Five Grades Good: Five Grades Bad

I’ve now met the students in my newly formed Gradewatch group which I supervise for part of the week. Each one is a character, but also a statistical half a percentage point on our results next year, if we get it right. Do the sums- it’s significant. They’ve dropped an option and are concentrating on English and Maths instead.

For like a new currency which has already increased in value, the gold standard for Year 11 leavers has changed. The fabled criteria, any old 5 GCSEs, are forgotten. Now it has to be 5A*-Cs, including those two good for you golden subjects.

It’s no longer possible for a school to gain a high league table position by offering multiple passes in GNVQ subjects- 4 GCSEs in Skateboarding and another high grade equivalent in Fishing to make the five. School leavers have got to be numerate and literate as well.

They are no longer leavers these days, of course, but merely in transit on their way to further education that isn’t really staying on at school. Or is it?

We always suspected that some schools were playing the system. The differences between the old rankings and the new ones tell us that something was definitely going on. We don’t allow cheating in the exams so why did we put up with grade distortion in the lists?

Politicians are also now talking about five good GCSEs rather than five high grade passes. It’s a subtle shift in language. They think we won’t notice. And a bad GCSE isn’t one in Media Studies or Dance either, though, depressingly, that’s the view of the Russell Group of Universities who should know better. They could not be more wrong about these subjects.

Keith Joseph was clear when he introduced the system that all grades were passes. It’s just that some grades are now more equal than others. So unless the opposite of ‘good’ has changed its meaning, why invent the concept of ‘bad’ GCSEs?

Those in Gradewatch hope to convert some Ds to Cs. But in some cases the D grade would still be a real achievement, even one or two grades beyond our estimates. If these are ‘bad’ GCSEs, we’re in the world of Alice in Wonderland, or should that be Harry Potter? Literally ‘D’ motivation. (Sorry).
Perhaps it’s so that politicians can claim the high ground by arguing for the abolition of grades E and F. If these grades are to go, we should be clear that it’s because standards have risen that they are no longer needed. Surely that’s a cause for celebration.

It could even benefit the public figures that make up and then change the rules. But I suspect they’d rather claim they are being tough on standards. Well so are we and at least we understand the system, unlike the Minister who can’t tell the colours of the rainbow from the days of the week.

Joseph himself, as Education Secretary, also made the odd gaff. Once, on a primary school visit, with a bizarre degree of misunderstanding about the career structure in teaching, he inquired how much longer it would be before the head would be able to gain promotion (in his terms), and become the head of a secondary school.

An MP recently revealed similar misconceptions and prejudices, asking: ‘How many years have you been head of this school?’ After informing him that I’d done fifteen years, he confidentially offered me some career advice: ‘So you’re now in a position to apply to be the head of a private school!’ At least that explains why they think state school heads are a vanishing breed.

Politicians have to refrain from talking tough and become masters of their own brief. If grades below a C are no longer regarded as passes or worth having, let them be clear about it. Separating students’ achievements into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ for the sake of a soundbite helps no one. For genuine gold standards will always be our aspiration- even for the skateboarders and those gone fishing, and definitely for our new group of Gradewatchers.