Testing, testing...

O-levels or GCSEs?  It's a tricky one.  I did O-levels and I can't say that at the time I was in favour.  It seemed to me to be potentially unfair to use a one-off snapshot to judge a child's ability with regard to a specific subject.  So much depended on the day - were you feeling good, or did nerves take over (I had a cousin who never sat an exam in his life, because he always flaked out on entering the exam room) or perhaps you just weren't firing on all cylinders for whatever reason.  I always felt that exams passed people who were good at taking exams, rather than necessarily those who were good at the subject.  So at the time I was very much in favour of any sort of "continuous assessment" approach.  But there's problems with that as well - by its very nature it's a subjective judgment, and much may depend on whether you and the teacher who is assessing you "get on".  And then. teachers change - you may end up being assessed by a teacher who has only had you for part of the time.  So what about the current "modular" approach?  This is not without its critics, because it favours those with strong family ties, where input from parents and relatives can be a big influence on your results.  So what's the answer?  Blowed if I know!