Conversations on Twitter have raised concerns about the current rigour of Science GCSEs and A Levels, particularly due to perceived low-grade boundaries. In the latest exam series, achieving a pass in GCSE Combined Science Higher required students to secure 99 marks out of 420 across six papers. This equates to a minimum of 23% overall.
If we look at the break this down into each paper pupils needed to achieve the following to ‘pass’ their exams:
- Biology Paper 1 – 23%
- Chemistry Paper 1 – 19%
- Physics Paper 1 – 19%
- Biology Paper 2 – 23%
- Chemistry Paper 2 – 23%
- Physics Paper 2 – 23%
For the top grade in Science, pupils needed to score ~70% at GCSE.
If we look at A Level Biology, students who got 38% to achieve a Grade C. For A*, pupils needed 70%. In A Level Chemistry, a Grade C is given with 45% of marks and an A* at 83%. In A Level Physics, for a Grade C students need around 34% and for a Grade A*, students were expected to achieve 65% on average in each of their exams.
The issue I have with this is what the purpose of the examination, and education as a whole, actually is. I have written about this before, but if the main aim of education is an educated society this just does not provide it.
The observation of the lack of rigour in our curriculum, particularly in the context of Science GCSEs, underscores a broader issue concerning our education system’s fundamental purpose. While there’s a prevailing notion that GCSEs, particularly in science, are designed to equip students with practical skills and knowledge for their future endeavours, the reality often falls short of this ideal.
The current state of Science GCSEs, with their low grade boundaries and narrow assessment scope, indicates a disconnect between educational objectives and outcomes. Rather than fostering a deep understanding of science, the emphasis seems to be on meeting minimum thresholds to secure grades. This not only undermines the education system but also raises questions about its efficacy in preparing students for the complexities of the modern world.
The disconnect between educational aspirations and practical outcomes highlights a broader societal misunderstanding of the role of education. While there’s a consensus that education should empower individuals to navigate the challenges of the real world, the current system seems to prioritise superficial metrics of success over genuine intellectual development. This not only undermines the intrinsic value of learning but fails to serve the needs of students and society at large.
We need to ensure that students are adequately prepared for the next stage of their education. However, we can we confidently say that students are ready for A Levels or university when the bar for success is set so low?
There’s also a significant impact on students’ confidence levels. When they receive their grades, many students often scrutinise their raw marks and feel disappointed with how “poorly” they performed to achieve the grade they received. This discrepancy between their perceived effort and the outcomes they achieve can leave them feeling unprepared to take the next steps into sixth form, college, or university. In my conversations with students, it’s evident that despite gaining admission to higher education institutions, they still harbour doubts about their readiness for the challenges ahead.
When in the classroom setting, teachers often aim for students to achieve around 70% on assessments. However, the standards set by national examinations paint a vastly different picture. Achieving 70% in national exams is often considered exceptional, positioning students among the top performers and signalling readiness for advanced study, particularly in STEM fields, at prestigious universities worldwide. This raises a pertinent question: why do we hold students to higher standards in the classroom than industry and universities do?
Ensuring that education serves its true purpose of fostering a well-educated population requires a reevaluation of the National Curriculum. Simply receiving a grade at the end of schooling does not inherently signify a deep understanding of the material or the development of the skills essential for success in today’s world.
The National Curriculum needs to undergo a process of slimming down. By reducing the curriculum, teachers can devote more time and resources to building that understanding of science to provide a solid baseline for scientific literacy.
At its core, education should equip students with the tools and skills they need to navigate and contribute meaningfully to society. As long as we continue to accept 23% as a benchmark for understanding, we’re effectively shortchanging the impact that genuine comprehension of science has when students leave school.
inquestion. 