Opinions
28 Dec 2021

The Urgent Need to Rethink Exams

In December’s edition of The Mark, Tom Richmond, founder and director of EDSK, outlines three key issues with the current exam system, with cost, breadth and disparities between academic and vocational exams all crucial.

Back to all insights
A man with short brown hair and a light beard smiles, wearing a suit. Next to him is the logo for EDSK, featuring the letters "EDSK" in purple and blue.

The impact of COVID-19 on school examinations in 2020 and 2021 was devastating, yet it would be wrong to assume that all was well before the coronavirus took hold. Our research at EDSK has highlighted a range of significant problems with the current exam system.

First, the cost to schools is considerable. For example, making hundreds of thousands of 16-year-olds sit up to 30 hours of pen-and-paper GCSE examinations at a cost of almost £200 million a year is wasteful and unnecessary, particularly when these pupils must stay in education or training until the age of 18. Other countries have introduced online testing in both primary and secondary schools, illustrating how England is failing to keep up with the best innovations.

Ultimately, any mention of a level playing field will ring hollow until the government treats every course and institution fairly
Tom Richmond, founder and director of EDSK

Second, the lack of a ‘level playing field’ between academic and vocational exams has been plainly apparent for decades. Government ministers from different parties have talked endlessly about their desire to put technical education on a par with academic education, yet the way that government holds schools to account shows that they continue to prize academic qualifications above all else. Secondary schools are measured on how many 16-year-olds pass exams in a very specific basket of academic qualifications with little consideration given to other courses, while A-level results at age 18 are placed on a pedestal above other qualifications such as BTECs and apprenticeships. The government even judges the performance of specialist technical colleges using the same skewed approach. Ultimately, any mention of a level playing field will ring hollow until the government treats every course and institution fairly.

Third, our exam system promotes an astonishingly narrow curriculum. Only 4.4 per cent of A-level students now study more than three subjects. This limited breadth makes England an outlier by international standards, as most other developed nations such as France, Germany and Ireland insist on a broad curriculum right up to the end of secondary education and often make their first language, maths, science and other subjects compulsory for all students. Similarly, allowing 16-year-olds to select just one BTEC or technical subject for the next two years of their education is just as lamentable.

Ultimately, our exam system has some commendable features such as rigorous curricula and assessments in many subjects, but that does not hide the distinct lack of ambition around what the system could and should deliver for learners and society as a whole.

Share your details and we’ll be in touch