Credits are overdue;Leading Article

13th August 1999 at 01:00
THE proposed alterations to the GCSE examination time-table, and the current deliberations over the assessment of modular A-levels, reflect our preoccupation with retaining educational standards, while at the same time enabling more people to reach them.

The GCSE timetable changes, due to take place in 2001, will give candidates in geography and English literature more time to prepare for their exams - and more flexibility to heads and others who have the unenviable task of organising school examinations. Of course, those who represent minority interests dislike the idea of their subjects being moved forward, so that candidates have less time to spend on them. But it seems perfectly sensible to offer the bulk of young people studying the mainstream subjects the opportunity to do as well as they can. And if this helps the Government reach its targets: fine.

Similarly, there will be anxiety over proposals for A-

levels, which would give credit to young people who had completed, perhaps, only one module of a particular subject. But the aim here, surely, is give people points for work done - and to move towards a credit-transfer system which would eventually break down the barriers between academic and vocational qualifications.

Such proposals signal a move away from a certain mean-mindedness, which dictates that "standards" are only maintained by making it as difficult as possible to acquire qualifications.

If we are really serious about educating everyone to as high a level as possible, we need to make our system more forgiving. Giving credit for small achievements which can be built on is one way. Allowing people more time is another. Some "less able" students simply take longer to learn things. Given time, they can reach the same level as the rest - but maybe at 18 instead of 16.

As information technology enables more individuals to take control of their own education, the qualifications and assessment system will have to adapt accordingly. There is no reason why this should be seen as a fall in standards - unless "standards" means a set body of knowledge, learned at a certain age over a fixed amount of time, and examined by a three-hour do-or-die exam whose main function is to stratify people into a hierarchy. Not the most adventurous model for education in the 21st century - nor the most efficient one.

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar,, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today