As a teacher or school leader, how confident would you be that a particular student would not be likely to achieve well at GCSE & another pathway would be more suitable, given that pathway might limit their future prospects? That's a tough call to make.
But now often do we offer genuine choices to students who might do really well if they could develop their non-GCSE-related aptitudes?
*how often
Maybe part of problem is main use of GCSE seems to be 'sorting sheep from goats'. Any alternative routes regarded as lesser, as people who could do well at GCSE are not encouraged to try anything else?
Personally, if I was teaching eg L3 conservation/land management in a post-16 setting, I would be delighted if an applicant had a few non-standard quals, eg an accredited cert in animal care, iGCSE environmental management, L2 FS Eng & maths, a couple of science GCSEs. It shows interest & aptitude.
Unfortunately, MS would only manage to offer this if the student had some kind of recognised ‘SEND’, meaning that the ‘reasonable adjustment’ of a non-standard curriculum could be regarded as their need/right, and written into their EHCP.
I love hearing about schools that offer some curriculum flex. Carr Manor in Leeds timetables interest-based learning 1 day/wk for KS3 - described in this @teamsquarepeg.bsky.social book. Promotes inclusion & engagement. www.crownhouse.co.uk/square-pegs
And funded over & above the standard curriculum.
Yes this sort of flexibility may need looking at what is offered as 'standard curriculum' and how funded. Whether there's scope in an overburdened & underfunded system would be fair comment. Urgent to consider issues like why schools are not working for so many though, & think flexibility may help.
Hm yes. Dreadful attendance & wellbeing stats suggest that children don’t always benefit from current funding model & provision.
The one BIG issue with all of this is, of course, that this isn't something that *a* school, or even schools in general could decide to do, this would require a complete overhaul of the whole sector, which would have to come from Government.
Ugh. That’s depressing. Quick Darren - read @teamsquarepeg.bsky.social 🙏 www.crownhouse.co.uk/square-pegs
Oo, I've heard about this book. Thanks for the link. Since I've been a governor, getting to learn about Inclusion & SEND has been the most interesting part for me, and I'm proud to say that our schools are making great efforts to be inclusive.
That’s so great to hear!
Yes it's difficult to imagine. Not sure current situ can hold either though, e.g. with many learners not able to attend.
Agreed. For me, the use of GCSE data for school league tables etc is problematic. We have a system that’s greedy for data and our children feed that system, whether or not it’s actually in their interests.
Flexibility of choice, eg options to study non-GCSE subjects, or to study a cluster of similar GCSE subjects (eg biology, marine science, environmental management, geography) are v limited in MS, because those choices don’t align with eg EBacc criteria.
But these somewhat specialist pursuits might be highly beneficial - especially for neurodivergent students, who v often have an interest-based - #monotropic - learning style.
Yes. All leads to alternatives to GCSE being seen as for people not able to pass GCSE and below (a culturally constructed) standard. To get to a place where alternative assessments have equal merit, needs widespread acceptance and lot of buy in from e.g. employers, further/higher Ed, etc.
Definitely. We absolutely need a range of meaningful, accessible & reliable post-16 options. Such a shame FE is often kept guessing re funding - this needs sorting. Children (eg KS3) need to see a pathway. It might not involve doing retrieval practice in a classroom for the whole of KS4.
I remember when UK did this with GCEs and CSEs. Then we decided that merging it all into GCSE would solve the problem. And then we divided it up again with Foundation and Higher to cohort kids into 1-3 and 5-9. Grade 4 is often the equivalent of ‘top marks in CSE, but can’t start A levels, sorry’
It’s all so arbitrary
Yes, and especially now that the goal of attending university is not so clear-cut now. It's no longer the holy grail of Post-18 options, and the advent of things like Degree Apprenticeships makes real-world experience even more worthwhile.
Completely agree Darren. Modular post-16 and post-18 options would also be good.