Every year the pictures are the same. Groups of teenagers gathered outside their schools, each one clutching an envelope. As they open them to learn their exam results, faces fill with shock. Eyes wide, mouths open, staring in delight or disbelief.
 
But what if GCSEsNational exams taken by 15 and 16-year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. were scrapped? No sitting in exam halls through the early summer. No gathering for results at the end of August. No revision, no coursework, no oral exams either.
 
That is the proposal made by Lord Baker of Dorking. Four decades ago, when he was Britain's education secretary, Lord Baker devised the current exams for 16 year olds. Now he has called the level of testing "absolutely absurd" and suggested the Labour government scrap the system.¹

He is not the only critic of GCSEs. Two summers ago, a think tank founded by the former prime minister Tony BlairTony Blair was the leader of the Labour party. He was British prime minister from 1997 to 2007.  made the same suggestion. They argued that GCSEs fail to "meet the needs of the modern world" and should be replaced by tests of creativity, critical thinking, and communication.²
 
Britain is an outlier. Few European countries have such extensive exams for 16 year olds.³ Given that the majority of pupils now leave school at 18, critics claim that GCSEs are obsoleteOutdated and no longer useful. .
 
Those in favour of the current system argue that GCSEs are widely recognised and help the government to rate secondary schools. More importantly, the exams are considered reliable by colleges, universities and employers.
 
The alternative - continuous assessment and/or coursework - is often deemed less accurate and less fair. As the respected education advisor Sam Freedman argues, such methods "benefit those who are wealthy".⁴
 
Opponents of GCSEs argue that forcing students to sit major exams at 16 is out of date. Such exams do not prepare young people for the modern economy, the number of tests is too high and the range of subjects is too narrow.
 
It is true that the current system excludes technical skills and vocational training. As the respected columnist Simon Jenkins complains: "Compulsory maths and science, but no compulsory health, economics, law, civics, computing or human relationships." ⁵
 
Employment has certainly changed in the four decades since GCSEs were introduced. A digital revolution has taken place, and now automation and AI are likely to transform the working world. Most teachers recognise that the education system needs to prepare young people for these challenges, whether or not they sit exams at 16.
 
The new LabourBritain's main left-of-centre political party. government has promised to hire more teachers, but they have said nothing about replacing GCSEs. However, the Tony Blair Institute report makes the case that, without radical reform, "we won't build the high-wage, high-skilled economy we need".⁶
 
Of course, education does not end at school. Given the pace of global change, students may have to reskill and upskill many times during their lives. Perhaps the most important lesson exams can teach is the habit of learning new things.

Is the exam system fit for purpose?

Yes: GCSEs are a rigorous and widely recognised examination system. Coursework or continuous assessment are less fair and end up rewarding privileged students.

No: Britain is an outlier in having major exams at 16. There are too many tests, not enough subjects, and they fail to prepare students for the modern workplace.

Or... The world of work is changing. No single exam system can prepare young people for the challenges of the future. Constant learning and regular upskilling are two solutions.

FOR YOUR SUMMER READING CHALLENGE CLUE GO TO STEP SIX IN THE SIX STEPS TO DISCOVERY BELOW.