I have thought about blogging during this terribly stressful time of A level and GCSE results and the chaos that surrounds that, but every time I put pen to paper (metaphorically) I stop myself. Either what I have to say has been said before, and often by more skilful and knowledgeable people than I am, or I have been so incandescently angry that I would be unable to maintain the balanced, polite and positive attitude that I try to preserve on this blog. And, it can’t be denied, I have been angrier than I have ever been during the results fiasco. It is brought closer to home for me because, this year, I not only have students who I have helped prepare for exams, but my own son would have been taking his A levels. As a result, I have felt first-hand the uncertainty, anxiety and tension every parent has felt in this period, and I have witnessed first-hand the same stress, anxiety and concern that every student has experienced. I acknowledge that for many the stress is not over. For many, hopes of future jobs and courses have had to be put on hold with no prospect of a way forward. Many people have been disappointed twice over, once on receiving their results and the second time when their CAG (Centre Assessed Grades) could not be accepted by universities who had already allocated their place to someone else. For me, however, I have found calmer waters, and can now begin to think more clearly about all that has passed.

The thought which most readily springs to mind is, how could we have avoided this? The answer to that is political, so I won’t follow that thought to its conclusion. The other idea, which is more significant educationally, is what use are qualifications at all? I mean, why do we do them? I don’t mean to suggest that we stop. I just would like to consider our purpose.

Primarily, it seems, A levels at least, have become a way for students to find a place at university. Universities here are tiered. We know that Oxford and Cambridge are at the top. Then we have Durham, St Andrews, Bristol, Imperial, LSE then Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and so on until we arrive at smaller institutions which used to be colleges under the protection of local universities. The higher your grade, the higher up the tree you can go. (I won’t even start to discuss the unfairness of this and how different universities excel at different kinds of courses, but I think you must agree that this is how most people see the system in Britain.) Is this the best way to finish our compulsory secondary education – with a test which is essentially an entrance exam for higher education? I would like to think that advanced level studies have a worth in their own right, and there are certainly plenty of students who decide not to continue with education after A level but opt for a work route instead.

If we start to doubt the reason why we give the grades we do at A level, we might also start to doubt what is taught, how it is taught and how it is assessed. Why was there so much horror expressed at the idea that students might get higher results than in previous years if given their CAGs instead of the moderated grades? Why, I thought, would that be such a bad thing? If results are to indicate the learning and the potential of a student, then why aren’t we glad if the results are better? Who are the results for? If they are for the school, for universities, for the government, for the country, then, yes, these things have an impact. But if they are for the individual, what is the issue? The problem is that exam results are not just for the individual student. They are used as a way to assess students’ ability to go on to higher education. They are used as a measure for institutions and for government departments and for the country as a whole. What is more important to the Department for Education, I am driven to wonder? Is it their own reputation or the happiness and success of individual students throughout the country?

However, I can see that companies and institutions have to compare results across year groups and so it is important that there is a standard which must be reached to receive an A or a B at A level. It is clear, however, that comparing across cohorts is not what the education system focuses on. Instead of there being a definitive standard, grade boundaries are always moved to make sure that a certain percentage of each year group gets each of the grades. Here we are not comparing like with like. We don’t take into account fluctuations across different year groups.

We don’t want students to get needlessly inflated grades either, though. An A has to mean something. And so does a U. But what, in a system which relies entirely on exams, do these grades actually mean? They favour students who have, what my parents call a ‘big match temperament’; they can rise to the occasion, using the nerves to improve their performance, pulling out ideas and applying knowledge even better than usual, knowing that this is the moment which counts. Many students, as we all know, are successful, intelligent, thoughtful students but can not function that way. Instead, they are blocked by terror, forgetting all that normally would be at the tips of their fingers. Do we want results to measure this ability – to remember and apply knowledge under pressure – more than any other? When exactly is this going to be needed again?  The answer is, at university. At work it is much more likely that a steady, consistent understanding and application of ideas is required. Should our final exams exist simply as a way to see if people are suited to further study?

People have complained that the CAGs are higher than the moderated grades, and the grades which students normally get, and therefore students are getting gifts of grades instead of what they have worked for. One reason for that may well be the usual exam nerves which defeat so many young people. Another of the reasons the grades are not so good normally is that the students haven’t had to fight through the vagaries of life to receive their result. No one has had to sit and try and work while having a cold, hay fever, sickness or whatever other illness may have struck on the day in question. No one had to concentrate after hearing bad news, suffering from bereavement, coping with the after-effects of an argument at home or a break-up with a girl or boyfriend. No one found it too hot or too cold, no one found it hard to concentrate with someone chewing their pen in the next aisle and so on and so on. These marks were what students could achieve, on average, over months of work, rather than the usual exam results which record a moment in time. Why would we feel that a system which builds in such factors as luck and temperament is fairer than teachers assigning a grade which is decided on based on two years’ worth of work and effort?

I think (at least) two ideas stand between us and accepting teacher assessment as a final grade. One is that we had to go through exams, so why shouldn’t others. That, I have to say, is the worst reason to do anything. Perpetuating unfair and detrimental systems because we had to suffer through them is unthinking cruelty. The other more solid reason is the general lack of trust both the government and the public have for teachers’ professional judgement. That subject is worth a blog on its own. I have experienced it personally, as has every teacher, I dare say. Putting aside the lack of public trust for the moment, I would suggest that if the government doesn’t trust its teachers it should look again at the training and management of its education providers. Perhaps politicians know how untrustworthy they are and so can not trust anyone else. But to put our nation’s youth into the hands of a body of people you don’t trust does not seem wise on any level. I believe they are trustworthy. If others don’t, they should do something to recruit teachers they can trust rather than setting up a system that assumes teachers can not and will not treat students equitably.

In effect, what I am saying is that treating A levels simply as an entrance exam for university is too narrow, and trusting simply to exams is too unfair. Teacher assessed grades might help combat both these issues, not just this year, but from now on. As so many people have been saying, if we don’t overhaul an unfair, outdated system now, when will we ever do it? I don’t believe the only reason to assess students at the end of school is so that we can see which university, apprenticeship or job they go to. First, we should ponder why we should assess students at all, then try and devise a system which takes those purposes into account. Will we have the courage to take the opportunity to do it?