NOT FOR THE first time since the summer, GCSE grading has hit the headlines. After recording the first dip in results since the examinations were introduced in the late 80s, it emerged some exam boards took the decision to mark down English grades due to “significant overmarking” of certain elements of the course. This has greatly affected those pupils whose grades hover around the all-important C/D cusp where notions of triumph or failure are drawn into sharp focus. This success/failure dichotomy is what brings me to shine my blogging light on GCSE education.

Headlines tend to focus on the notion that GCSEs are supposedly “getting easier”, a cliché that has been trotted out every year for the past 20 to the annoyance of those taking the exams. Bizarrely, despite the snide media commentary, national newspapers seem to have no problem at all focusing the rest of their attention on what can only be described as the nation’s “super-students” – those shiny, glossy pupils who seem to get 13 A* grades while also learning piano and horse-riding, without breaking so much as a sweat. And of course, because they don’t wish to come across as big-headed (who would?) these youngsters stress just how hard they have worked and how they didn’t expect to do so well. Ironically, their modesty does the rest few favours.

In reality, the super-student makes up a pretty small proportion of each year’s GCSE pupils, but public perception is allowed to be skewed in their favour. Thus, the truly academic few are held up as the stick to beat all other students with. Since all schools in England and Wales are judged by their league tables, it is no surprise that the PR surrounding GCSE results homes in on the good schools and high achievers. The percentage of pupils getting A*-C grades is so powerful a measure, it can affect house prices and the standing of neighbourhoods.

But take a closer look at the GCSE statistics: Of the 669,534 pupils who took GCSE English this summer, more than a third “failed” – 228,980 pupils achieved only D, E or F grades. In the other core subject, maths, the number was even higher, as 239,229 out of 675,789 scored D-F.  Is it me, or is that a lot of teenagers not making the grade?

Although the official “fail” mark is the U for unclassified, D, E, F and G grades are so poorly-received that society allows them to be treated in the same way as an outright fail. Now, consider this year’s C/D grade fiasco over English paper marking and you’ll begin to understand the pressure pupils might be feeling. Combine this with the negative stereotyping of young people and a consistently gloomy outlook for the future economy, and any teenager could be forgiven for thinking they will be written off for life if they get a handful of lesser results. A Twitter request I put out to speak to pupils who got D grade or lower was met with a stony silence. And I understand why.

People are quick to draw on a stereotype where bad grades are concerned. A glance at web forums in GCSE results week showed the public to be incredibly harsh about anyone not getting above a D. These pupils were invariably described as stupid, lazy and/or chavvy. No one seems to think they might have had a bad day, or despite trying hard just couldn’t ‘get’ a subject. I know people who did quite badly at GCSE level in the 90s, only to flourish at A Level and go on to university. It is conveniently forgotten that teenagers mature at different rates, just as young children do.

In my view, the media, government and education authorities need to stop focusing on the few who do well – they are quite capable of taking care of themselves, and will succeed whether anyone bigs them up or not. Neither should those in charge condescend to suggest exams are somehow easier than they used to be – if things were this simple, forcing exam grades down by moving the goalposts would have been done years ago, and on the quiet. Or they would just have made the papers harder.

No, where their attentions should be focused is on working out why the education system is failing more than a third of teenagers taking GCSEs, and finding ways to remedy this – structurally and ideologically. It seems pretty obvious that the GCSE is not fit for purpose for all pupils, and I doubt the vaunted E-Bacc will address the issues that really matter either.

Expecting all young people to be academic is unrealistic, but it has become the only kind of intelligence that is revered. There are many more types of intelligence than academic – musical, spatial, cognitive to name but three. Allowing a society to develop which does not have a good balance of education in all areas of intelligence, leading to roles for all types of people, is surely a society doomed to fail?

In this regard, the GCSE system itself deserves a D grade.

Related stories: BBC – Pressurised teachers ‘marked GCSE too generously’ BBC – Pressurised teachers ‘marked GCSE too generously’