Consultation outcome

Analysis of ​arrangements for non-exam assessment and fieldwork requirements for students entering qualifications in 2022

Updated 16 June 2021

Introduction

Last year, following a public consultation on the assessment arrangements for 2021, we implemented a range of changes to the way some of the GCSEs, AS and A levels that we regulate were to be assessed in the academic year 2020 to 2021. This was in response to disruption caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and took account of public health restrictions that could have had an impact on the way the assessments in these qualifications could be conducted.

We have consulted on proposals to carry forward these changes for some subjects in light of uncertainty about the extent to which any public health restrictions might continue during the next academic year. The consultation covered proposed arrangements for the academic year 2021 to 2022 in relation to:

• non-exam assessments (NEA) in dance, design and technology, drama (and theatre), film studies, food preparation and nutrition, media studies, music, music technology, and physical education (PE)
• fieldwork activities in geography, geology and environmental science
• assessment of speaking skills in GCSE modern foreign languages (MFL)
• assessment of spoken language in GCSE English language

This document is the summary of responses to this consultation on arrangements for NEA and fieldwork for qualifications in 2022 that ran between 14 May and 28 May 2021, to which we received 2,663 completed responses.

Background

For 2021, we introduced a range of measures for subjects for which we believed there could be particular challenges in completing the normal NEA and fieldwork requirements. In many cases, those measures gave exam boards the option to put in place alternative assessment arrangements to allow teachers to decide how best to support their students, given their facilities and any public health restrictions in place at the time.

The extent to which public health restrictions will be in place in the next academic year is not yet certain. However, some subject requirements, particularly those that involve group activities, work conducted outside of school and college premises, or the use of specific pieces of equipment, could be more difficult for students to undertake and for teachers to supervise if restrictions such as social distancing continue.

We sought views on our proposal that we carry forward changes agreed for 2020 to 2021. The proposals related to subjects where we believed a decision was needed before the end of the current academic year.

Non-exam assessment and fieldwork

In many subjects, preparation and work for NEA takes place in the summer term of the first year of the course of study. This preparation and work will be happening this term for students who will be taking their exams in 2022. We consulted to provide certainty for students, teachers and exam boards. We proposed to carry forward the majority of changes and permissions for flexibility relating to NEA that we put in place for 2021. The proposals included:

• permitting greater flexibility in the evidence presented for design and technology and physical education (PE) qualifications
• relaxing requirements for group work in dance, drama and theatre, and music qualifications
• permitting demonstrations of the use of machinery, tools and processes in design and technology and engineering qualifications
• reducing the requirements for GCSE food preparation and nutrition

We proposed to remove the mandatory requirement for a number of occasions or days of fieldwork outside of the school premises in geography, geology and environmental science qualifications. We recognise that fieldwork is an important feature of these qualifications, and we encourage centres to engage with fieldwork wherever possible. However, undertaking these activities outside of school or college premises might be difficult to arrange due to public health restrictions. While some activities might be possible on school or college premises, this will vary from place to place and we do not wish students who are unable to complete fieldwork to be deprived of the opportunity to take qualifications in the affected subjects.

GCSE English language

We proposed to carry forward the arrangements for GCSE English language spoken language assessments, where we removed the requirement for teachers to audio-visually record a sample of their students taking their spoken language assessments. We are aware that teachers may conduct these assessments at any point during the course and, therefore, they will need certainty about whether recordings are required.

GCSE modern foreign languages

Use of vocabulary in assessments

We proposed to carry forward to summer 2022 the changes we made in respect of the use of vocabulary in GCSE modern foreign languages (MFL) qualifications. These changes allow exam boards greater flexibility by removing the specific requirement that exists in other years for the assessments to use vocabulary that is not on the vocabulary lists.

The assessment of spoken language

For 2021, we had removed the assessment of spoken language from the calculation of the overall qualification result (the 9 to 1 grade). Instead, we put in place flexible requirements for the assessment of spoken language by teachers against common criteria, to be reported separately as an endorsement alongside the 9 to 1 grade. The endorsement approach in 2021 is marked on a 3-point scale – pass, merit, distinction (or not classified). Teachers responding to our consultation last year indicated they wished to see a return to the usual arrangements as soon as possible. We agree, however, we also recognise that it might be necessary to return to the endorsement approach if public health restrictions prevent formal speaking tests from taking place in 2022.

We proposed that:

• spoken language for GCSE MFL qualifications in 2022 should be assessed in the normal way so long as this remains practicable (other than the proposal outlined for the use of vocabulary)
• if it is not practicable to assess spoken language in the normal way in 2022, spoken language should be assessed by teachers using the endorsement approach set out in the 2021 Subject Level Conditions for GCSE MFL qualifications
• we will make a final decision on whether it is practicable to assess spoken language in the normal way no later than 31 January 2022

Proposals for each subject

We provided details about our proposals for each qualification in the consultation document and invited people to comment on the subjects that interested them.

Approach to analysis

The consultation was published on our website and available for response, using the online form, between 14 May and 28 May 2021.

Many of the questions were closed; respondents could indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the proposals using a 5-point scale (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree and strongly disagree). The Equality Impact Assessment and Regulatory Impact Assessment sections each included a single closed question that asked respondents to respond with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. In all sections, we also asked open questions inviting comments on the proposals.

We have provided tables of the responses to the closed questions and presented them as charts. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. In some cases, this has resulted in instances where percentages total something other than 100. For example, question 1 for GCSE drama totals 99% and question 1 for GCSE geography totals 101%. In addition, the number in the chart might not correspond with the combined number in the table due, again, to rounding. For example, in question 1 for GCE AS and A level environmental science.

Respondents were invited to indicate the capacity in which they were responding, by self-identifying the group to which they belong. The total numbers of respondents for each respondent group are set out in the table below, based on these descriptions.

Teachers provided 64% of the responses.

Respondents could choose to respond to questions for all or just some of the subjects and qualifications included in the consultation. We have not generally reported on trends in responses from each of the respondent groups, as the numbers of responses received from some of these groups for each question were so low as to make such analysis unreliable.

We present our summary of responses in the detailed analysis below. Each qualification proposal is addressed in turn, set out in alphabetical order by subject. With the exception of GCSE MFL, there were 2 questions for each qualification, and these are numbered consistently as questions 1 and 2 throughout. In the consultation document, we asked 5 separate questions for GCSE MFL, which were numbered as questions 3 to 8. We have retained this question numbering below.

We read all responses in full, including those that did not follow the format of the consultation. Responses received separately to the online survey are not included in the data tables and charts. In addition, some of the responses to this consultation expressed views about wider policy decisions and the impact of these in schools and colleges, including commenting on arrangements for awarding grades in 2021. We have read these responses but have not included matters that lie beyond the scope of this consultation in the analysis.

Where we have included quotes to illustrate the main themes identified, we have edited some for clarity, brevity and to preserve anonymity but we have been careful not to change their meaning.

Who responded

We received 2,663 responses to the consultation. The following tables are a summary of respondents by type.

Official responses	Number of respondents
Academy chain	50
Awarding body or exam board	5 or fewer
Employer	13
Local authority	18
Other representative or interest group	17
Private training provider	5 or fewer
School or college	255
University or higher education institution	5 or fewer
Total	360

Personal responses	Number of respondents
Awarding organisation employee	15
Consultant	11
Examiner	20
Exams officer or manager	8
Governor	5 or fewer
Other	33
Parent or carer	181
SLT (Senior leadership team)	109
Student – private, home-educated of any age	5 or fewer
Teacher (responding in a personal capacity)	1,704
Total	2,303

This was a public consultation that asked for the views of those who wished to participate. We recognise that the responses are not necessarily representative of the general public or any specific group.

Detailed analysis

In this section we report the views, in broad terms, of those who responded to the consultation.

There were a number of over-arching themes in the comments about each subject. These themes were present in responses from all respondent groups although, as noted in the data, the majority of responses were from teachers. The themes are summarised below and are not necessarily repeated in the separate, subject specific analyses, unless there was a particular impact on a subject.

The need for ongoing flexibility

Respondents commented on the continuing impact of the pandemic on students’ education, particularly for subjects with practical work that is still affected by public health restrictions. This includes, for example, limited access to specialist teaching rooms or equipment, or the inability to engage in group work due to local or national restrictions, including bubble arrangements within schools and colleges or the need for some students to self-isolate. Some responses highlighted the different experiences of students across the country, noting that some areas had been affected by more disruption than others. They also expressed concerns about the potential for further disruption in the next academic year. Many respondents welcomed the increased flexibility in the 2021 NEA arrangements, commenting that they provided scope for students to engage in aspects of their courses that otherwise might not have been possible.

Impact on progression and motivation

Some respondents argued that the proposed changes would have a negative impact on students’ ability to progress and should not, therefore, be introduced. For example, in GCE A level music some respondents were concerned that the reduction in the minimum performance time would have an impact on students who were progressing to higher education courses, where the ability to perform for an extended period of time was a necessity. Some were concerned that the aspects of the course students most enjoyed would be removed, diminishing their motivation for the subject. For example, the proposed changes to the recording element of the non-exam assessments in GCE AS and A level music technology.

Understanding of proposals

Some respondents expressed concerns that the proposals might mandate a change to the assessments. For example, some comments stemmed from a misperception that permitting exam boards to accept alternative assessment evidence in some subjects such as design and technology or media studies, or to accept shorter performances in dance or drama, meant that the usual arrangements were no longer allowed. Likewise, for the few subjects in which we proposed to remove specific mandatory requirements or aspects of the assessment in response to public health restrictions, such as fieldwork in geography and geology, respondents were concerned that these important activities would be prohibited.

Some respondents asked for further clarification on some of the proposals. In some cases, this was because the wording of the proposed regulatory assessment arrangements did not mirror the details of the exam board specifications. In other cases, respondents raised queries or offered views on how the exam boards had implemented, or might continue to implement, the arrangements.

Comments about the proposals for NEA and fieldwork in 2022 were sometimes conflated with views about the separate approach to awarding grades in summer 2021. This was particularly evident in responses to questions on our Regulatory Impact Assessment.

In addition, in all sections, respondents commented on wider issues such as differential learning loss and content reduction. These have not generally been discussed as they are outside the scope of this consultation.

Proposals for each subject

Dance

GCSE dance

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE dance?

GCSE dance responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	122	59%
Agree	43	21%
Neither agree nor disagree	34	16%
Disagree	4	2%
Strongly disagree	4	2%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE dance - total responses	207
GCSE dance - no response	2,456
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 207 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (80%) agreed or strongly with the proposal, while 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE dance?

There were 83 responses to this question.

Those in support commented that the proposals offered welcome flexibility, particularly in the face of ongoing disruption to practical work and uncertainty about the extent to which practical work would be possible during the next academic year.

The flexible approach to how students meet the NEA requirements in 2021 was excellent. Whilst most of my students were able to meet the usual NEA requirements and found great joy in getting back to their dancing after lockdown, for those who were adversely affect by circumstances caused by Covid, the flexible adaptations prevented them from being disadvantaged. The 2021 arrangements should absolutely apply to the 2022 cohort, as we are finding the current Year 10 to be unsettled. They had not built the foundations of their subject before going into lockdown again, so in some ways are less equipped for the demands of Year 11. The arrangements are well thought through and place emphasis on the teachers knowing how to best support their students. (School or college)

The students have not had enough time in the dance studio, dancing. The students have not been able to complete choreography using space because they have been at home. Some students have completed hardly any work because they have been forced to care for siblings where parents have had to work through the pandemic. (Local authority)

I strongly welcome the option of solo work as it ensures pupils can all demonstrate their achievement without relying too much on others. The proposal seems fair as it allows schools to effectively deal with and support pupils impacted by self-isolation or illness. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

A few comments were based on a misperception that the proposal would prevent the usual arrangements being followed. Other respondents commented that aspects such as group work should be permitted if circumstances allow.

I think it would be good to return to previous arrangements if we can. (SLT – Senior leadership team)

… Students choose to take a GCSE in dance due to the practical requirements and removing any of those would be unfair to a student in the middle of their course. Some students excel in choreographing dance or find this the most enjoyable task so to change that to alternative evidence would potentially be disadvantaging them. If there were a choice between a choreography or alternative evidence, centres might make that decision for students which would be unfair and could disadvantage them…(Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Schools should however be encouraged and able to include group dance as part of the assessment where possible.(Other representative or interest group)

Some respondents raised questions relating to the exam board’s specification, including the need to ensure that the assessments and any alternative evidence would be marked fairly.

Clarification needed around when NEA can be filmed. Giving both teachers and students the opportunity to film during the summer term of year 10 rather than waiting until year 11 will help relieve the stress and uncertainty many are already feeling. Clarification needed on set phrases. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

I think the proposal is fair. However, the exam board’s assessment criteria needs to be very clear regarding contact work and relationships to other dancers. This year, I could still access all of the relationship qualities aside from contact. They need to ensure centres are not penalised when it is out of their control. (School or college)

GCE AS dance

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS dance?

GCE AS dance responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	51	56%
Agree	18	20%
Neither agree nor disagree	18	20%
Disagree	0	0%
Strongly disagree	4	4%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE AS dance total responses	91
GCE AS dance - no response	2,572
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 91 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (76%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS dance?

There were 36 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE dance.

GCE A level dance

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level dance?

GCE A level dance responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	55	59%
Agree	21	22%
Neither agree nor disagree	14	15%
Disagree	2	2%
Strongly disagree	2	2%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE A level dance - total responses	94
GCE A level dance - no response	2,569
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 94 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (81%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level dance?

There were 44 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE dance.

Design and technology

GCSE design and technology

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE design and technology?

GCSE design and technology responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	190	50%
Agree	87	23%
Neither agree nor disagree	18	5%
Disagree	44	12%
Strongly disagree	39	10%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE design and technology - total responses	378
GCSE design and technology - no response	2,285
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 378 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (73%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 22% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE design and technology?

There were 243 responses to this question. Many respondents welcomed the flexibility offered by the proposals, particularly in light of the impact the public health restrictions have had on students’ ability to engage with practical work and develop their practical skills.

Please remove the requirement for the production of working and final prototypes again for summer 2022 exams. The production of a final prototype usually involves using specialist machinery and tools which will be shared between many students, and to sanitise these frequently will be time consuming and uses a lot of resources. Also, if social distancing measures will remain in place, this will be difficult in a workshop with many people moving around. In addition, many students will not have had enough experience using specialist machinery and tools in time to carry out the NEA without significant help from teachers. I will be starting my coursework for design and technology GCSE for summer 2022 soon and myself and most of my peers have not used any machinery or tools since March 2020 as a result of COVID-19 measures. It will be unrealistic to expect students in our position to be ready to use these machinery and tools for our NEA based on our lack of experience and practice. I believe that, while students with any working or final prototypes manufactured should have these assessed, the manufacturing of prototypes should not be mandatory and students without manufactured prototypes should not be penalised based on this alone. Detailed specifications, diagrams, materials, written manufacturing methods, CAD and other computer-based work etc. and their evaluations should be sufficient. (Student)

Many respondents agreed with the proposals but indicated a preference to get back to the normal working arrangements as soon as possible in order to keep students motivated and engaged in their current and future studies.

Agree in principle, although every effort should be made to allow students to complete ‘normal’ work in a COVID secure way. Mocks up/detailed design intentions are no substitute for ‘real products’ and greatly limit students’ knowledge and understanding of practical skills which are crucial to further progression in the field. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Respondents recognised that experiences for students in design and technology vary from centre to centre and across the country and many agreed that the proposals were the fairest option for all.

High level practical skills have not been able to be accessed by all students this academic year due to school closures. There are also varying experiences across schools within England due to isolating students and different schools’ approaches to COVID risk assessment - some schools working in bubbles with no student access to workshops and others with full access. Early release of the NEA titles would help with planning. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

GCE AS and A level design and technology

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS and A level design and technology?

GCE AS and A level design and technology responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	93	45%
Agree	43	21%
Neither agree nor disagree	20	10%
Disagree	23	11%
Strongly disagree	27	13%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE AS and A level design and technology - total responses	206
GCE AS and A level design and technology - no response	2,457
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 206 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (66%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 24% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS and A level design and technology?

There were 136 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE design and technology.

In addition, for GCE AS and A level, there were some comments that were based on a misperception that the proposals would prevent the usual arrangements being followed and that they would, therefore, limit the outcomes for those who are able to produce a final prototype.

Our students thrive on the opportunity to realise their design ideas. They derive a strong sense of pride and personal achievement as a result of working hard to create a quality finished product. These outcomes serve to inspire students taking their options. The idea of submitting nothing more than card models is soul destroying and takes away the ambition of the students. We are depriving them of skills needed to go into apprenticeships and positions on practical courses at college etc. Reduce the written exam element. Allow our students to get their hands-on quality materials and experience success in the workshop. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Drama (and theatre)

GCSE drama

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE drama?

GCSE drama responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	189	63%
Agree	79	26%
Neither agree nor disagree	16	5%
Disagree	10	3%
Strongly disagree	27	13%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE drama - total responses	300
GCSE drama - no response	2,363
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 300 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (89%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE drama?

There were 161 responses to this question.

Those in support commented that the proposals offered welcome flexibility, particularly in the face of ongoing disruption to practical work and uncertainty about the extent to which practical work would be possible during the next academic year. This extended to the proposal to continue allowing streamed or recorded theatre performances in place of the requirement for students to see live theatre in person.

I think that carrying forward the current requirements will enable my students to get the most out of the course without the added worry of further disruption adversely affecting their studies. it will mean we can move forward with confidence this term. The use of online performances will also help with planning as we will be able to consider taking them to see a live performance safe in the knowledge that it will not be a disaster if there happens to be another local or national lockdown.” (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

It is positive for students to be able to provide alternative options for assessments due to Covid 19 restrictions that are flexible. (Parent or carer)

We have to acknowledge that some areas - e.g. Bolton, Blackburn are currently experiencing COVID challenges that other areas of the country are not. Therefore, we need to make sure that any approach levels the playing field for these young people. Especially because the areas affected most are the most deprived areas of town and those dominated by BAME communities. (SLT – Senior leadership team)

Currently no access to any live theatre performances in local area or able to travel to areas where live theatre is re-starting. Live streamed or recorded performances worked very well this year and feel this would be beneficial to students taking examinations in 2022.” (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Some comments were based on a misperception that the proposal would reduce important practical aspects of the qualification or prevent the usual arrangements being followed.

My daughter chose drama as she loves the performance aspect - to allow this to be done theoretically means she is not actually doing the GCSE course that she chose.” (Parent or carer)

As the students will have missed one term of their learning this equates to 20% of their tuition time. So as such the practical part of the assessment should only be reduced by 20% not removed completely. (Governor)

The NEA Devising is much harder for students to fully explore the stimulus or develop their skills if they are not able to develop a whole performance. Disadvantaged students find it much harder to demonstrate a wide enough range of performance/design skills in the limited format of a monologue or short piece and lack the cultural capital to draw on to envisage a larger performance that has not been practically developed… (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

A few respondents suggested that not all of the changes would be required this year

It is important that pupils complete the practical tasks and providing we now stay in school, the ‘alternative arrangements’ choices aren’t required. With the reduced time limits I do not see any reason why any pupil should not be able to access this task. Keeping the option of solo work is a good idea though. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

The performance side of Drama is so vital to learning and meaning in the subject. Although we do not know the way that the pandemic will change in the coming year, we think that it would be far preferable to aim for something that is between 2019 and 2021 requirements as only 6 weeks of school time have been impacted for pupils during their Year 10. If, at a later stage, it appears that more time will be lost then we can revert to 2021 requirements… (School or college)

Others raised questions about details relating to the exam boards’ specifications, including commenting on the need to ensure that the assessments and any alternative evidence would be marked fairly. A few expressed a preference for exam boards to mark non-exam assessments directly.

…although there were new minimum time limits set, the maxima remained the same which meant that, in this year, our aspirational pupils still had to aim for a significant performance length despite the significant impact to their GCSE course. If there is to be a change in the minimum time limits then please also bring in changes to the maximum limits as well. (School or college)

To enable us to effectively standardise the work of our students in all components, we will need a much broader range of graded exemplar work to measure against - especially monologues and design elements. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Agree with all changes but believe allowing the option of a visiting examiner would be better as if not, it would put extra work on the teacher. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

GCE AS drama and theatre

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS drama and theatre?

GCE AS drama and theatre responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	47	51%
Agree	25	27%
Neither agree nor disagree	17	18%
Disagree	0	0%
Strongly disagree	3	3%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE AS drama and theatre - total responses	92
GCE AS drama and theatre - no response	2,571
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 92 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (78%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 3% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS drama and theatre?

There were 36 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE drama.

GCE A level drama and theatre

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level drama and theatre?

GCE A level drama and theatre responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	95	62%
Agree	31	20%
Neither agree nor disagree	16	10%
Disagree	6	4%
Strongly disagree	6	4%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE A level drama and theatre - total responses	154
GCE A level drama and theatre - no response	2,509
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 154 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (82%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 8% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level drama and theatre?

There were 89 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE drama.

Engineering

GCSE engineering

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE engineering?

GCSE engineering responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	41	51%
Agree	16	20%
Neither agree nor disagree	17	21%
Disagree	2	2%
Strongly disagree	5	6%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE engineering - total responses	81
GCSE engineering - no response	2,582
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 81 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (70%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 9% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Those that agreed with the carrying forward of arrangements commented that this was the best solution when carrying out practical work still presented logistical challenges.

The students have little exposure to face to face teaching in the correct environment. They haven’t gained the skills and knowledge from doing practicals and the impact to learning is more severe than both previous year groups. (Academy chain)

The time missed in the first year of what is a two-year course means the same provision should be made for exams in 2022 as they were in 2021. There is massive disparity as to the provision of schooling given during lockdown from all virtual lessons to only being set work. Too difficult and stressful for the child to try and catch this up.(Parent or carer)

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE engineering?

There were 37 responses to this question. Some respondents expressed concern about the difficulties that centres are facing when trying to prioritise practical work in this subject.

These students will have very little practical experience to aid success in practical criteria next academic year and large classes may still have significant Covid restrictions / implications. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Many respondents commented that practical work was now possible in centres and that there was no need for this proposal to be carried forward.

I believe that schools are ready to proceed with actual practical rather than mock ups / intentions of prototypes, and that we need to upskill the current generation. CLEAPSS have published guidance with allows for safe resumption of workshop practical activities, and after a year of allowing schools to adjust, I firmly believe we can resume as we normally would. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Practical sessions should still be going on, theory is a key element, however without physically making products and getting experience using the machines, they will not be able to learn and adapt to hands on work. (Academy chain)

Some respondents agreed with the second part of the proposal to allow demonstration of machinery use but did not agree that there was any need to permit prototypes.

Members agree with the second decision but not the first for 2022. On the second decision, given the potential public health implications, members reluctantly agree with the proposals to permit demonstration of using machinery etc. but have concerns over how this may affect the integrity of the subject and students’ ability to properly learn how to use the various tools. They would prefer that Ofqual and boards are clear that the default should be students are expected to use the machinery etc. themselves and not just learn via demonstration. They should make clear to centres that allowing a relaxation to permit demonstration is a last resort – only to be used where not doing so absolutely cannot be facilitated in a Covid-safe way. On the first, members question why there is a need to permit prototypes. This decision from last year was made in order to make up for lost in-classroom teaching time and whilst there are similar learning loss issues for students sitting in 2022 too, this consultation isn’t necessarily looking at that. Even if it were, members are of the opinion that whilst accepting mock-ups and/or prototypes would save time, this time would be better sought back in other areas. Members feel that an essential aspect of the subject is the process of turning the prototype into the finished product and so, given this measure doesn’t aid the mitigation of any potential public health and safety risks, they question why this decision is proposed to be carried forward. They feel there is no need for it to be. (Other representative or interest group)

English language

GCSE English language

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry

forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE English language?

GCSE English language responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	329	69%
Agree	92	19%
Neither agree nor disagree	27	6%
Disagree	16	3%
Strongly disagree	15	3%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE English language - total responses	479
GCSE English language - no response	2,184
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 479 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (88%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 6% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE English language?

There were 234 responses to this question.

The majority of those who commented supported the proposal that teachers should not to have to record students taking their spoken language assessments. Many said this would allow teachers greater flexibility in terms of how and when they conduct the assessments, enabling them to take account of any public health restrictions. Others said it would reduce pressure on students and reduce the assessment and administrative burden for teachers.

Students in the current Year 10 (sitting their GCSE in 2022) have had significant disruption to their GCSE study. We have had to postpone our Spoken Language Assessment 3 times now meaning that finding time to film them all will be difficult. Having the flexibility to complete them without needing to send off a video sample will significantly help. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Trusting that teachers can make an accurate judgement of pass/merit of distinction for this endorsement, especially considering that it has no bearing on their exam result, seems sensible. The videoing of presentations in itself is anxiety inducing for the students and can affect their performance. the admin involved in uploading the files is complicated and time consuming for teaching staff. This arrangement should remain permanently. (SLT – Senior leadership team)

We agree that the endorsement should be retained. The removal of the recording requirement will provide us with the necessary flexibility for how/when these can be done. (School or college)

Others welcomed the proposal to continue to permit spoken language assessments to be conducted virtually and in front of a single teacher, rather than a larger audience.

Virtual means will enable any students shielding or unable to attend school to participate in speaking exams and will not prohibit them from achieving. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

The removal of the need for an audience makes it easier to fit into the sequence of lessons and the change to by virtual means will enable that to take place if there is a school closure again. (Other representative or interest group)

A few respondents suggested the proposal did not go far enough and that the whole spoken language endorsement should be removed for 2022 to save time. Others commented on the importance of the assessment and suggested the usual recording arrangements could still be carried out.

The recording (or not) of students’ presentations has made little difference to how we conduct NEA for English this year. The time students spend preparing for this and the time it takes to listen to each presentation has not been reduced by not needing to record. It would have been better either not to do it at all or to carry on with the original plans. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

I don’t think that makes a difference now. Recording can be done via social distancing if necessary. Schools should only be looking to do this in late 2021 or 2022 anyway, which gives plenty of time to prepare. (Exams officer or manager)

As mostly English is a first language and students will need to have interviews for 6th form, then there is need to carry out a formal spoken assessment. (Parent or carer)

Many respondents said that schools frequently carry out spoken language assessments during the summer term and would need confirmation of the arrangements as swiftly as possible.

It would be very helpful to have this confirmed as soon as possible so teachers have as much flexibility with their teaching as possible. Many centres (ours included) prefer to undertake the SLE at the end of Year 10. As our centre is independent, our school term ends on 7 July, so timely communication of the outcome of this part of the consultation would be most helpful. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Environmental science

GCE AS and A level environmental science

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS and A level environmental science?

GCE AS and A level environmental science responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	34	40%
Agree	12	14%
Neither agree nor disagree	14	16%
Disagree	3	3%
Strongly disagree	23	27%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE English language - total responses	479
GCSE English language - no response	2,184
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 86 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (54%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 30% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS and A level environmental science?

There were 47 responses to this question. Those that agreed with the carrying forward of arrangements commented that this was the best solution when carrying out fieldwork still presented logistical challenges.

They have been appropriate this year, and should continue as carrying out fieldwork may be an issue for some centres. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents expressed concern about the difficulties that centres are facing when trying to arrange fieldwork.

I think they should be carried forward in full from the 2021 proposal because there may be schools where students cannot access this material from their school campus so they will be required to go on field trips which could be against Covid regulations. (Student)

The fieldwork element needs to be removed for the 2021 cohort. Due to the fact like the previous year group they have lost a lot of time in school. Furthermore, we are still unclear if things will return fully to normal again for the next academic year, especially with new strains of COVID being found, and it is unclear if schools will be in local lockdowns. Also, taking students out of school will place further pressure on other subjects. I think that there needs a longer period on the new normal before we reintroduce fieldwork. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Many respondents commented that fieldwork is a core element to this subject and not requiring centres to provide opportunities to undertake fieldwork would result in a loss of essential skills.

Removing fieldwork requirement will intrinsically reduce the value of the qualification. Students will lack knowledge, understanding and skills to progress. The subject is based on understanding the systems in place and developing the scientific method to research. (Parent or carer)

I do not believe it is possible to study Environmental Science without including practical knowledge of field work. Practical field work is how the natural sciences are studied so by removing this you are removing a fundamental part of scientific enquiry. It also undermines the critical and lateral thinking needed in scientific enquiry. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents said that fieldwork took place outside and therefore there was a low risk in terms of the transmission of the virus.

There are no good health reasons to withdraw the requirement for fieldwork as it takes place outdoors and so has less chance of Covid transmission taking place than conventional learning taking place indoors. (Other representative or interest group)

Film studies

GCSE film studies

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE film studies?

GCSE film studies responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	51	58%
Agree	18	20%
Neither agree nor disagree	13	15%
Disagree	4	5%
Strongly disagree	2	2%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE film studies - total responses	88
GCSE film studies - no response	2,575
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 88 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (78%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 7% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE film studies?

There were 36 responses to this question.

Respondents said the proposals offered a flexible alternative that would enable students to complete the course of study.

We strongly support the proposal to carry forward in full the arrangements that applied for 2021. This means that in 2022 teachers and schools can carry forward the approaches they developed for 2021, building on existing support materials and plans. It will also remove the potential for any confusion between what the arrangements were for 2021 those for 2022. Given the current pressures on the teaching workforce, we believe this is imperative. […] Although the adaptations do not always allow students to demonstrate and develop their skill in an optimal way, we believe the flexibility allows the vast majority of students to access qualifications where, otherwise, this might not have been possible. (Awarding body or exam board)

The storyboard option is a way of showing all the intricacies of film making without the group work that this necessitates. It still allows for the process to be evaluated and has been an engaging alternative for our students. (SLT – Senior leadership team)

Some respondents commented on the importance of practical work in this subject and expressed a preference for students to be able to engage with the usual arrangements.

Whilst the need to share the equipment needed to carry out any filming etc. may prove an obstacle – and therefore make these measures understandable – the creation of the film is a key element of the subject. Members would not want students to be prevented from getting a grade if they couldn’t access/share equipment for Covid-related reasons, but equally they would be reluctant to agree to removing the requirement to actually create a film. They feel it is reasonable to hope/expect that by 2022 there should remain a Covid-safe way to ensure all students can make a film, and not just a mock-up/prototype, that counts towards their grade. (Other representative or interest group)

GCE AS film studies

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS film studies?

GCE AS film studies responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	35	54%
Agree	11	17%
Neither agree nor disagree	15	23%
Disagree	2	3%
Strongly disagree	2	3%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE AS film studies - total responses	65
GCE AS film studies - no response	2,598
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 65 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (71%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 6% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS film studies?

There were 33 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE film studies and below for GCE A level film studies.

GCE A level film studies

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level film studies?

GCE A level film studies responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	49	58%
Agree	15	18%
Neither agree nor disagree	15	18%
Disagree	2	2%
Strongly disagree	4	5%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE A level film studies - total responses	85
GCE A level film studies - no response	2,578
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 85 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (75%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 7% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level film studies?

There were 39 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE film studies.

In addition, a few respondents commented that the expectations for the alterative evidence, of a mock-up or prototype of a short film, were too vague. Some offered suggestions on how the proposals might be realised in the exam boards’ specifications.

I am a teacher of Film for 10 years and so have overseen many students’ coursework submissions. I would say that it is too vague to say that a ‘mock-up’ could be accepted for a short film - it would be impossible to draw the line objectively, therefore creating disadvantage between centres and great difficulty for standardisation of moderators (which I have also been). I would suggest the reduction of an acceptable (without penalty) short film minimum running time from 4 minutes to 2 minutes would be more appropriate (and mirrors the old spec AS coursework requirement). In regards to the screenplay/storyboard option I would keep this intact but instead allow hand/digitally drawn images, as well as up to 100% digitally sourced (such as 3D software renders) and/or third party sourced ‘representative’ images, to be acceptable for 2022 (the logic being that they are assisting visualising the screenplay in any case). I feel the NEA is an integral part of the course, and in fact my year 12s are currently half-way through pre-production on their short films, as many centres students will be in the summer term… (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Food preparation and nutrition

GCSE food preparation and nutrition

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE food preparation and nutrition?

GCSE food preparation and nutrition responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	296	69%
Agree	71	17%
Neither agree nor disagree	19	4%
Disagree	27	6%
Strongly disagree	15	4%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE food preparation and nutrition - total responses	428
GCSE food preparation and nutrition - no response	2,235
Full survey - total responses	2,663

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE food preparation and nutrition?

There were 299 responses to this question. Most of the respondents who commented were in favour of the proposals for 2021 being carried forward to 2022.

Many respondents welcomed the removal of NEA1 (food science) for 2022. They said it provided an opportunity to catch up on lost practical work in the classroom and gave more time to develop the skills learners need for NEA2. With the removal of NEA1, respondents were keen to have an earlier release date for the NEA2 task.

Due to the lockdown last term we still have theory content to get through and we have not been able to cover all the practical skills we normally would. This means the year group are at a disadvantage to a ‘normal’ year and the proposal will allow us to rectify this. It will also allow us to accommodate the increased burden of conducting practical lessons under gov guidance (social distancing, reducing of burden of sharing equipment etc). (Teacher -responding in a personal capacity)

I believe this is a great proposal as we as student have not had much time in school and making us complete the NEA1 would be extremely difficult without the practice. leading on from this I believe the NEA2 should be decreased to 2 dishes in 3 hours to accommodate for the time we lost being able to cook. (Student)

Some respondents said food science is an integral part of the qualification, which is normally assessed in both NEA1 and in the written exam. There was some concern that the removal of the requirement for NEA1(food science) in 2022 might have an impact on the teaching and understanding of the food science content that would be assessed in the exam.

Removal of NEA1 for a second year may have negative consequences for exam results, as many students learn abstract science in a practical way. The science aspects integral to NEA1 will still need to be taught thoroughly as they will appear within the written exam in Summer 2022 as usual. (Other representative or interest group)

Reducing the number of dishes required for NEA2 from 3 to 2 was welcomed by most respondents due to the impact of public health restrictions in the classroom. Many said this would allow students who were less familiar with using equipment, and whose skills might be less developed than would be expected in a normal year, to produce dishes.

Completely agree with cancellation of NEA1 50% of the marks awarded for NEA2 with 2 dishes in 3 hours would give the pupils a wonderful opportunity to showcase their skills. Guidance on number of dishes expected in technical skills part of the coursework would be appreciated. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Several respondents indicated that producing 2 dishes in 3 hours would limit the opportunities for some students to access higher marks and demonstrate the full range of their skills and enjoyment.

Three dishes in three hours means that they can show more techniques and again show greater application. Some are excited for it to happen as well, as a way of proving themselves if you will. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Geography

GCSE geography

Question 1: To what extent to do agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE geography?

GCSE geography responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	426	52%
Agree	135	17%
Neither agree nor disagree	29	4%
Disagree	87	11%
Strongly disagree	140	17%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE geography - total responses	817
GCSE geography - no response	1,846
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 817 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (69%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, whereas 28% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Most respondent groups agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal. However, there were 5 respondent groups where the majority disagreed or strongly disagreed with our proposal, including other representative interest groups (82% strongly disagree), consultants (71% disagree or strongly disagree, 7 respondents for this question), and examiners (60% disagree or strongly disagree, 5 respondents for this question).

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE geography?

There were 600 comments in response to this question. Respondents were keen to emphasise how fundamental fieldwork is to geography, regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposal to lift the mandatory requirements for a specified number of occasions to undertake fieldwork outside of school or college premises. However, many respondents agreed with the proposal arguing that, despite its importance, it will be extremely difficult for centres to meet the requirements for fieldwork in the time remaining for the 2022 cohort. Many had found fieldwork difficult to arrange within the ongoing public health restrictions and centre policies. They were also concerned about the level of unpredictability of future public health restrictions and the risks of booking trips that might not go ahead.

Carrying forward the assessment arrangements are realistic, practical, fit for purpose and fair. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

I believe fieldwork is an amazing opportunity for students to apply their learning outside of the classroom. The subject lends itself to discovering processes and landforms in situ, and fieldwork allows students to gain an appropriate sense of connection to their academic learning. However, arranging fieldwork for GCSE students (we have approximately 150 in each of Year 10 and Year 11) is hugely time consuming and challenging: trying to do so whilst experiencing COVID restrictions feel herculean and, frankly, nigh on impossible. I welcome the proposal to keep the 2022 exam requirements in line with 2021 - that no fieldwork is mandatory and students will not answer questions on their own fieldwork. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Fieldwork is a vital aspect of Geography and it is vital that ways are found to support it at the earliest opportunity. However, in the current climate it would be unfair to expect all students to complete the requisite number of days specified in the specifications.(Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Fieldwork continues to be extremely difficult. As such we have as yet undertaken no fieldwork with either year 10 or 12 students. If any kind of lockdown or social distancing limitation is again imposed it may become impossible to do… (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

We have been unable to organise, plan and pay for fieldwork activities due to COVID-19 and the uncertainty that lies with planning residential trips - there is too much risk for parents to lose money. Therefore, any personal fieldwork is limited and residential work impossible for 2021/22. Therefore, a continuation like this year with no personal fieldwork questions is the only fair solution. (School or college)

Others commented that mandatory requirements for occasions outside of school or college premises should be reinstated as otherwise the subject would be undermined and students would not develop valuable skills including those needed for progression. Those from other representative or interest groups expressed strong views about this point.

Vital to re-instate fieldwork in Geography at both GCSE and A Level. Fieldwork builds skills for the future, and is an integral part of Geography at all levels.(Examiner)

[…] mandatory fieldwork requirements have been vital in helping teachers secure the support of school leaders for fieldwork and schools are already starting to resume GCSE fieldwork […] (Other representative or interest group)

There were some misperceptions that the proposal was to remove fieldwork from the course altogether as opposed to lifting the mandatory requirement that fieldwork is carried out, outside school or college grounds, on at least 2 occasions.

Please do not remove fieldwork in geography - it is fundamental to the subject and students’ success. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Our preferred approach for 2022 would involve learners completing some fieldwork - this could be completed in the classroom (virtually) or on the school grounds if necessary. This would allow flexibility in delivering fieldwork and the enquiry and fieldwork skills can be taught through this experience to ensure learners’ experiences in preparation for the assessment by examination are more equitable. (Awarding body or exam board)

Some respondents (both those who agreed and disagreed with the proposal) suggested that some fieldwork should go ahead, but there should be more flexibility in what is expected of centres. They said the full requirements would be difficult to meet this year, but it might be possible to carry out fieldwork, for instance, on only one occasion, within the school or college grounds or by virtual means.

If rules allow we would like to offer fieldwork to our students in Year 11 as part of their course next year. However, where we would normally offer both a human and a physical fieldwork experience it is more likely we will only be able to offer one or the other due to the amount of curriculum time available. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Although it will remain difficult to access many fieldwork locations as there will clearly be unease about student travelling by coach / bus, there should be some fieldwork in the assessment. I suggest that one piece of fieldwork is required. This could be within a local setting (within walking distance) and could even take place within the school grounds. Of course, students won’t gain the full experience of fieldwork, but will be able to develop their skills… (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

[…] it is both safe and rewarding for students to be taught how to make specific observations around their home, local area or on their route to school, and to augment these observations with online data to create challenging and rewarding fieldwork to GCSE standards […] (Other interest or representative group)

For the 2021 to 22 cycle [we] would be content to see flexibility in the locational requirements of where the two examples of fieldwork might be undertaken. For example, the first piece of fieldwork might be undertaken on the schools’ grounds, whilst the second undertaken further afield. (Other interest or representative group)

The DfE content requirement for investigation of two contrasting environments beyond the school gates [should be] amended to a requirement for one investigation to take place beyond the school gates and a contrasting study to take place anywhere (which might be inside the school gates). All schools, regardless of size and location, are able to run one robust investigation within the school grounds, buildings or community, as long as the sector is provided with suitable guidance and exemplification from authoritative sources, such as exam boards. Over the course of 2021 to 22, it will also be perfectly reasonable to require schools to investigate one environment beyond the school gates (using the range of options cited above) and to certify that they have done so. (Other interest or representative group)

Some respondents were confident that fieldwork in full could go ahead with the anticipated lifting of restrictions and they had already booked, or participated in, some fieldwork.

From June 21st students should be able to complete their compulsory fieldwork without any restrictions. This is an essential skill for the preparation of A level and should be something that is examined. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

[…] Specific guidance is now available that can ensure that safe, Covid- secure fieldwork can take place […] (Other representative or interest group)

In contrast, a few respondents said that requiring fieldwork could create inequalities if centres could not fulfil the requirements; some students might not be able to afford to go on trips and the variability of experiences would be too great.

To put a fieldwork requirement in the 2022 exam series significantly disadvantages students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, and those with weak cultural literacy through no fault of their own. Schools with limited resources, limited funding and limited access to sites and grounds will struggle to deliver a fieldwork experience given the backlog of bookings at FSC [the Field Studies Council], and lack of equipment and staff to deliver a comparable experience independently. (SLT – Senior leadership team)

Some respondents agreed with the proposal, citing the consequences of taking time out of school or college, and the impact this would have on covering content for the written examinations, in geography and other subjects.

I agree on the grounds of supporting schools with time for provision lost during lockdowns, on the principle that fieldwork is reinstated for the following year. It is one of the most important parts of the course, and supports schools in providing students from low income backgrounds with experiences they would otherwise not have (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

However, other respondents suggested the proposal did not go far enough and further actions were needed to account for the disruption and time lost due to the pandemic.

Constant disruption to learning throughout 2020 and 2021 will make it challenging to complete all course content to a high standard. Is it possible to reduce teaching content e.g. one not two physical landscapes, resource management overview or a specific resource? (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents suggested that all fieldwork questions, not just those based on the students’ own experience, should be removed from the written examination altogether. They explained that should restrictions prevent them from being able to carry out their own fieldwork it will be difficult for students to fully understand fieldwork and time consuming to teach.

One of the main issues with removing fieldwork but still assessing unseen fieldwork is that these skills are very hard to teach/learn without the experience. I think fieldwork is a catch 22. It’s so important to geography so removing it is not ideal. However, it is usually done in Year 10 as it is hard to take Year 11s out of school. This year has not been possible to arrange school trips so opportunities for fieldwork has been limited… (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Students still have to answer questions on fieldwork in unfamiliar contexts, this is nigh on impossible for them to do without conducting fieldwork. The net result is us having to teach additional content over and above a normal year - thereby increasing the workload for students and teachers not reducing it… (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

GCE AS geography

Question 1

To what extent to do agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS geography?

GCE AS geography responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	66	37%
Agree	23	13%
Neither agree nor disagree	11	6%
Disagree	15	8%
Strongly disagree	64	36%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE AS geography - total responses	179
GCE AS geography - no response	2,484
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 179 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (50%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal whereas 44% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2 Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS geography?

There were 122 comments in response to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE geography.

GCE A level geography

Question 1: To what extent to do agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level geography?

GCE A level geography responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	216	43%
Agree	84	17%
Neither agree nor disagree	25	5%
Disagree	49	10%
Strongly disagree	129	26%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE A level geography - total responses	503
GCE A level geography - no response	2,160
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 503 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (60%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal whereas 35% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

The pattern of responses was similar to GCSE and AS geography with most respondent groups agreeing with the proposal. However, other representative or interest groups strongly disagreed (90%), as did university or higher education institutions (5 or fewer respondents in this category).

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level geography?

There were 380 comments in response to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE geography. However, respondents emphasised in particular the difficulty of completing 4 days of fieldwork for A level and said they would value flexibility with this.

I feel like this is a reasonable proposal that allows schools to do some fieldwork if possible without being 4 days in length. It’s worked well this year going out for two in my school and I feel that this could be done again. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

It is really difficult to arrange field work (either local or further afield) at short notice. There is also the time pressure of covering all courses in school which taking students out for fieldwork days further limits time available in school. I think fieldwork should still be encouraged at A level but not be a requirement I love and value fieldwork but it is very difficult at the moment. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Fieldwork is super-important: I would like to run fieldwork for all students. However, planning fieldwork in light of COVID restrictions has been super-challenging: last year I re-planned A-Level fieldwork three times, and three times it was not able to happen due to local lockdowns, infection rates, government restrictions and/or school policy. Please do not require students to complete fieldwork for 2022 - it is so hard trying to make it happen! (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

[…] Although the adaptations do not always allow students to demonstrate and develop their skill in an optimal way, we believe the flexibility allows the vast majority of students to access qualifications where, otherwise, this might not have been possible. (Awarding body or exam board)

In addition, at A level, many respondents referred to the NEA component of the course. They noted that many students use the fieldwork trips as their opportunity to collect primary data and therefore the 2 elements are closely linked. Some said that without the opportunity to collect primary data, students were restricted in their NEA and teachers did not want this to impact on students’ achievement. Others said there was not enough time available for students to complete the NEA to a suitable standard, therefore they would like the NEA removed. A few respondents suggested that if the NEA was retained, then fieldwork should also be retained.

Due to lockdown and restrictions it has not been possible for current year 12 to undertake primary data collection in the field, therefore this should be taken into consideration when marking NEA that primary data will be limited. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

I think it is unfair to expect students to conduct the full NEA when they have not been able to collect data due to the restrictions. They haven’t been able to do any fieldwork during year 12 and therefore may struggle with the demands of the NEA combined with the topics that were taught remotely during the pandemic. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

It is very difficult for students to carry out the NEA without completing actual fieldwork and this is an integral part of A Level geography. (Teacher responding in a personal capacity)

Most respondents suggested it would still be possible to complete the NEA, but they would like further clarity from exam boards about marking expectations taking into account limitations on collection and use of data. Respondents also said that more resources or exemplars would support students and teachers with NEA completion.

We would like more support and good quality virtual fieldwork to be provided by exam boards in order to reduce the pressure of this process… (School or college)

If NEA marks are being officially submitted can more guidance /exemplars using secondary data be given for guidance? (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents, including some who agreed and some who disagreed with the proposals, stated how important fieldwork is for progression beyond A level.

Fieldwork is central and crucial to Geography, and […] we are concerned about students arriving at University without these prerequisite skills and fieldwork competences. It will irreparably harm their employability. […] Students entering a geography degree need to have some experience of collecting field data, making field observations and generally have encountered some kind of field activity to help them understand the field expectations of a geography degree. Without the field experience students will not be able to make informed decisions and will not have the background to undertake first year field activities… (University or higher education institution)

Fieldwork is fundamental for A-Level geography students (particular those who hope to study geography at university level) so I strongly believe this should be carried out over the next year. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Completing the NEA is an important component of any A Level geography course, especially for students who might go on to a geography degree course. There is simply not time to complete all of the fieldwork required under normal circumstances and there is still a doubt over how much support there will be for taking students out of school… (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Geology

GCSE geology

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE geology?

GCSE geology responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	32	40%
Agree	10	12%
Neither agree nor disagree	12	15%
Disagree	1	1%
Strongly disagree	25	31%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE geology - total responses	80
GCSE geology - no response	2,583
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 80 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (52%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 32% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE geology?

There were 47 responses to this question. Those that agreed with the carrying forward of arrangements commented that this was the best solution when carrying out fieldwork still presented logistical challenges.

The planned arrangements for 2021 were sensible and supportive, they should be carried forward to 2022. (SLT – Senior leadership team)

Some respondents expressed concern about the difficulties that centres are facing when trying to arrange fieldwork.

I strongly agree that the arrangements should be carried forward. With the restrictions we have faced, it has been almost impossible to book any kind of fieldwork thus far and we certainly cannot complete the residential fieldwork we normally would, especially as we have an unusually large Geology cohort. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Many respondents commented that fieldwork was an integral part of this subject and that removing it would lead to a loss of essential skills. Some mistakenly thought that we were proposing that students should not be allowed to undertake fieldwork.

Fieldwork (which can be done locally to schools) is an essential component of Geology. By removing the requirement, it will be impossible for teachers to be able to take their students outside of the classroom. To gain a full understanding of the key geological processes that have shaped our planet, students need to study geological features up close in the field not by being shown photographs of them in classrooms. As a global citizen concerned about the future of our planet I worry as well about where the next generation of Earth Scientists is going to come from if our young people haven’t had the opportunity to learn outside of a classroom. For the sake of our children and planet I urge you to reconsider your proposals and allow outside learning to resume. (Other representative or interest group)

Removing the requirement for fieldwork is the easiest option for centres, however, it deprives GCSE students of valuable outdoor learning experiences. Students are introduced to the enquiry process when planning their fieldwork experience and gain an insight into fieldwork methods as well as the experience of carrying out their methods in the field. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents said that removing fieldwork would impact on progression in this subject.

The development of field skills in a real world environment is critical for preparing students for further education and work in this area. The benefits of being outdoors, over and above in the classroom are well documented for both Covid and wider education.” (Other)

GCE AS geology

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS geology?

GCE AS geology responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	29	38%
Agree	7	9%
Neither agree nor disagree	14	18%
Disagree	1	1%
Strongly disagree	26	34%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE AS geology - total responses	77
GCE AS geology - no response	2,586
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 77 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (47%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 35% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS geology?

There were 46 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE geology.

GCE A level geology

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level geology?

GCE A level geology responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	32	37%
Agree	9	10%
Neither agree nor disagree	14	16%
Disagree	3	3%
Strongly disagree	29	33%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE A level geology - total responses	87
GCE A level geology - no response	2,576
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 87 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (47%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 37% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level geology?

There were 53 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE geology. In addition, some respondents commented on the challenges of meeting the requirement of the Practical Endorsement.

The CPAC for the Practical Endorsement were really difficult to achieve this year as many of activities are best delivered in the field. And due to loss of class time it was difficult to allow enough time for the practicals in classroom due to worrying about finishing teaching content. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Media Studies

GCSE media studies

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE media studies?

GCSE media studies responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	68	59%
Agree	26	23%
Neither agree nor disagree	10	9%
Disagree	7	6%
Strongly disagree	4	3%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE media studies - total responses	115
GCSE media studies - no response	2,548
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 115 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (82%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 10% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE media studies?

There were 60 responses to this question.

Those in support of the proposals commented on the difficulties of accessing specialist equipment due to public health restrictions. They said the proposals offered flexibility to enable students to complete their non-exam assessment in different ways.

I am in agreement with the decision, as school closure during the pandemic has resulted in a number of Media Studies students not being able to access production software such as Adobe Photoshop. This can lead to inequalities of access and some students are unable to complete NEA tasks as set out in the original exam board brief. The provision of alternative evidence provides these students with access to completion of the NEA. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Due to lockdown restrictions not everyone has access to areas for example photos. You get higher marks if you take photos yourself (I was told this by a teacher). I don’t have access and many others won’t have access to some places due to this. Therefore, I can’t travel to take a photo somewhere so I would have to use an online photo, and I wouldn’t want to be disadvantaged because of this. This can be applied to other areas in the Media GCSE as well. (Student)

Some respondents commented on the importance of practical work and expressed a preference for students to be able to engage with the usual arrangements.

It’s a really good experience for students to complete this NEA in full. I’d prefer there to be less content / more choice for the exams. (SLT – Senior leadership team)

I believe there is ample time for schools to get organised and carry out the NEA as usual this year. The briefs only came out in March and we are already in a strong position to be able to work on the NEA without breaking any guidelines … (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Others commented on the challenges of marking alternative evidence, indicating that it would be helpful to have more guidance from exam boards.

We really need prototype exemplars if possible. Even though we were given guidance as to what include, we felt that an example of what a prototype could look at was more useful. In some ways creating the product seemed like less work than the prototype. Marked exemplars needed if they are to be used at all. It’d be useful if the brief itself could be broader in terms of change of changing audience demographic etc. Notifications came a little late. If these changes that you are proposing take place then we need to know ASAP. Many thanks. (School or college)

… I also believe the situation we have had in 2021 where some students have submitted mock-ups or partial portfolios and then been judged against others who have completed the work in line with the specification have been wholly unsatisfactory. Teachers are unclear on how to mark partially completed portfolios so the chances of students receiving fair grades are slim. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

GCE AS media studies

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS media studies?

GCE AS media studies responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	36	58%
Agree	10	16%
Neither agree nor disagree	12	19%
Disagree	2	3%
Strongly disagree	2	3%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE AS media studies - total responses	62
GCE AS media studies - no response	2,601
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 62 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (74%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 6% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS media studies?

There were 29 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE media studies.

GCE A level media studies

Question 1 To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level media studies?

GCE A level media studies responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	54	57%
Agree	20	21%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	10%
Disagree	7	7%
Strongly disagree	4	4%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE A level media studies - total responses	94
GCE A level media studies - no response	2,569
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 94 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (79%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 12% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level media studies?

Modern foreign languages (MFL)

GCSE MFL

Question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that for GCSE MFL we should carry forward the arrangements for 2021 into 2022 in relation to the inclusion of additional optional questions for the writing tasks and avoiding the use of unfamiliar vocabulary?

GCSE MFL question 3 responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	434	74%
Agree	95	16%
Neither agree nor disagree	24	4%
Disagree	14	2%
Strongly disagree	18	3%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE MFL question 3 - total responses	585
GCSE MFL question 3 - no response	2,078
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 585 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (90%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 6% disagreed or strongly disagreed. This high level of agreement was consistent across all respondent groups.

I agree wholeheartedly with the carrying over of the vocabulary, glossing and writing changes implemented for 2021. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Where respondents disagreed, a few called for the assessments to remain as intended in a normal exam series.

By June 2022, students should have had the opportunity to catch-up on missed learning, so I see no reasons to not make the exam as before. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Question 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree that for GCSE MFL, so long as it remains practicable to do so, students should take formal speaking assessments in 2022?

GCSE MFL question 4 responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	182	31%
Agree	115	20%
Neither agree nor disagree	41	7%
Disagree	110	19%
Strongly disagree	139	24%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE MFL question 4 - total responses	587
GCSE MFL question 4 - no response	2,076
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 587 responses to this question. Just over half of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal (51%), while 42% disagreed or strongly disagreed. This was not consistent across all respondent groups. Schools or colleges had higher levels of agreement (58%), whereas agreement from students was lower (29%).

Respondents who agreed with the proposal frequently stressed the importance of oral skills, as well as the desire to preserve the contribution of marks for speaking skills to the overall qualification grade.

I fear that continuing to assess speaking outside the formal structure of the grade for a second year running can only be to the detriment of standards and rigour in GCSE MFL. Oral confidence is an essential prerequisite for success in A level languages and for success in the production of language in any contest. It should not be seen as a ‘nice to have’ but rather as an integral part of the course. (SLT - Senior leadership team)

It is important to preserve the speaking skills as part of the GCSE grade - it is unbalanced to be awarding a grade that does not credit students in a credible way for this aspect of skill acquisition. (School or college)

Some respondents agreed with the formal assessment approach for the speaking skills but suggested that other adaptations could be beneficial.

I think they should have a speaking exam which is included in their grade as there are students whose strongest skill is speaking (and the listening and reading exams are very difficult) and not do the speaking endorsement but to use the speaking endorsement criteria for that exam meaning we just have a general conversation with students - no role play and no photo card and that counts towards their grade. We need to remember that these children have been through a lot and have so many GCSEs that expect a lot of them. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

I would prefer the alternative option to an endorsement to be a shorter speaking exam with conversation questions only. Pupils would not then need prep time and it would take less time out of other subjects for pupils to complete the exam. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Where respondents disagreed with the formal speaking assessment proposal, comments frequently mentioned the impact of the pandemic on speaking practice and confidence and suggested that it would be better for students to use the endorsement approach.

Not only have they lost teaching but they have also lost out interaction and actual conversation. They will be hugely disadvantaged in a spoken assessment. (Parent or carer)

The students have missed too much time and have lost too many opportunities to properly prepare for the oral exam, which may cause stress amongst the students and affect focus. (Student)

Our students have missed a lot of time from school and the speaking element has definitely been the one which has been hardest to maintain throughout lockdown. I would support being able to continue with the endorsement for one final year. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

It is absolutely unfair to assess spoken language when students have had no face to face teaching for multiple terms in year 9 and 10, not to mention periods of isolation. The decision should be made now, not in January - this is far too late and damaging to kids who have already suffered enough uncertainty in their education. This year’s year 10 have lost as much education as the current year 11 so to treat them differently is completely unreasonable. (Parent or carer)

One exam board disagreed that formal assessments should be the aim, stating that confirmation of the endorsement approach would help alleviate pressure and maximise teaching time.

We believe that to be fair to learners entered for summer 2022 GCSE MFL qualifications, the arrangements in place for summer 2021 should be carried forward. Centres and students will want to know the arrangements for speaking well in advance of January 2021 so that learning programmes can be planned effectively. Teachers will be familiar with the arrangements for the spoken language endorsement and will be able to plan with certainty and clarity if the same arrangements are carried forward for summer 2022. The removal of the requirement to formally assess speaking will alleviate some of the pressure on centres to organise and conduct the assessments and they will be able to maximise the time available for teaching and learning. (Awarding body or exam board)

Question 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree that for GCSE MFL, if it is not practicable to complete formal speaking assessments in 2022, spoken language should be assessed by teachers, using the common criteria for the endorsement approach set in respect of the assessment of spoken language in 2021?

GCSE MFL question 5 responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	307	52%
Agree	164	28%
Neither agree nor disagree	37	6%
Disagree	33	6%
Strongly disagree	45	8%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE MFL question 5 - total responses	586
GCSE MFL question 5 - no response	2,077
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 586 responses to this question, with the majority (80%) in agreement with the proposal. This high level of agreement was evident across all respondent groups, and particularly from parents and carers and students (89% and 83% respectively), but with slightly lower levels of agreement from teachers (76%).

Endorsements must replace the speaking examination in 2022, given the amount of contact time missed and the amount of time required to teach pupils to the very specific requirements of the speaking exam. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Please consider the impact of any arrangements you make on students taking community languages… Where students attend mainstream schools… but learn the community languages outside of mainstream schools… clear, formal guidance should be given to help teachers in mainstream schools to liaise with teachers of community languages to give students grades for the endorsement. (Student)

Thirteen per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal, with the main comment provided reflecting a general preference to maintain the formal speaking assessment.

All schools will have already taught and embedded speaking practice into their teaching from September - this would be unfair on the students to not be tested in a skill that they have developed. The endorsement this year had a massive negative impact on our students and through this we had less confident MFL speakers and in turn this has affected our A level numbers and the students’ enjoyment of the spoken language. We cannot let this happen to another GCSE cohort. There is no reason not to continue with the normal speaking exam as this academic group have not lost out on a great amount of GCSE teaching this year. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Question 6: To what extent do you agree or disagree that for GCSE MFL, Ofqual should make a final decision whether or not it is practicable for spoken language to be assessed by formal speaking assessments?

GCSE MFL question 6 responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	185	32%
Agree	169	29%
Neither agree nor disagree	121	21%
Disagree	57	10%
Strongly disagree	54	9%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE MFL question 6 - total responses	586
GCSE MFL question 6 - no response	2,077
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 586 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (60%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 19% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 21% neither agreed nor disagreed. This pattern of responses was consistent across most respondent groups, although students and parents and carers showed slightly lower levels of agreement (55% and 51% respectively).

Comments from those that agreed with the proposal tended to focus on the date by which that decision should be made, which is addressed in the next question.

Where respondents did not agree that Ofqual should make that decision, many comments also focussed on the date that the decision should be made, with some stating that centres should be allowed to decide for their school depending on the effects of the pandemic.

Ofqual should not make the decision regarding speaking assessments, it should be made by centres. Any decision should be made earlier than January. (Parent or carer)

Decisions should be made by teachers, depending of the influence Coronavirus crisis had on their school. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Question 7: To what extent do you agree or disagree that for GCSE MFL, Ofqual should make the final decision no later than 31 January 2022?

GCSE MFL question 7 responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	339	58%
Agree	61	10%
Neither agree nor disagree	22	4%
Disagree	45	8%
Strongly disagree	120	20%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE MFL question 7 - total responses	587
GCSE MFL question 7 - no response	2,076
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 587 responses to this question, with 68% who agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal and 28% who disagreed or strongly disagreed. This was not consistent across all respondent groups. Students and parents and carers had higher levels of agreement (94% and 88% respectively), while teachers and schools and colleges had lower levels of agreement (59% and 57% respectively).

The comments provided explain this difference in response. Students and parents or carers frequently commented on the impact on students of the proposals for NEA in GCSE MFL 2022, as well as the timing of the decision.

A decision needs to be made before 31 January 2022 - schools will be undertaking mock exams from November 2021 and it is incredibly stressful for both students and teachers not knowing what you may be examined on or how you may be examined. (Student)

Teachers and schools and colleges were particularly focussed on the timing of the decision, mentioning specific exam preparation tasks that would be completed around or before that date, with significant numbers commenting that the proposed date of 31 January 2022 would be too late.

I think that making decisions about the speaking component should occur by end of the autumn term at the latest. This should be a weighted component of the final exam rather than an endorsement like NEAs are in other subjects. (SLT - Senior leadership team)

Decisions should be made earlier to allow teachers time to gather sufficient evidence for all pupils. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

The decision regarding the speaking exam needs to be made much earlier than January 2022. At this point school will have made the decision about Tiers and entries. We will have sat our mock exams - which will include a test in all papers. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Many respondents commented that the proposal to make a decision by 31 January 2022 was too late, regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposal.

Many commented that the period of uncertainty would require work both to gather evidence on the endorsement as well as to prepare students for the formal assessment tasks, with one of these areas of work ultimately not being needed.

Preparation for the formal speaking exams begins well before January, so this is too late to inform students and teachers. Photo cards, for example, require a certain approach. I do not want to waste time on this task if the students do not need it. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Also clear in the comments was a desire for a decision to be made before September to provide clarity before the beginning of term – this was the case among respondents who stated a preference for the endorsement approach as well as those who preferred the formal assessment approach.

My students have missed so much of their lesson time due to Covid that it is unfair to ask them to do a full speaking exam. The speaking endorsement should stay for 2022 and beyond. We need a decision by July 2021 before we put them through the whole saga of a mock exam which will add to the stress they are already under. The reason we have to do the mock exam is because they’ve not done one before and we can’t leave it until they are in year 11 as a full speaking exam is an absolute pain to organise and we need a full run through before the final exam. Removing the speaking exam and staying with the endorsement indefinitely would be a better solution for everyone involved in this process. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

January 31 2022 is far too late for curriculum planning and effective preparation by students. A 2 metre distance could be maintained for speaking assessments to take place, even if the pandemic resurges again. If the speaking endorsement is a possibility then the decision on this should be made before the end of summer term, to allow teachers and students to focus more on delivery of content and address knowledge gaps. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

One exam board commented that a decision by 31 January 2022 to use the endorsement approach could lead to an administrative burden. A decision to use the endorsement approach would require exam boards to amend their basedata. In addition, as exam entries are often made by that date, it might also lead to changes in centre decisions over which tier to enter students for, given marks for speaking skills would not count towards the grade.

The proposed date for making a final decision on which route to take in assessing spoken language skills in GCSE MFL is far too late from an operational delivery point of view. […] By 31 January 2022, many centres will have made entries and if a decision is reversed at that late stage it will cause very significant problems, requiring a lot of data unpicking. [This] carries a huge level of risk for data accuracy and integrity. Basedata is published in early November 2021, so ideally we would want a final decision by that time so we can issue correct basedata to centres. If this is not possible I would prefer retaining the 2021 proposal in full from the outset. (Awarding body or exam board)

One representative group suggested that the decision should be made by 1 January 2022, to provide clarity to schools and allow adequate preparation time.

We agree that it is sensible to plan for the normal NEA arrangements for Speaking assessment in 2022 with the option to revert to an endorsement on the same basis as in 2021 should it prove impracticable to proceed with the NEA assessment. Some of our members feel that January 31 2022 is too late to make this decision and that it should be made by January 1 2022. This would allow schools to plan securely for mock oral examinations in January 2022 knowing whether Speaking will be an NEA assessment or an endorsement. (Other representative or interest group)

Question 8: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to the assessment arrangements for GCSE MFL in 2022?

There were 315 comments in response to this question. All of the comments have been reflected in the analysis for questions 3 to 7 above.

Music

GCSE music

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE music?

GCSE music responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	330	74%
Agree	79	18%
Neither agree nor disagree	15	3%
Disagree	13	3%
Strongly disagree	10	2%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE music - total responses	447
GCSE music - no response	2,216
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 447 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (91%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 5% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE music?

There were 271 responses to this question.

Those that agreed with the carrying forward of arrangements commented that this was the only fair course of action, when access to both specialist equipment, including instruments and IT equipment, had been and continued to be disrupted. Respondents also commented on the continued restrictions on performing opportunities including ensemble performing and instrumental lessons.

Ensemble performing in school environments is still very hard and therefore should not be required. Some candidates have not had any ensemble experience yet because of school closures and self-isolating. Some candidates have not had access to composing software. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

I think the proposed changes (maintains the changes seen in 2021) are essential. Many schools still haven’t been able to welcome peripatetic teachers back due to lack of appropriate spaces with the implication of bubbles etc. Pupils who only receive instrumental/singing provision through school will be disadvantaged if the usual (non-Covid) expectations are used. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

As students have had limited access to specialist equipment and instruments, not just in lockdown but on return to school (COVID measures), then carrying forward the entire proposal is the best and fairest option. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents also commented on the potential for ongoing disruption, such as possible local lockdowns, or self-isolation, and on the different impact that this has had, and could continue to have, in particular centres or areas of the country.

I think this is the most sensible option, as we do not know yet what the situation might be over the coming months in terms of restrictions etc. If we are able to plan knowing what the requirements will be, this will save potential stresses at the end of the year. I think this is especially relevant bearing in mind the level of disruption that current Year 10 (and 9) students may have faced over recent months in terms of their musical studies (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

I teach in a school in North West England where cases have been higher and there have been significant losses to face to face classroom and instrumental learning time. This proposed approach towards NEA would be suitable and allow students to still be fully assessed. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents, including both those who agreed and those who disagreed, commented on the proposal to reduce the minimum time requirements for the NEA. They were concerned that the proposed minimum time would not give enough evidence for assessors to differentiate fully across the ability range. Some comments were based on a misperception that the proposal would prevent the usual arrangements being followed.

The reduced requirement for composing and performance provides insufficient evidence for teacher assessor and moderator to distinguish between the quality of work by able pupils. Not only does this result in less fair fine judgements, but also places more pressure on candidates to perform strongly in the listening and appraising exam. (School or college)

A few respondents commented on the timing of announcements relating to NEA, and asked that the arrangements be confirmed as soon as possible.

We need to know this information NOW. We are teaching these students content for next year already and cannot have any confusion over what is expected. Should run like BTEC SV process, marked by teacher and sample moderated with feedback for teachers. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Exam boards must provide clarity on their requirements before September 2021 so that teachers and pupils know exactly what is expected of them before the start of the new academic year. (Other representative or interest group)

GCE AS music

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS music?

GCE AS music responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	64	67%
Agree	15	16%
Neither agree nor disagree	13	14%
Disagree	1	1%
Strongly disagree	2	2%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE AS music - total responses	95
GCE AS music - no response	2,568
Full survey - total responses	2,663

We received 95 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (83%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 3% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS music?

There were 45 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those made for GCSE music above and for GCE A level music below.

GCE A level music

Question1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level music?

GCE A level music responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	203	69%
Agree	44	15%
Neither agree nor disagree	18	6%
Disagree	14	5%
Strongly disagree	15	5%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE A level music - total responses	294
GCE A level music - no response	2,369
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 294 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (84%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 10% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level music?

There were 206 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE music.

In addition, for A level, some respondents commented on the proposal to allow exam boards to decide whether they or the centre would mark the NEA, stating that it would be possible, and desirable, for external marking to go ahead as usual.

The approach needs to stay the same for 2022 as students haven’t been in school or been able to play in an ensemble. However, both performance & composition should be externally assessed. (Examiner)

I believe that NEA (performance and composition) should be marked by the exam board to prevent grade inflation. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

As with GCSE music, some respondents commented on the proposal to reduce the minimum time requirements for the NEA. They were concerned that the proposed minimum time would not give enough evidence for assessors to differentiate fully across the ability range, and may impact on students’ ability to progress to further study, which was of particular concern for those hoping to progress beyond A level music.

Responding in the context of A level music I strongly disagree with this proposal at it devalues the challenge of the A level music course. A performance of only 3 minutes significantly devalues the component of Performance. Pupils at Advanced Level should have the stamina and capacity to perform for at least 8 minutes to prepare them suitably for further study at degree level. Performing for only 3 minutes offers no more challenge than the GCSE requirements. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Others raised questions about details relating to the exam boards’ specifications, such as concerns that the reduction in the minimum assessment time in composition would result in the removal of the technical exercises, including harmony.

I am concerned that if the arrangements are carried forwards exactly as last year, there is no requirement for harmonic techniques in the composition NEA - is there any way to incorporate this, perhaps as a reduced time amount? (Awarding organisation employee)

I agree with reduced performance and composition time. I would like the techniques paper to stand - with one chorale not 2 to complete - so 3 hours rather than 6. Many students have spent time on techniques including during lockdown when they couldn’t compose. a reduced techniques paper would be fair for this cohort. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Music technology

GCE AS music technology

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS music technology?

GCE AS music technology responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	26	48%
Agree	9	17%
Neither agree nor disagree	14	26%
Disagree	1	2%
Strongly disagree	4	7%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE A level music - total responses	294
GCE A level music - no response	2,369
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 54 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (65%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while, 9% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS music technology?

There were 28 responses to this question. The comments mirror those summarised below for A level music technology.

GCE A level music technology

Question 1: To what extent to you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level music technology?

GCE A level music technology responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	38	42%
Agree	16	18%
Neither agree nor disagree	14	16%
Disagree	10	11%
Strongly disagree	12	13%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE A level music technology - total responses	90
GCE A level music technology - no response	2,573
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 90 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (60%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 24% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE A level music technology?

There were 58 responses to this question.

Those who supported the proposal commented on the lack of opportunity students have had to record live musicians due to public health restrictions.

Most students have not had the opportunity to record ‘live musicians’, therefore this is a skill they would be developing from scratch; an editing and mixing task would be ideal for students in this situation.(Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

I am concerned that if you make capture of recording optional, my students will all want to do it and they lack the experience to be able to do it well due to pandemic disruption. I’d prefer it if all centres have the same task. In general, getting rid of the capture stage will make it easier for larger centres to compete with the majority of centres who have small numbers of candidates. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

The majority of those who commented had concerns relating to the assessment of recording and mixing. These included respondents who had agreed, disagreed or shown no preference in response to question 1. Many respondents were concerned about the changes made to this task in the current academic year, and said the removal of the requirement to record live sound (“capture”) was detrimental to the course, and could be a significant problem for student progression. Several respondents stated that the normal NEA recording task could be safely carried out in their centres with appropriate public heath precautions in place. Others suggested that it was safer to continue to use stems provided by the exam board given the uncertainty about possible disruption in the coming academic year.

The only exception to the outlined proposal would be the option for pupils to produce their own audio for the recording and producing assessment. This would enable capture marks to be accurately assessed. The audio provided by the exam board for the 2021 recording NEA was not at the standard that a pupil could have produced.(SLT ‒ Senior leadership team)

We felt the arrangements made did not allow our students, many of whom are progressing on to higher education, the opportunity to develop their recording skills. Mixing a pre-recorded arrangement gave them less ownership over the task and the redesigned task, requiring them to make their mix sound like the original, allowed for significantly less creativity. Our students would be very disappointed if they didn’t get to record their own music for Component 1 and they would not be given the same opportunity to develop their recording skills that has previously been possible on the course. Even if this were an option that centres could choose would give us the scope to teach this in a way that suits our students. We feel the re-organised Component 1 task did not meet the needs of our students and would actually go against a lot of what they’ve been through over the last year as they have been prepared for the traditional component 1 exam. (School or college)

One of the most enjoyable parts of the course has been recording instrumentalists. It is a unique experience that I would never have been able to get if I had never taken the subject, and is incredibly useful for pursuing a career in music technology and the industry as a whole. Being assessed on this allows us to record in a way that we feel most confident, choosing a song we most think allows us to express ourselves creatively and achieve our potential. (Student)

Better to have stems than rely on recording in school with all the uncertainty. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Several respondents were concerned that reducing the length of the composition element of the course would actually make the task more difficult for students, and could make differentiation between different levels of attainment difficult. Some respondents did, though, state that if this was a minimum only, and that students were still able to produce and be marked on longer pieces of work, they considered the proposal to be sensible.

With regards to the composition, we strongly believe there is no reason to change the length of the composition. By reducing the length of the composition, there could be some unintended consequences. Some students could find it harder to create a composition which is shorter. For example, if the song was slow tempo, it would be harder to fit a meaningful song structure in to 2 minutes than 3 minutes. This could make the task more time consuming rather than the aim of less time consuming. (Awarding body or exam board)

For the composition, in most cases, the 2 minute time limit did not help the students, as they were still required to demonstrate their composition skills against the same assessment criteria. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

The composition task is slightly different, as the reduction in time makes largely no difference. Students still have to complete the majority of the task regarding EQ, editing, effects and others. Reducing the time actually can make the task harder for students to produce a contrasting and detailed piece. This said, as a ‘minimum requirement’, it is welcome that the exam board will take into account the varying degrees of lost time from schools. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Physical education

GCSE physical education

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE physical education?

GCSE physical education responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	257	72%
Agree	70	20%
Neither agree nor disagree	12	3%
Disagree	9	3%
Strongly disagree	7	2%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE physical education - total responses	355
GCSE physical education - no response	2,308
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 355 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (92%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2

Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE physical education?

There were 244 responses to this question. Those that agreed with the carrying forward of arrangements commented that this was the best solution as opportunities for activities, particularly competitive sport, continue to be limited.

My daughters sports, particularly the competitive elements, have been severely impacted including this summer. Reducing the requirement to two would be hugely helpful, especially removing the requirement for team sport. (Parent or carer)

These students have missed out on a lot of their education for a variety of reasons. They have also, therefore, missed out on a lot of sporting events and practice time. The students should only be assessed in two sports, as of this year, to ensure we can be as thorough as possible when grading. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents expressed concern about the difficulties that centres are facing when trying to collect evidence of activities in this subject.

Many students have missed out on access to sports clubs and activities for 12 months and longer. Many sports activities out of school are not re-opening and in school PE and sport, even in May 2021 are very limited. It will be very difficult for teachers to collate evidence of three sports at all. (Exams officer or manager)

There clearly has to be an exception for the current year 10 as they have been unable to participate in many sports for 18 months. It is unfair that they should have to demonstrate their skills which are nowhere near back to the level that they were, in 10 months’ time. Summer sports are massively disadvantaged as they are still getting back to playing yet their window for filming will be gone soon (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Some comments were based on misperceptions that the proposals would prevent team activities from taking place. Some respondents said they agreed with the proposals as long as the 2 activities could be team or individual activities, which was the provision made in the current academic year and which we proposed to carry forward.

I would agree with this proposal, if: 2 individual OR 2 team OR 1 of each activity was allowed. It only allows for 2 individual in the above proposal (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Respondents also commented on how the proposals might be put into action by the exam boards. Many respondents commented that the video recording of practical work was a huge challenge for teachers and said that visiting moderation should now be allowed again.

Allow live moderation. Wholly video evidence is not realistic with large cohorts. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Collating video evidence for all students’ activities is a significantly time consuming task and a challenge for some students with ICT/financial challenges. Visiting moderations are preferred where possible. This is also very useful for staff as professional development and sharing good practice amongst the school cluster. It is totally understandable to provide video evidence for offsite activities but for all activities for all students is not. Reducing to two activities seems sensible since the there is a continued impact on competitive sport both in and out if school. (SLT – Senior leadership team)

Trying to get video evidence of both skills and competitive performance for a group of 25 students for potentially a range of different sporting activities requires a huge amount of work and time for teaching staff. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents suggested the written part of the NEA should be removed to allow more time to deliver theory content for the examinations.

I believe the PEP should be discontinued due to the lack of playing time permitted to gain data. I also believe it should be discontinued due to the amount of time students have missed face to face teaching. Most of next year will require face to face teaching of the course content alone. In order to complete a robust PEP as well, I believe it is not rational or realistic. If the PEP must be continued then please allow students to use data from PE lessons. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents disagreed that the proposals should be carried forward as they said it was now possible for centres to offer 3 school-based activities.

It is no problem for pupils to be assessed in 3 activities as schools can easily offer many options on school premises testing all-round capability in standard sports, even if specific out of school sports may have been disrupted. PE students should be all-rounders.” (Parent or carer)

GCSE physical education (short course)

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE physical education (short course)?

GCSE physical education (short course) responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	36	60%
Agree	15	25%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	12%
Disagree	0	0%
Strongly disagree	2	3%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCSE physical education (short course) - total responses	60
GCSE physical education (short course) - no response	2,603
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 60 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (85%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 3% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCSE physical education (short course)?

There were 31 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE physical education.

GCE AS and A level physical education

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to carry forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS and A level physical education?

GCE AS and A level physical education responses	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	108	70%
Agree	30	19%
Neither agree nor disagree	10	6%
Disagree	3	2%
Strongly disagree	4	3%

Responses	Number of respondents
GCE AS and A level physical education - total responses	155
GCE AS and A level physical education - no response	2,508
Full survey - total responses	2,663

There were 155 responses to this question. The majority of respondents (89%) agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, while 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to carrying forward specific assessment arrangements for 2021 into 2022 for GCE AS and A level physical education?

There were 92 responses to this question. The comments mirrored those summarised above for GCSE physical education.

Equality Impact

Question 9: Are there other potential equality impacts that we have not explored?

Equality Impact question 9 responses	Count	Percentage
Yes	273	10%
No	2,390	90%
Full survey - total responses	2,663	100%

All respondents (2,663) answered this question. The majority of respondents (90%) answered ‘no’, while 10% answered ‘yes’.

If yes, what are they?

There were 785 responses to this question, with many respondents who had answered ‘no’ to question 9 also providing comments.

Many of the comments identified wider impacts that went beyond those covered by protected characteristics and related to subject specific points that are covered in the analysis of those subjects above. For example, many comments related to the perceived inequality in the proposals for fieldwork in geography. Here, as noted in the analysis for GCSE and GCE A level geography, many responses were based on the belief that the proposals were removing fieldwork all together rather than lifting the mandatory requirement for occasions or days being spent off school and college premises.

By removing geography fieldwork altogether, you will be disadvantaging the most disadvantaged. The students who have been taken to many rivers / coasts and rural areas will do much better on unseen fieldwork than ones who haven’t been anywhere like most of our disadvantaged students. This is not fair. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Some students will yet have the opportunity to complete fieldwork, particularly if this is suitable in their local area, for example, coastal schools, or if their timetable better facilitates this. The disadvantage felt by students unable to complete fieldwork when answering generic fieldwork questions in exams is likely to be significant. I would suggest that most of these will be inner city schools. (SLT ‒ Senior leadership team)

[We] believe that there are two significant equality impacts that have not been explored. The first is the subject specific impact which puts this particular cohort of learners at a disadvantage when compared with other year groups less impacted by Covid. Despite the heroic efforts of schools, teachers and parents, many have lost out on a considerable amount of education. Some will leave school without the knowledge, skills and experience they need for further study or employment. […] The second impact is that within this cohort, the changes suggested are likely to have a disproportionately negatively impact on disadvantaged learners, putting them at a permanent disadvantage. For many economically and socially disadvantaged learners, school offers the only chance to enjoy the experiences that their non-disadvantaged peers may be able to access outside the curriculum or as part of their family life. […] All this comes at a time when green jobs, the need to people with practical geographical inquiry skills (observation, data collection and analysis, experimental design with many variables, coping with non-lab conditions and messy data) has never been greater. Young people themselves are already campaigning for more outdoor learning and greater environmental understanding and not even having an option to develop their interest in this area is a backward step. (Other representative or interest group)

Conversely, a few respondents expressed concerns that the proposals would benefit all students, rather than providing support for those that might need it most.

We have to acknowledge that some areas - e.g. Bolton, Blackburn are currently experiencing COVID challenges that other areas of the country are not. Therefore, we need to make sure that any approach, levels the playing field for these young people. Especially because the areas affected most are the most deprived areas of town and those most represented by BAME communities. The above suggestions make the assessment easier for all students … which in effect does little to level the playing field for those who are most impacted. BAME and more deprived families. There has to be some recognition that some schools/students have faced greater challenges than others. (SLT ‒ Senior leadership team)

Responses relating to NEA in food preparation and nutrition, dance, drama and music tended to focus on socio-economic issues and access to resources impacted by the pandemic that might affect students’ ability to fully engage with practical elements of these qualifications.

Because the students have been unable to cook in school for a year of their GCSE, those students are who are unable to cook at home for whatever reason will be disadvantaged as they have not had the opportunity to build up the skills they will need for their practical exam NEA2. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Dance students who have suffered from COVID and are struggling with stamina during performances due to decreased lung function. Students who have been unable to rehearse during isolation as the space at home is not suitable. Students who have been forced to complete GCSE and A level dance lessons in classrooms due to school restrictions on bubbles and the impact on changing room sharing etc. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Those who can’t afford equipment to practise their performances or for writing composition in music. These people will be at an undeniable disadvantage to students who are more financially fortunate. (Student)

However, the majority of comments related to the impact of the pandemic more generally, rather than addressing impacts directly associated with the consultation proposals. Respondents expressed concerns related to the differential lost learning and mental health issues arising from the pandemic. These concerns were sometimes attached to comments about students’ access to resources, including mental health support that students would ordinarily have received.

Children that are not on the SEND register but have been impacted by the lockdown and their mental health wellbeing has been affected due to the pandemic. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Children who may have experienced bereavement of parents or carers due to Covid. (School or college)

SEND students who may not be vulnerable to COVID-19, but haven’t received the same mental health support as they would have out of a pandemic. Full blown GCSE courses would increase anxiety rates in a large majority of students, and would further upset SEND students. Many neurodivergent students would struggle to keep up with increased workloads. (Student)

Another factor that I would really appreciate if it was considered is that, as a year 10 student, we have unfortunately missed the most content than any other year so far - it will most likely stay that way as the pandemic begins to clear up. Please consider the mental health problems suffered by people that did not reach out to anyone. As an example, I suffered from a huge amount of stress with my work and not having the ability to subtly ask a teacher, and now I am constantly worried and anxious about the failure of my GCSEs. Please consider the people that have remained quiet as this has been especially hard for them. Thank you. (Student)

Children with underlying health conditions e.g. diabetes, asthma, bronchiectasis - or whose parents have serious conditions. The pandemic has impacted their schooling disproportionately. Children open to social services or early help who have not had support during the pandemic due to lack of home visiting. (Other representative or interest group)

Regional cases and increased isolations. I am from Bolton. We have had high case rates throughout and some pupils have had to isolate on a number of occasions and due to demographic aren’t supported at home to complete the work independently. This is then not fair that they are held at the same standard as say areas where isolations have been minimal or against private and grammar school where money and home support is available (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Question 11: We would welcome your views on how any potential negative impacts on particular groups of students could be mitigated.

There were 846 responses to this question.

The majority of respondents expressed the view that whilst the proposals were welcomed as a means of providing additional flexibility for schools, colleges and students, further steps should be taken. These comments generally focused on changes that would benefit all students, rather than addressing possible negative impacts and mitigations for particular groups of students.

Some respondents suggested that greater changes could be made to non-exam assessment in the specific qualifications focused upon in this consultation.

Allow students to choose between composition and performance. Meaning there would still have practical skills assessed but students who couldn’t practise could choose to compose and those who struggled to compose could choose to perform. Though it is not a perfect solution and some may have struggled with both due to lockdown, it could still relieve some pressure on both students and teachers as there’s less to do (Student)

This could be done by reducing the NEA to one task for all students. (School or college)

As previously explained - ditch the requirement for generic fieldwork questions and NEA at A Level. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Other comments that extended beyond the scope of the consultation suggested further changes to GCSE or GCE qualifications. For instance, many respondents said that content assessed by written examinations should be reduced, or amended, in recognition of the impact of the pandemic on teaching and learning.

As well as providing teachers with the flexibility to adapt NEA the same should be consider for written examinations. Your statement that explains your response to concerns raised about students missing out on showing their strength in practical work is not helpful. Whilst you have made it clear that the changes to NEA are for the teacher to decide how much is left out, if we were to continue and cover it all, because this work is what a student is particularly good at, then there would be no change in what this student has to cover. It would be fairer to also provide flexibility of course content for the written paper as well. This would perhaps free up time to work on practical work now that students are back in school, rather than trying to cover all examined topics at the detriment to lost practical time. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents expressed the view that socio-economic inequalities may be mitigated, to some extent, through the provision of additional resources.

Pupils with no ICT be given a device to use. Pupils with no internet it can be provided for the duration of their education for free or very low cost (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

Provide funding for lower socio-economic groups to access the outdoors and practical field work associated with the sciences. Encourage schools to access outdoor science centres with specialist teachers. Provide funding for schools to access outdoor science centres with specialist teachers. (Teacher ‒ responding in a personal capacity)

A partial continuation of the Covid Grant to continue mitigating adverse circumstances. Review the special consideration process to include the circumstances mentioned above. (School or college)

A few responses suggested that all students had been impacted by the pandemic and, therefore, the expected level of performance should be lowered to reflect that.

More positive marking and lowered grade boundaries to allow a fair balance for those students who have endured not only enforced home learning from national lockdowns but also periods of self-isolation of both themselves and their teachers. (Parent or carer)

Lower grade boundaries if necessary. Make adaptations to ensure all students in every part of the country can achieve highly. (SLT ‒ Senior leadership team)

Reduce expectations for students that live in areas of poverty. Simply match the post code of the child with the deprivation index, and create a metric that determines what percentage of the course is required for completion. You do not lower standards, only mitigate against the volume of content required. (School or college)

Regulatory Impact

Question 12: Are there additional activities associated with changing the exam and assessment arrangements for students taking the qualifications in summer 2022 that we have not identified above?

Regulatory Impact question 12 responses	Count	Percentage
Yes	227	9%
No	2,436	91%
Full survey - total responses	2,663	100%

All respondents (2,663) answered this question. The majority of respondents (91%) answered ‘no’, while 9% answered ‘yes’.

Question 13: If yes, what are they?

There were 723 responses to this question with many respondents who answered ‘no’ to question 12 providing comments.

Many of the responses repeated points that have been covered in the analysis of responses to individual subject proposals or the Equality Impact Assessment, for example, concerns about students’ mental health.

Some responses identified that additional time and/or resources would be required to enable students to complete their NEA, particularly if public health restrictions remain in place.

Significant lesson time / time after school will be needed to record the required video evidence. This will either impact upon teaching time (a significant amount of which has already been lost) or cause additional burdens on teacher time outside of lessons. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

I need more space for students to work. I also need extra help maintaining the classroom and cleaning equipment. I have had to buy extra equipment, but have not had extra money to cover this. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Providing ingredients and materials for students whose changed financial circumstances means they cannot pay for them. Additional cleaning hours. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Many responses urged for swift decisions to be made to enable teaching plans to be finalised.

Staff workload and uncertainty. These changes need to be communicated with staff sooner rather than later to allow for staff to plan. The later things get changed the harder it is for staff to manage and accommodate them without it impacting student learning and outcomes. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Question 14: What additional costs do you expect you would incur if the proposed changes to the exam and assessment arrangements were carried forward for summer 2022?

There were 1,009 responses to this question.

Some responses identified that the geography proposal to lift the mandated number of occasions or days of fieldwork undertaken outside of school and college premises would, in fact, save money. In contrast, a few respondents identified that they would lose deposits or costs that had already been paid if they cancelled their trips.

None for geography, it would save money but as already indicated, I believe fieldwork should go ahead. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

I am already planning summer fieldwork for years 10 and 12. If I was then not to do it, I would incur the costs of transportation, approximately £2,000, which is more than my departmental budget for the remaining year. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

We’ve just paid over £800 on a course for our students that now, according to these changes, is technically unnecessary. Adding transport costs will bring that to over £1,000. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Reference was made in one response to the potential, wider financial impact of the proposals relating to geography.

The proposals will, for many schools, place a further 12-month embargo on their willingness and need to draw on the valuable support provided by field study centres. Over 30 field centres sector have permanently closed as a result of COVID-19 and [we have] highlighted concerns over how loss of capacity within this sector may impact on schools well into the future. (Other representative or interest group)

Likewise, teachers of GCSE food preparation and nutrition commented that savings would be made with the reduction to one NEA task rather than two. However, a few respondents noted concerns over meeting the costs of providing resources for that task.

At my school we are still required to provide all ingredients for students to complete practical work so they are not bringing in bags of food from home. (Teacher – responding in a personal capacity)

The costs of additional resources such as subscriptions to streamed drama performances, the purchase of additional equipment, and the hire of additional venues to accommodate small student groups were all referenced in responses.

Additional cost of rehearsals to make up for lost time and cost associated with accessing digital theatre. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

There is a significant increase in expenditure in order to access ‘streamed theatre’. Many of the streaming platforms are making these free to the state sector, but charging the independent sector - this is not fair or right. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Schools may need to facilitate activities for practical evidence. We are thinking of booking an athletics stadium to collect evidence. Concerts / video tech staff etc. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Purchase of more video equipment to be able to loan students. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Need for quality filming equipment for team sports. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Some respondents emphasised that the major costs lay with additional demands on teachers’ time and the additional workload placed on them, often as a result of the pandemic more generally.

Extra overtime costs for teachers working in holiday periods to help students with catch up. (Academy chain)

Having to be released from more teaching commitments to be able to complete all the assessment activities, as I am a single person department with 41 students doing A level PE. This will impose a significant burden on me. (School or college)

Additional marking load - overtime payment. Longer working hours - additional payment to cover staff completing rehearsals. Rehearsals taking place on different days due to year group bubbles. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

We would welcome your views on any suggestions for alternative approaches that could reduce burden and costs.

There were 783 responses to this question. Many of the responses repeated points that have been covered in the analysis of responses to the Equality Impact Assessment or individual subject proposals, or made comments that extended beyond the scope of the consultation, for example, the suggestion to reduce the content of courses. Likewise, many of the responses suggested that additional funding should be provided to enable them to acquire the additional equipment or other resources identified in response to question 14.

A few respondents mentioned delaying examinations to permit more time for teaching.

A later summer exam series like the one proposed for 2021. Allowing the extra weeks of exam preparation would be useful. (Exams officer or manager)

However, many responses expressed the view that exam boards should take more of the burden. These views appeared to be heavily influenced by respondents’ perceptions or experiences of arrangements for the awarding of grades in 2021.

You say the burden on schools will be limited. In my experience, the burden this year has been immense and one that has placed more than a significant burden on staff. Any proposal must shift the burden to Awarding Bodies rather than schools and teachers. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Give schools back some of the money. Exam boards have done very little for their money this year. (Teacher - responding in a personal capacity)

Ensure Teacher Assessed Grades do not happen again. (School or college)