Should GCSEs be scrapped? As thousands of teenagers find out their results today, University of Sussex academic James Williams explains why he thinks school exams have had their day.

The exam season is over and thousands of children are relaxing, enjoying the long summer holidays. But why do we put children through exams? Is it really the only way to assess how well our children are doing?

I was once asked by a child, “Who invented exams? Because they’ve got a lot to answer for!”

He was not joking. He was not what you would call an “academic” child but he was good with his hands. He messed about with engines and knew more than me about what went on under the bonnet of my car.

I’ve taught lots of children like that over the years and always felt they were disadvantaged by our examination system.

The Government has tried to bridge the divide between the academic exams, GCSEs, A-levels and degrees with the introduction of vocational subjects.

From this September, new 14-19 diplomas are coming onstream but even these will have “examined” elements. So what is an “exam”, what are they supposed to test and how effective are they?

The word examination comes from the Latin examinare and means “to weigh accurately”.

Examinations were “invented” by the Chinese more than 4,000 years ago as a means of selecting people for their Civil Service.

Exams only came to this country in 1792. A chemistry professor at Cambridge University named Farish decided the usual way of examining students orally, where the student would tell him what he knew, in Latin, was too slow.

Professor Farish wrote down his questions and his students wrote down what they knew, the first written exam.

Almost 220 years on, we have not come up with anything better.

Admittedly examinations have changed considerably but what they are supposed to test is understanding. These days, with multiple choice and single word answers, I question how much exams do test understanding.

In the 19th century a naturalist and examiner, Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of the theory of evolution with Charles Darwin, stated examinations led teachers to teach to the test, especially when they were paid by results. If teachers were trusted and paid to do a good job, he could see no need for examinations. Teachers, he argued, could provide the best assessment of the children based on their day-to-day knowledge of their work and progress.

Personally I like this method of assessment.

This year’s debacle over the Key Stage 2 and 3 tests, with late results, unmarked papers and, no doubt, many schools challenging the accuracy of the results, may have a curious bonus. It is showing the flaws in our examination system.

Setting and marking examinations takes a high level of skill, knowledge and understanding.

Hiring markers who are not teachers, as many exam boards do to process the huge volume of exam papers, means they are unable to interpret children’s answers; they do not necessarily understand how children learn. Computerised marking also has its limitations.

So why do we not just trust teachers? If we removed the hundreds of hours needed preparing, setting and marking tests we could let teachers teach.

They can provide a professional view and assessment of pupils. If we did this we may find some of the problems and issues employers complain about would be solved.

More time can be spent on ensuring adequate reading and writing skills. More time can be used to teach basic skills and knowledge and develop understanding.

More time can be devoted to inspiring pupils to take subjects like science and maths.

Less time will be spent on test after test. Britain is the world’s most tested country, yet we are not at the top of all the league tables. Why not? Well, as the old saying goes, you don’t fatten a pig by weighing it all the time.

I agree some written assessment is needed and at certain points, a written test of understanding is useful. But why must we have so many tests? From the age of five, children enter a relentless treadmill of testing: Key Stage 1 tests, Key Stage 2 and 3, GCSEs, AS-levels and A-levels.

In between there is countless informal testing going on.

What is important is to recognise the end result of education should not be tests and exams.

We should be able to recognise the skills, knowledge, aptitude and understanding children show.

We must produce young people who can function in and contribute to society as a whole. For too long we have insisted on measuring success and intelligence by examinations alone. I know that when my car breaks down on the motorway the person I am most likely to call upon is not the one with the greatest number of GCSEs, A-levels and degrees. It is someone like the child I used to teach, who is now a proficient mechanic, able to diagnose and fix my car. In that situation, with all my O-levels, A-levels and degrees stacked against his couple of GCSEs, who is the most intelligent?

Should exams be scrapped? Tell us what you think below.