Are High-Stakes Exams Damaging Teenagers' Mental Health?

Every summer, thousands of young people sit examinations that they believe will determine the course of their future. While assessment is an essential part of education, the current examination system places enormous pressure on teenagers at one of the most challenging stages of their development. In my view, the traditional model of high-stakes examinations has become one of the biggest flaws in modern education. It relies heavily on memorisation, places excessive emphasis on final exams and can leave pupils feeling that years of work will be judged in just a few hours. It is time for the Government to review whether this remains the fairest way to assess young people.

The pressure extends far beyond the examination hall

Research consistently shows that examinations are a significant source of stress for young people. Surveys by YoungMinds and Childline regularly identify exams as one of the leading causes of anxiety among secondary school students. Many pupils report experiencing sleep difficulties, reduced confidence and heightened worry in the months leading up to GCSEs and A levels.

Some pressure can motivate students to prepare well. However, excessive stress can have the opposite effect, reducing concentration, memory and overall performance. Psychologists have long recognised the relationship between high anxiety and reduced cognitive performance, meaning that some pupils may not demonstrate what they truly know under intense examination conditions.

Exams reward recall as much as understanding

One of the greatest weaknesses of the current system is its reliance on recalling large volumes of information from courses that often span two years. Although modern GCSEs include more opportunities to assess analysis and evaluation, success still depends heavily on remembering facts, quotations, formulas and key terminology under timed conditions.

This raises an important question about what examinations are actually measuring. Are they assessing a student's understanding of a subject, or their ability to retrieve information under pressure?

In classrooms, teachers often see pupils who contribute insightful ideas throughout a course but struggle to reproduce that same quality in a high-pressure examination. Conversely, some students excel at memorisation despite having a less secure understanding of the wider concepts. These differences suggest that the current model does not always capture a student's full potential.

The consequences feel overwhelming

For many teenagers, examinations are presented as a gateway to future education and employment. While it is true that qualifications matter, pupils can easily come to believe that a disappointing set of results will permanently limit their opportunities.

This perception creates a powerful pass or fail mindset. Students often feel that years of effort will be judged by a handful of papers taken over a few weeks. Although alternative routes such as apprenticeships, further education and later qualifications remain available, these messages can be overshadowed by the immediate pressure to achieve high grades.

Schools work hard to support pupils through wellbeing programmes, revision guidance and pastoral care. These interventions are valuable, but they cannot fully compensate for the demands of a system that concentrates so much assessment into a short period.

A more balanced approach would benefit everyone

Assessment is necessary, but it does not need to depend so heavily on final examinations. A more balanced model could spread assessment across smaller, manageable units completed throughout a course. This approach would still maintain rigorous academic standards while reducing the intense pressure associated with end-of-course exams.

Regular assessments would allow pupils to demonstrate learning over time rather than relying on performance on a single day. They would also provide more opportunities for feedback and improvement, encouraging sustained progress instead of short-term memorisation.

The Government should begin a national conversation about whether the current examination system truly reflects what young people know and can achieve. In my view, breaking assessments into smaller, achievable stages would reduce unnecessary pressure, improve wellbeing and give more students the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities fairly. Assessment should help young people succeed, not leave them believing that their future depends on a few hours in an examination hall.