There’s a fairly fundamental flaw in the logic that says:
Surely the opposite is true: that since a student has unfortunately failed a section of the exam:
a) that section was challenging and
b) having retaken the test, the scholar has met, and hopefully overcome, the challenge.
Indeed, it could be argued that more and not fewer modules ought to be set:
- Why not have an exams ladder, where a student studies at the appropriate level?
- What’s wrong with having units of work (cross marked between schools) which actually count towards the final result? &
- Why not enter students for an exam when they’re ready, rather than them having to wait until they’re 16?
What’s wrong with having a portfolio of grades adding up to an overall record of achievement?