I spent a lot of Thursday not knowing whether to be proud of our boy or to lament falling standards in the exams. I know he did little work at school, hardly any homework and next to no revision. We were frequently told by his teachers how he had the intelligence to pass the exams but was too lazy, and then he told us that he had got an A grade, a C grade and a load of B grades.

When I got home and saw the results slip it turned out to be Ds and Es. It turns out that he hadn’t even paid enough attention at school to learn how to interpret the results slip properly!

Its such a shame, because he is quite bright and inventive and can be genuinely witty, but he now has his whole life ahead of him and its not going to be such a good one now. I hope he feels that the time he spent watching Pimp My Ride on MTV instead of reading a book was really worth the years he will spend in a worse job.

I don’t really know what to make of the GCSE results generally. The grades are improving because a lot of kids are taking subjects they will be better at instead of ones they are more likely to fail. In a way that seems sensible to me. I’m sure we did the same at school and chose subjects for our last two years which we were better at, or enjoyed more – usually the same thing as you tend to enjoy what you are good at.

I am not so keen on the trend to prevent kids from taking so many exams just to keep the average performance up. At our school everyone took 8 CSEs, even if the school thought they would fail them all. The brighter pupils also took O levels, and I think everyone had the opportunity to take O levels if they wanted to. If borderline children are discouraged from taking exams just for the sake of school league tables it is a disservice to those pupils.

My Dad used to say that banks expect a certain percentage of bad debts, and if a branch has no bad debts it just shows that they were being too cautious with their lending – not lending at the margins – and were probably missing out on business as a result. In the same way, schools should expect a certain percentage of GCSE failures as it shows they are taking steps to be as inclusive as possible.

High pass rates at A level do not bother me in the least. A levels are taken by those who have done well at GCSE and by students who want to take them. Those who spent 5 years disrupting classes and not bothering to work, just counting the days until they can leave school are not going to volunteer to stay another two years.

The people sitting A levels are the brighter people and they are more motivated. Much more motivated than we were 20 years ago, and I would expect that to show in the results. With increased motivation, access to better resources like the Internet and the like, and (hopefully) better teaching, I would be surprised if results were not improving. If they are also improved by students choosing ‘easier’ subjects then thats fine with me, but when it comes to GCSEs I think that a decent number of failures is a healthy sign that everyone is at least getting a chance.

And who is to say what is easier anyway?

I am sure that Ruth Lawrence found maths easier than she would have found humanities, sociology or media studies! Is it better to force someone with no natural aptitude for science to study physics?

Incidentally I took Mass Media Studies at CSE and Film Studies at O/A level back in 1978 before it was fashionable or at all common. Only 3 schools did MMS back then. Film Studies required essays written to a standard higher than O level English, and both subjects broadened my mind more than any of the established subjects did. It probably helped shape some of my opinions and attitudes which are still informing my life. I won’t hear a word against media studies.