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 5434502

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The argument here is not whether or not we should have exams, and the Member has not made that proposition. There will always be exams, and there will always be an element of pressure. We cannot remove that from our education system. For me, these are the important considerations: when is the most appropriate time for sitting those exams and how relevant are they to what pupils have been taught? As I outlined, a post-16 pupil here will sit 18 exams to get onto a university course, whereas an English pupil will only sit six across three A levels to get onto the same course. How can anybody credibly defend our young people sitting 18 exams compared with six exams to get onto a course? That is not fair, and it is not good for their mental health. The process that I have outlined is better, but it is unique and bespoke to Northern Ireland. It is not something that I have lifted from the Republic of Ireland, because I think that its approach is not the right one exclusively, nor is it the English model. It is made in Northern Ireland for Northern Ireland, and I think that we have taken the right position.

As part of the work around TransformED, we have our local experts and our international experts, and we are bringing all of that together. I have outlined how my approach is a balanced one, but there are leading countries at an international level that take a linear approach, including the Republic of Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Norway and Finland. Our current approach to education makes us the outlier: we are on the fringes. We have not been following the evidence and research on this particular issue, which has moved on over time, but we are doing so now. We recognise what other countries that lead in education internationally have been doing, and we are bringing our education system forward, rather than remaining with a process that does not work effectively and is not good for all of our young people. This is an improvement that is in line with international best practice.

My statement covered, in a lot of detail, why we have taken this approach. I do not believe that retaining modular GCSEs is in the best interests of our pupils. Research indicates that the structure of qualifications does not impact negatively on overall outcomes, nor does it impact detrimentally on learners who experience socio-economic deprivation or have additional educational needs. Members need to keep that at the forefront of their minds. I am very much focused on closing the educational attainment gap between those who have and those who have not — those who, because of their backgrounds, do not have the same opportunities as others. I genuinely want every school to be a good school. That is why TransformED is driving forward changes to the curriculum, assessment and qualifications and driving school improvement. The decisions that I have announced make up one of the key pillars of the TransformED process. They will deliver on commitments that I made to bring forward the transformation that we need so that Northern Ireland can compete at an international level and they will close the educational attainment gap. That should be our focus. Non-selective schools often have in them young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. That brings me back to Mr Baker's point about universities in the South. How many non-selective schools have their children sitting four AS levels? Very few. Similarly, very few grammar schools have their children sitting four AS levels. To get onto a top course, which, in the Republic of Ireland, would typically be a medicine course, three A*s at A level and an AS level A grade are required. That does not help those who come from a non-selective school background, so why would we want to retain that? Let us fight the discrimination in relation to access to universities in the Republic of Ireland. I will have no hesitation in joining Mr Baker in doing that. I am not with him on many issues, but I will remove partition when it comes to access to universities in the Republic of Ireland.

I am sorry, would the Member mind repeating the question? I did not quite get what he was asking.

If a pupil sits their exams in year 12 but does not get the qualifications that they require in order to progress to A levels, higher education or a vocational course, they can, of course, resit their exams, albeit that may not happen in the school where they sat the exams in year 12. What someone needs to do if they have not passed their exams in year 12 will remain unchanged. The change is for pupils who sit exams in year 11, when they are maybe only 14 or 15 years of age. At the moment, they are competing with children who sit their exams a year ahead, have had a year more of teaching time and are a year more mature. The awarding bodies' criteria are based on how many people enter those exams and how they perform in those particular tests. That is why so many people in year 11 do not get the grades that they want. In year 12, then, their grades improve significantly, but that is because they are a year older and have had a year more of teaching time. We need to reduce unnecessary exams and the amount of resits that young people are taking, and the best way to improve their outcomes is to give them more time in the class, where they are engaging with the teacher, getting better understanding of the subject matter and getting into more depth, rather than skimming through a very broad curriculum in a particular subject. They will get better outcomes as a result. The proposals that I have announced today — well, they are not proposals; they are now policy — will bring the best outcomes for young people.

I am not sure how social media comes into this. Let me take the last point first. This is not an area that is governed by legislation or statutory regulations; it is subject to policy decisions in my Department. They do not meet the test of being cross-cutting decisions. Members, as we implement this over the next number of years, there will undoubtedly be opportunities for Ministers to engage in it. In due course, I might refer it to the Executive, but it has not been necessary to do that for the contents of today's announcement. I agree with the Member about the genuine concerns that exist about social media. That is why I moved to provide clear advice to schools, wanting them to prohibit the use of smartphones when pupils are in school between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm. I continue to make that point. Not all schools are following that advice, but they should be. Therefore, I am going to have to look at ways in which we can test that more effectively through the inspectorate's being able to report on the schools that are not following that. I believe that the exposure of social media is hugely detrimental to our young people. There is increasing evidence as to why we need to have effective controls in place.

My statement referenced the issue of ensuring that coursework and other work that is completed out of school is authentic and represents the ability of the pupil. In a world of AI, where we can generate statements and essays within seconds, that is increasingly a real concern about the authenticity and integrity of that piece of work. The most authentic way of standing over someone's performance is when they are in a controlled assessment centre sitting an examination. That is the most controlled and authentic way to do that. We are retaining elements of assessment in the core subjects that I mentioned in the statement, but the Member highlights a genuine issue with AI. The world has moved on, and we need to ensure that our qualifications and processes recognise that and adapt accordingly.

The response was not as the Member has just outlined. I indicated to Mr Burrows that a wide range of views came from the consultation process. Teachers had stronger views on some issues than parents or pupils, and vice versa. My job is to reflect on those consultation responses and allow them to inform, ultimately, the decision-making process. What I have outlined today is a balanced approach. It does take on board concerns that were being raised, and I have reflected that in the policy position that has now been adopted on qualifications.

The last time that there was a review of qualifications was in 2015, so, obviously, this is long overdue. It is necessary in order to have an updated qualification process in place. The cost is £15 million over the next number of years. Year 1 spend will be £2·7 million. It is important that we support CCEA, which is the organisation that will take that forward. It has welcomed the announcement today and is supportive of the policy position that I have now adopted. That is the quantum of funding that is involved over quite a number of years, but the year 1 spend will be £2·7 million.

Retaining modularity in the subjects that the Member outlined will reduce the scale of change for schools and the anxiety around changing those key gateway qualifications, which are required to progress to the next level of education or training, rather than evidence that modular approaches impact on overall outcomes. I do not share the other concerns that the Member highlighted. I encourage Members to look at the data: look at the number of young people who sit GCSEs in year 11 and fail the exams, and then resit them a year later and get a much improved qualification. That is not as a result of their having failed them a year earlier and somehow deciding that they were going to perform better. It is because they had a full year of being able to be in the classroom and being taught more about the subject matter by the teacher. That then had a positive impact on their outcomes. Entering young people for qualifications in year 11 disadvantages those who do not get the same support maybe at home or through other provision. It also disadvantages children who have additional needs. Educational psychologists will tell you that, in entering children for those qualifications too early, they are not ready and have not been given sufficient support and that the outcome is therefore going to one where they do not pass the exams. That is not a position that we should stand over, because I do not see how that is beneficial to young people's anxiety, stress and mental health. This is a much better way to achieve better outcomes for young people.

1,831 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