Bring back an equivalent of the advanced O-levels and allow more able students to sit several GCSEs a year early. It would help better prepare students for A-level study, particularly in mathematics, sciences and modern languages, where at present there is a huge increase in difficulty between GCSE and A-level.
Nathan James, Liverpool

GCSEs should never have been introduced in the first place. There was nothing at all wrong with the 'O' level system and it never should have been scrapped. Nowadays, anyone can pass a GCSE whereas 'O' Levels were much more difficult and gave a fairer picture of ability. If they are not to be reinstituted, the baccalaureate would seem to be the only option.
Liz, UK