Further Reflections on GCSE Options

I continue to be very grateful for the ongoing discussions around this.  In particular, Dave Gwilt's blog post (https://www.computingatschool.org.uk/forum-news-blogs/2025/may/two-paths-forward-a-dual-qualification-model-for-modern-computing/) and Adrian Mee's response and discussion paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383183770_A_five-strand_model_for_a_digital_curriculum_A_discussion_paper). 

These have helped me appreciate the significance of the current system permitting a huge number of students to 'opt out' of computing provision.  I have come to accept the fundamental need to cover the whole programme of study, ensuring there is accessible provision for all.

This post is an attempt to outline how this has affected my ideas.

The Timetable-Slot Problem 

I simply do not see how a single GCSE could be capable of delivering the breadth and depth required to meet the enormous range of students' Computing needs.   

The KS4 Programme of Study includes the requirement that students should be taught to 'develop their capability, creativity and knowledge in computer science, digital media and information technology'.  

These are currently covered over multiple level 2 qualifications.  Attempting to cover all of it in a single GCSE would necessitate the displacement of deeper content vital to prepare students for level 3 qualifications.  There would simply be insufficient lesson time to cover it all, especially considering the potential time required for centre-assessed work.

Mee's five-strand model has broadened my awareness of the problems and possible solutions.  As far as I understand, it is not put forward as a replacement for specialist qualifications, but as a model for all which also provides a solid foundation for those who wish to specialise. 

So in my view we either have to: 

• push for wider change than a single GCSE in isolation 

or: 

• reconsider what problems we can realistically solve within a single GCSE 

The Problems we are Trying to Solve 

I have framed these reflections around the problems cited in Becci's earlier blog post (https://www.computingatschool.org.uk/forum-news-blogs/2025/may/rethinking-gcse-computing-what-are-our-options/).

Problem: Mismatch with the curriculum

The biggest problem with the current system seems to be the lack of provision for those who do not want to specialise.  Changing a single GCSE in isolation cannot fix this.  Without wider changes, it would remain an 'opt-in' and still leave a huge number of students without KS4 computing provision. 
 

Maths, English and the Sciences have KS4 Programmes of Study and are mandatory GCSEs.  

History, Geography and Music are examples of subjects that do not have a KS4 Programme of Study, and they are optional GCSEs.

Computing has a KS4 Program of Study and is somehow not mandatory!   
 

Option: Mandate computing provision in a similar way to PE and PSHE.  i.e. all students have to have lessons to cover it, but it does not lead to a qualification.  I don't see how this would meet the curriculum review aim of 'raising aspirations', but at least it would reach the entirety of every cohort without removing from GCSE the depth required for Level 3 preparation. 

Option: Mandate that every student must take at least one computing-related Level 2 qualification (e.g. the current iMedia/IT/Computer Science, an amended Computer Science with Gwilt's Applied Digital Technologies, or some other offer).  This might help raise aspirations by forcing every student to choose a discipline (rather than letting them 'opt out').  Lack of qualified/confident staff could be a significant issue, as could differentiating the demands of a high learning pace for disadvantaged students. 

Option: Mandate that every student must take a Computing GCSE which caters for specialisation choices.  One of the GCSEs I took was 'Design & Technology with Art'.  If I recall correctly, other students in my year took things like 'Design & Technology with Electronics'.  We could have 'Computing with Computer Science', 'Computing with Creative Media', etc.  This could allow students to take a single-timetable-slot GCSE option whilst still preparing them for Level 3.  A big drawback here is that it would prevent people from taking two of the options (e.g. they could not take both Computing with Computer Science and Computing with Creative Media).  Staffing and differentiation issues could also be problematic. 

Option: Have a split 2-GCSE approach (similar to Double/Triple Science). 
Mandate that every student takes at least a 'single-award' GCSE and give them the option of more advanced content in a 'double-award' GCSE.  The 'single-award' could have more limited technical depth, thus making it easier for non-specialist staff to teach and more accessible for students.  The 'double-award' could build on the entire range of the 'single-award' content evenly but still provide the depth needed to prepare for Level 3 qualifications.  This would likely involve claiming timetable slots from other subjects, which I am sure would raise objections. 

Problem: Gender imbalance 

It seems to me that significantly changing GCSE Computer Science to include practical real-world-based projects around 'what we can do with computers' could make significant advances in addressing this.   I doubt we would have to change the 'Computer Science' focus to achieve it. Even if the learning is project based, the assessment could still be exam-based. 

Problem: Equity Concerns for Disadvantaged Students 

The Curriculum and Assessment interim report notes that the 'explanations [for the problems] often lie outside curriculum and assessment' and I doubt changing the GCSE could have significant impact on this... 

...but making the content practical and real-world-based could enable disadvantaged students to bring other learning and experiences to bear while lowering the barriers caused by conventional exams. 

If the only possible changes are limited to a single GCSE, retaining the Computer Science focus but making it more practical and project-based could help accessibility and inclusion without sacrificing the depth of the content. 

Being more flexible with assessment methods could still raise all the problems of centre-assessed work.   

Problem: Declining Interest 

Again, I can see how making GCSE Computer Science more practical would significantly help with this, even if the 'Computer Science' focus remains.

Problem: Teacher Recruitment and Workload 

Centre-assessment could vastly increase teacher workload and ever-rising grade boundaries could mean that very few students get high grades.  Plus, it could lead to school managers applying significant pressure on teachers to somehow 'produce' a decent set of grades to boost 'accountability measures' which would seriously undermine the value and reputation of the qualification.

Option: Practical endorsement de-coupled from headline GCSE grade.  This could be done within a Computer Science GCSE as I've already discussed in my previous post (https://www.computingatschool.org.uk/forum-news-blogs/2025/may/problems-with-replacing-gcse-computer-science/) 

Option: the single-award/double-award model would allow specialist teachers to cover the double-award content whilst non-specialists could be supported to deliver the less technical single-award content.  

In Conclusion 

I have come to appreciate the fact that a huge number of KS4 students can effectively 'opt out' of computing provision is a serious problem for the education system and society as a whole. 

We need to recognise that solving this problem needs far wider change than the content of a single GCSE. 

If the government are serious about every student being taught the KS4 Computing Programme of Study, they need to find a way to mandate participation for all.  Otherwise, instead of helping to solve the real problems, school managers will continue to allow students to opt-out of the Programme of Study. 

Trying to solve this by changing the GCSE Computer Science into something more attractive to students will fail: the opt-out will remain.  Worse, in trying to solve these larger problems within the scope of a single GCSE, we could significantly damage the specialist qualification pathways we already have. 

Basing the teaching of GCSE Computer Science around real-world projects could address many of the problems listed.  Assessment by exam and optionally some kind of 'practical endorsement' could avoid many of the pitfalls of centre-assessed work. 

Pushing for a single-award/double-award model would allow delivery of the KS4 Programme of Study to all students whilst preserving the ability to prepare students for Level 3 qualifications. This would likely cause loss of timetable slots for other subjects, which would undoubtedly have knock-on effects.