Exam reform: Eyeing up the I-level THE chaotic evolution of England's school exams may one day be worth a test paper of its own. Last year Michael Gove, the education secretary, outlined and then retreated from a plan to replace the GCSE exams taken at age 16 with O-levels for academically promising pupils and less challenging tests for the rest. A proposal for an English Baccalaureate certificate, based on the Singaporean model of a single exam in core subjects, also crumpled. Now a draft plan from Ofqual, the exams regulator, leaked on June 2nd suggests that GCSEs should be replaced by a new I-level: intermediate exams featuring more precise grading. Although Mr Gove has backed off from some of his most far-reaching proposals, he has not given up on the idea of overhauling tests which he believes suffer from perverse incentives. He has variously condemned the grade inflation that appears to result from competition between exam boards, the practice of resitting tests to boost grades and modular coursework, examined by teachers with monitors checking samples of work. These concerns, as well as alleged variation in standards between the exam boards, have led to an erosion of trust in tests. In 2012 many GCSE English papers had to be remarked following the discovery of odd discrepancies in results between exams sat in January and June. Ofqual identified "significant" over-marking by teachers as the root cause of the fiasco. The new system would restore brutal clarity. Teacher-judged coursework would no longer be included in final grades, except in science. Outstanding performance would be more clearly marked out, with fewer top grades awarded than at present. The highest score would be 8, the lowest 1, making it easier to tot up aggregate points, as in the International Baccalaureate qualification. That should lessen the temptation for schools to concentrate on pushing pupils across the all-important borderline between a grade D and a grade C. Doing this boosts schools" standing in league tables but fails to help the weakest pupils or stretch the brightest. More controversially, the practice of awarding final exam marks for listening and speaking skills in English would end. Some think this a retrograde step. Robert Coe, an analyst at Durham University, says there are "sound pedagogical reasons" for rewarding applied English skills. Business leaders had encouraged the innovation. No clear link exists between testing methods and overall outcomes. New Zealand and Finland, both high performers in international league tables, allow teachers to assess their own pupils to varying degrees. By contrast, the most successful Asian systems feature all-or-nothing formal exams. In truth, few countries take 16-plus appraisals as seriously as England does. Adjusting them to drive out distortions and enhance distinctions is sensible. But endlessly fiddling with tests can distract from the more urgent task of improving the quality of teaching. This is the main shortcoming of England's variable schools-and the yardstick by which Mr Gove should ultimately be judged.