by Josh Harsant (@JoshHarsant)
A young person's education is the fundamental stepping stone to the rest of their lives. Being at school is more than getting 'good grades', but about developing the skills needed to be responsive, adaptive and dynamic in the changing landscape of employment.
We learnt this week of the radical proposals by our apparently pro-school autonomy Education Secretary, Michael Gove, to interfere with our education system at central Government level, again. For a Secretary of State who claimed he wanted less central control and more school autonomy, it's safe to say, it's not going well at all.
Gove is developing a reputation for forcing change in our education system. First it was by cornering schools into covering to academies (
as was the case of Downhills Primary School in Haringey), then it was through
pressure to deliver particular subjects through the English Baccalaureate and now, we learn, it'll be through
changing the entire examination system.
The leaked proposals for an exam shake-up,
according to the Daily Mail, call for the abolishment of GCSEs, the national curriculum in secondary schools and the requirement to obtain five 'good' GCSE grades.
Whilst I agree the exam system needs to be revolutionised to equip students with the skills to apply themselves in a continually changing world, creating a divisive two-tier exam system is not the way to do it.
Looking longer term and hypothetically taking his proposals as gospel, Gove risks creating huge disparity of value, in so far as routes to employment and the skill set required to be successful, between those young people achieving GCSEs today and those achieving these new O-levels in the future; essentially creating a culture in which GCSEs become the inferior qualification; the very culture he wanted to eradicate with BTec qualifications.
Moreover, there is a danger that the attainment gap between those from working well families to those from more disadvantaged circumstances will increase - as the educational offer to young people becomes increasingly academia-focused.
With the participation age (the age at which young people must participate in learning, be that school, college, an apprenticeship etc) being raised to 18, it also seems entirely pointless having exams at age 16. I would go as far to argue the case of removing exams at age 16 entirely; like
Eton head Tony Little has done so previously.
Exams at 16 were a key determiner in a young person's life story, contributing to the decision about 'what next?' Some chose sixth form, others college and some moving directly into employment.
But, now there's a statutory requirement to stay in learning until 18. the chose at 16 is no longer so important - because you are guaranteed a place.
Therefore, everyone will progress to learning and potentially acquiring qualifications beyond level 2 - GCSE level. After which, any level 2 qualification you possess immediately becomes inferior.
Before moving away from GCSEs or introducing O-levels, we need to develop an alternative framework that enables us to measure the achievements and success of our young people in what is now a very different environment to that of previous years.
This framework needs to both apply to those young people we would deem 'more academic' and equally those who we would deem 'more vocational' - establishing an assessment framework that rules out educational imbalance and exclusion.
A framework, too, of this nature would enable us to account for the wide breadth of learning a young person experiences outside the classroom and identify skill development rather than merely
knowledge accumulation, which we know Gove has actively advocated.
Josh Harsant is a Reading Young Labour member and former Member of the Youth Parliament for Reading. He blogs at
http://www.joshharsant.wordpress.com
