-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that students taking AS and A levels should have at least one opportunity to re-sit their exams in the specification for which they studied?
Strongly agree
Equity requires that this cohort should have the same opportunity to resit on the specifications they have studied as have previous or succeeding cohorts.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that students re-sitting their AS and A levels in qualifications that have ceased to be accredited should be able to resit any of the AS or A level units they have previously taken (including controlled assessment units)?
Strongly agree
Equity requires that students should be able to resit any of the AS or A level units they have previously taken.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that there should be an additional resit opportunity for legacy GCSEs in English, English language and mathematics (including the linked pair) in summer 2017?
Strongly agree
Those (in Year 12) re-sitting are not the highest attaining students, especially those who do not sit or were unsuccessful in the November sitting (in their Year 12), and it is unreasonable to expect them to make the transition to the reformed qualifications (which are designed with the expectation of additional teaching time) in less than a year. (Those who did resit in November but then learnt in January that they were unsuccessful, would have a particularly short time in which to make the transition.)
The resit awards would be on the A*-G scale so would be clearly distinguishable from awards of the reformed qualifications on the 9-1 scale; this should allay concerns about standards and confusion among end users.
If the cohort concerned is not afforded this opportunity, there will be many entering Year 12 in 2016 who will end up with no ‘good pass’ in mathematics who in another cohort would have gained it. This will have long-term consequences for them, particularly for their educational progression and for their employability. If the lack of a resit opportunity on the legacy expectations in June 2017 led to many sitting the reformed specifications in June 2017 without adequate preparation then this could be detrimental to the standing of the new qualifications and public confidence in them.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that, with the exception of English, English language and mathematics (including the linked pair), there should not be a re-sit opportunity available for legacy GCSEs?
Neither agree nor disagree
As The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, we confine our remarks to matters affecting mathematics.
-
Do you have any comments on our draft General Condition D9?
No
-
Do you have any comments on our draft saving and transitional provisions for legacy AS and A level qualifications in the first phase of reform?
No
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that we adopt the same saving and transitional provisions, amended as necessary, in respect of all further legacy AS and A level qualifications, without further consultation?
Strongly agree
Equity requires that the same provision should be extended to subjects in later phases.
-
Do you have any comments on our draft saving and transitional provisions for legacy GCSEs in English, English language and mathematics (including the linked pair)?
Yes
The draft saving and transitional provisions should be extended to include an additional resit opportunity in June 2017, ideally this would include availability of the linked pair. In any case, students who have taken the linked pair should be permitted to take the legacy single-subject examination in mathematics (as, even if linked pair papers were available, many students change centre between Year 11 and Year 12, and their new centres may not make provision for the linked pair).
-
We have not identified any ways in which our proposals on re-sits would impact (positively or negatively) on persons who share a protected characteristic. Are there any potential impacts we have not identified?
No
-
Are there any additional steps we could take to mitigate any negative impact resulting from these proposals on persons who share a protected characteristic?
No
-
Have you any other comments on the impacts of the proposals on students who share a protected characteristic?
No
-
Do you have any comments on the impacts of our proposals on students, schools/colleges and/or exam boards?
No
Schools and Further Education Committee
19 January 2016
