Debate contribution: CCEA GCSEs, AS Levels and A Levels

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 3 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

3 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statements

Heading

CCEA GCSEs, AS Levels and A Levels

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5434448

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Today I publish a new policy framework for general qualifications in Northern Ireland, one that will ensure that the qualifications taken by our young people are truly fit for the modern world. The framework will support clear and positive progression for every learner and equip them with the knowledge, skills and confidence that they need to thrive in life beyond school. Reform of our qualifications system is an integral part of TransformED, my ambitious strategy to transform teaching and learning in Northern Ireland. While vocational qualifications will remain an important part of the school curriculum and will be reviewed over coming months, my initial focus is on reforming Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) GCSE, AS and A-level qualifications, which is long overdue. We are right to be proud of the strong results achieved by young people here, but high grades alone are not enough. My focus is not only on maintaining strong performance but on improving the quality of the learning experience behind those results. Time in front of a skilled teacher is the single most important driver of higher standards. Young people deserve to enjoy their learning, to be challenged by it and to have the time to explore subjects in real depth, mastering the foundational knowledge and skills that will carry them forward into further study, training and employment. Yet, too often the curriculum at Key Stage 4 and post 16 has become dominated by crammed content and teaching to the test. Survey after survey and young people themselves tell us that they are more stressed and anxious than ever. That should not come as a surprise. For four consecutive years, pupils face a relentless cycle of high-stakes, high-pressure exams. In many cases, they sit more examinations than students in most other countries. That places undue pressure on pupils, their families and their schools. It is difficult to cultivate a love of learning when the curriculum is reduced to a focus on teaching past papers, mark schemes and test preparation. Transforming our education system requires us to change that culture. Our system must be ambitious, rigorous and world class, but it must also be humane, balanced and focused on genuine learning. The reforms that I am setting out today will help us achieve exactly that. My Department's consultation on the future of CCEA GCSE, AS and A-level qualifications showed strong support for retaining the GCSE and A-level brands. Parents, pupils, teachers, employers and higher education institutions all told us that those two brands should remain. Those qualifications carry weight and ensure that our young people can compete confidently at home, across the United Kingdom and internationally. The consultation delivered another strong and consistent message: our qualifications contain too much content and too much assessment. Teachers and learners told us that the balance is not right and that change is needed. Too much content means that pupils rush from one topic to the next without having the time that they need to secure deep understanding. Too much assessment means that teachers spend more time preparing pupils for exams than they do teaching the subject. That is not the education that our young people deserve or that will prepare them for the future. International evidence shows that young people learn more, not less, when they have the space to master key ideas in greater depth. Systems that perform well globally teach fewer things better and assess only what truly matters. By rebalancing content and reducing assessment in CCEA GCSEs and A levels, we will give back to our young people the time to enjoy learning and time to understand, explore and grow. We will remove controlled assessment and coursework in CCEA qualifications wherever possible. Where those components are essential to assessing core practical skills in subjects such as technology, PE and art, they will be retained, and assessment will be strengthened. That proposed approach was strongly supported by school leaders and teachers in the recent consultation. The change reflects what they told us, which was that current arrangements are workload-intensive for staff and pupils, often disadvantage those with less support at home and, in an age of artificial intelligence (AI), no longer provide a consistently fair or rigorous measure of individual attainment. Parents and young people were worried about the removal of controlled assessment and coursework. That is understandable, but the evidence, including that from the teaching profession, is clear: the change is needed, because depth beats volume. Too much coursework pushes teaching towards task completion and away from deep learning. International and domestic reviews have long flagged how coursework can distort classroom practice and create reliability problems. Fairness matters. The review of controlled assessment by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) found persistent concerns about authenticity, inconsistent controls and uneven levels of teacher and parental support, all of which risk systematic advantage for more affluent pupils over others. Workload matters. The current system places an unsustainable burden on teachers. Internally assessed components demand excessive time for design, supervision, marking and moderation. Removing non-essential coursework reduces teacher workload and gives back time for teachers to teach and for pupils to learn. Stripping back unnecessary internal assessment is a core workload-reduction measure. It will release teachers from hours of avoidable bureaucracy, give them the time and professional freedom that they need to teach well and ensure that pupils spend more of their school experience engaged in meaningful learning rather than in excessive assessment. Equity matters. A large Ofqual-commissioned analysis shows that coursework does not impact on all student groups equally, with better outcomes linked to student characteristics and centre contexts, raising concerns about equity and portability. Do we really believe that coursework is fair in the era of AI? Take-home written tasks are now highly susceptible to AI assistance. We cannot sustain high-stakes coursework when detection tools are completely unreliable. When a student can generate a polished essay in seconds, coursework stops measuring learning and starts measuring who has the best access to AI. Take-home tasks were designed for a world in which work could be authenticated: generative AI has ended that world, and we must move on. I turn to the structure of qualifications. The recent consultation showed that most stakeholders favoured retaining modular GCSEs and A levels. Many expressed concerns that a fully linear model could increase pressure on pupils and potentially disadvantage some young people, particularly pupils in non-selective schools or those with special educational needs. Others feared that a linear approach might favour high performers and widen existing gaps. Those concerns are understandable, but they must be considered alongside the very clear research evidence published in my Department's response to the consultation. We do not need to speculate. The evidence shows that, in places where linear approaches have already been implemented, there is no indication of any disadvantage to overall outcomes or to any specific cohort of pupils. It is also important to recognise that, contrary to common belief, modular examinations were not introduced as a deliberate measure to enhance equity or support particular groups of learners; rather, they emerged largely from commercial decisions by awarding bodies, whose interests were served by increasing the number of examination entries. Furthermore, fears that moving away from modular structures would depress grade outcomes are not supported by the research. Studies carried out by Ofqual and the Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment (OUCEA) found no educationally significant difference in outcomes between linear and modular examination systems. They also found that equity gaps, whether by gender, socio-economic status or school type, were not affected by exam structure. While some teachers believed that certain groups of pupils might perform better under a modular system, that perception is not borne out in the outcome data. Common beliefs about modular being easier are simply not supported by data. They also misunderstand how GCSEs and A levels are awarded. CCEA sets awarding standards to ensure stability and fairness when specifications or assessment methods change. CCEA, like other awarding bodies, puts controls in place to ensure that changes in qualification structure do not, in any way, distort achievement. It is also worth noting that modular examination structures are not internationally typical. Neither the Republic of Ireland nor England uses modular systems at secondary level. The evidence is unambiguous: it needs to be understood, and it must inform the decisions that we make. I turn to A levels. CCEA's A-level qualifications are currently structured with an AS level in year 13 contributing 40% to the overall grade. In the consultation, a fully linear A level with no AS component was proposed. The response to that proposal was clear and heartfelt. Many believed that placing all assessment at the end of year 14 would drive pupils' stress and anxiety even higher, given that A levels determine university entry and that, unlike at GCSE, most students take only three subjects. With so few subjects, stakeholders felt that each examination becomes disproportionately high-stakes, and they emphasised the pressure that that could place on some young people. I understand those concerns. I understand why teachers, parents and pupils were worried about a fully linear structure with everything riding on a single set of exams. At the same time, we must acknowledge that the current structure carries many, deep-rooted problems. Northern Ireland pupils take far more exams than their peers in England to achieve the same qualifications owing to the AS structure. A geography student here must sit six exams for a single A level: three in year 13 for AS and three in year 14. A pupil in England studying the same subject for the same university course sits just three exams. When multiplied across three A levels, our pupils can face up to 18 exams across two years, compared with six for pupils in England — and that is before we consider resits.

We must ask ourselves honestly: is that fair? Is that good for mental health and well-being? Are our young people better served by 18 examinations instead of six?

Resits add to the number of exams that many pupils take to complete their A-level qualifications. Resits significantly increase the assessment burden on pupils, yet they deliver very little benefit. Despite the additional stress, exam preparation and lost learning time that they require, resits rarely lead to better outcomes. In 2025, only 7% of students who retook an AS unit improved their overall A-level grade. On top of that, the current AS structure leads to a significant loss of teaching time. Many pupils finish year 13 by late April because AS exams dominate the summer term. They often miss two full months of valuable time at school, and that inevitably has the biggest impact on the most vulnerable children who need to be in school. I ask Assembly colleagues this: does losing weeks of learning in year 13 for AS exams help students to thrive? When England moved to linear A levels in 2015 and removed the contribution of AS exams to the final grade, schools reported regaining as much as eight weeks of teaching time. The AS levels in England were deliberately decoupled from A levels and became stand-alone qualifications, with the results no longer counting towards the A-level grade. Universities across the United Kingdom adapted immediately. They do not require AS levels, they do not expect them, and they do not disadvantage applicants who do not take them. The AS level in its current form is not needed for university entry through UCAS. It places a heavy pressure on young people, consumes valuable teaching time and no longer adds meaningful value to progression. My Department has therefore worked closely with CCEA to design a better approach to A levels tailored specifically for Northern Ireland. CCEA will now develop a new two-year, modular A level. It will contain three units across two years, significantly reducing the total number of exams, while still allowing pupils to take one designated unit at the end of year 13 if they wish. That unit will count for 30% of the overall grade, and the remaining two units, which will be completed in year 14, will make up the final 70%. The schools that prefer to deliver the new A levels in a linear format can enter pupils for all units in year 14. Pupils who take the year-13 unit will also have the option to resit it in year 14. This is a balanced, considered design. It preserves early assessment for those who wish it, reduces exam overload and strengthens teaching and learning. To ensure that pupils stay in school for as much of year 13 as possible, I have asked CCEA to timetable the optional year-13 unit at the very end of June. That is not possible for AS exams due to the constraints of the common timetable across the awarding bodies. The new approach protects crucial learning time and avoids the early departure that currently disrupts teaching. Over the past week, my officials have met principals from a wide range of schools, and there has been strong support for the new model. It addresses the worries raised in the consultation while delivering a more coherent and less stressful system. I am also concerned about the misuse of AS outcomes by a small number of schools that use AS results to block entry into year 14. That practice is not in the interests of pupils, and the current structure enables it. Removing the AS level as a separate qualification eliminates the misuse and ensures that students are judged on their readiness to progress, not on an intermediate exam that universities do not require or value. The AS level is a qualification that has outlived its purpose; it has no function or relevance. It is the fax machine of the modern qualification system. The new modular A level removes a redundant qualification that no longer serves its purpose, while preserving those elements in the current system that teachers and pupils told us they value. In short, fewer exams, more time to teach, more time to learn and still the option of a year-13 assessment for those who benefit from it. A bespoke solution for Northern Ireland: a better, fairer, clearer system for our children. I have decided not to proceed with the proposal to align the CCEA GCSE grading scale with the 9-to-1 system that is used in England. The consultation showed that there is limited support for that change. While a single grading scale would provide consistency, there is no compelling educational reason to alter the current system. In the absence of clear benefits for learners, teachers or employers, it would not be justified. I have carefully considered the structure of GCSE qualifications. My approach to that is, again, to ensure a bespoke, best-possible solution for Northern Ireland. English, maths and science are central to educational achievement. GCSE English and maths are key passport qualifications. Together with science, those subjects give young people the core knowledge and intellectual tools that underpin success across the curriculum and open doors to future study, training and employment. English, maths and single and double award science will therefore remain modular, meaning that, if schools wish to enter pupils for GCSE exams in year 11, the focus will be on supporting strong attainment in those core subjects rather than on widespread early entry. Practical subjects will continue to have non-examined assessment of key skills. All other CCEA GCSEs will adopt a linear structure, preventing over-examination and disruption to learning in year 11. We do not need our 14- and 15-year-old children to enter a series of high-stakes exams in year 11. Members should ask themselves which country, internationally, does that. Early entry does not benefit young people. Many pupils who are entered for unit exams in year 11 are likely to achieve better results at the first sitting if they take their exams at the end of year 12, when they are more mature and have benefited from more teaching time; otherwise, they compete against older pupils in year 12 who have enjoyed an extra year of teaching. Outcomes are often not as good for year 11 pupils. The new approach will end the culture of endless GCSE resits whereby pupils are encouraged to take exams early, before they are fully ready, on the basis that they can resit the paper the following year. That is not in the best interests of our young people. The reduction in content and the change to having no more than two assessments in most GCSE subjects will ensure that children do not face too many exams in year 12. Unlike at A level, children take a broad range of subjects at GCSE, so no single exam in a single subject is particularly high stakes or pressurised. Each A level involves 360 guided-learning hours, compared with only 120 hours for each GCSE. It is understandable that older pupils may wish to bank assessment after a year of study for an A-level subject, which involved so many more guided hours and determines university entry. The context for GCSEs is quite different. That is the right approach to take for GCSEs. It restores balance and purpose to the qualification. It puts teaching and learning, not testing, at the centre of the two-year course. It recognises that our young people deserve time to grow, rather than being entered for eight, nine or 10 high-stakes exams at only 14 or 15 years of age. It gives them time to master the core knowledge and skills that matter most and to sit their exams when they are genuinely ready to succeed. By keeping English, maths and science modular, we protect the focus on passport subjects, which open doors. By making other GCSEs linear, we remove unnecessary assessment pressure and end the cycle of early entry and resits that does little to raise standards and much to disrupt learning. By reducing content and limiting assessments, we ensure that no pupil faces an excessive exam load at the age of 16. In short, this system is built around what is best for pupils: more time to learn, more stability across the two years and a clearer, fairer route to strong outcomes. It is a system that reflects international best practice, values depth over haste and puts the well-being and progress of our children first. It is the right, balanced and ambitious model for Northern Ireland, and it will give our young people the firm foundation that they deserve. The decisions that I have outlined today are published in a formal policy framework that is available on my Department's website. We will move immediately into the next phase of work, which will happen in the coming weeks and months and is to develop the new regulatory framework for CCEA qualifications and prepare the detailed arrangements that will support implementation across the education system. The revision of CCEA's qualifications will then proceed over the next couple of years, in close partnership with teachers and practitioners across Northern Ireland. They have been telling us for a long time that the current qualifications are not working as they should and are no longer fit for purpose. Now, at last, we have the chance to put that right. I have also heard the concerns about the pace of change, and I agree: we must get this right. That is why the introduction of revised qualifications will be phased in carefully over several years, with first teaching of the new GCSEs from September 2029. That timeline gives schools the certainty and space that they need to plan well. CCEA will provide clear support materials, detailed guidance and high-quality training well in advance and will work directly with schools and partners throughout the transition. No school will be left to navigate these changes alone. We will continue to listen and refine as we go. Further details setting out the timetable for the work, alongside the planned reforms to curriculum and assessment, will be announced in the coming days. Our commitment is simple: steady, supported implementation, shaped by feedback and focused on what is best for pupils and teachers. We now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape qualifications so that they truly serve our young people. These qualifications will build with continuity from a more coherent and well-sequenced curriculum. These reforms place learning, not testing, at the centre of education. They reduce unnecessary pressure, restore precious teaching time and ensure that every pupil, regardless of background, has the chance to master the knowledge and skills that will carry them into further study, work and adult life with confidence. They replace outdated structures with a coherent, modern and evidence-informed system that is designed for Northern Ireland, not inherited by default. They listen to what teachers have told us for years. Above all, they send a clear signal that we value depth over distraction, understanding over box-ticking, and the long-term success of our children over the short-term convenience of old habits. I believe profoundly that this package of reforms will give every learner in Northern Ireland a fairer, richer and more ambitious educational experience. It is the right framework at the right moment for the future that we want to build. These changes will be good for pupils, teachers and Northern Ireland. I commend the statement to the House.

3,547 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:01 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification