Time running out for A-level
1 February 2006
As the A level pass rate creeps inexorably to one hundred percent and the number of A grades nationally tops twenty per cent (and forty per cent in the independent sector), speculation about its future is inevitable. This is not to denigrate the achievement of young people in this year's exams; it is just a simple recognition of what will happen when results are published tomorrow.
There is, of course, nothing new about such speculation. Since its introduction in 1951, there have been at least four major reviews (most of them abortive): by the Schools Council, Higginson, Dearing and, most recently, Tomlinson. The review by the former Chief Inspector of Schools, Mike Tomlinson, got closer to building a real consensus than most. His proposals for a framework of "diplomas" from 14-19, while incorporating and strengthening current GCSEs and A levels in the short term, nevertheless heralded the end of these qualifications as we know them in the longer term. Evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, the proposals for change were rejected by the government. But changes to the A level are not new. There have been many previous changes to the original design, some of them quite radical. The introduction of grading, criterion-referencing and modularity have rendered the A level of sixty years ago almost un-recognisable today, except in name.
Nevertheless, the durability of A level, and its ability to mutate and survive, has been quite remarkable: until now. Whereas, in the past, calls to abolish A level have tended to come mainly from proponents of a broader post-16 education, usually linked to some kind of baccalaureate, A level is now in serious danger of being subverted on all sides. Subversion is happening not only from the bottom up, but from the middle and even from the top itself.
Leaders of government bodies like QCA and OFSTED may, in the past, have criticised government policy (usually covertly) but none have been as outspoken as Ken Boston or David Bell in saying that A level has passed its sell-by date. Some early mixed messages from the Secretary of State herself, based on the 14-19 White Paper's promise to review the breadth of A level programmes in 2008, only compounded the policy confusion.
Subversion at grass roots level is not yet far advanced but has been openly encouraged on public platforms by prominent supporters of Tomlinson, angry at the government's rejection of his final report. The localised development of Tomlinson-style diplomas and graduation certificates are one manifestation of this trend; the escalating interest in the independent sector in international exams such as the IB and other international qualifications is another. Interest in the International GCSE owes much to freedom of choice: independent schools can choose subjects like mathematics where coursework is not forced upon them. Maintained schools currently have no such choice. Moreover, those with experience of both conventional and international GCSEs and A levels consider them to be more challenging, and better able to stretch high achievers. Rumours that a number of independent schools are in discussions with an existing exam board to launch a new exam, and that a new exam board might be set up by enterprising schools and Russell Group universities, further fuel suspicions that time is running out for A level.
Then there is the vital middle tier between schools and government: universities and employers. Here, too, A level is increasingly being sidelined as both sets of "end users" turn to additional or alternative selection tests. The proliferation of generic aptitude tests (with the latest version from UCLES and Australian Council for Educational Research, due to be trialled from September) as well as subject-specific tests (BMAT and LNAT in medicine and law, with history, English and others close on their heels) can only further undermine A level. While it could be argued that there is nothing new about selection tests used by employers, for universities it is a turning back of the clocks to the days before the national (and nationalised) public examinations system. It is the clearest evidence to date that A level no longer adequately distinguishes the good from the outstanding, particularly at grade A. Without such differentiation, for selector universities the value of A level is diminished to the point at which it virtually becomes redundant.
The likely consequences of all this are disastrous for A level but may, unexpectedly, be good for students and teachers. As the Head Master of one HMC school recently speculated, as universities' own tests become the new high stakes assessments at age 18, the importance of A level as a qualification will decline significantly and rapidly. In time, schools may even abandon the actual exams, feeling confident enough to use the two years post-GCSE to broaden and expand students' minds and experiences, free of the constraints of cumbersome and mechanistic assessment objectives. Although schools and colleges would still be obliged to prepare their students for tests set by universities and employers, they would not have to cope with A level exams in addition. If AS and A2 syllabuses were to have any remaining role, they would become the equivalent of "programmes of study", there to guide teaching and learning but not to constrain it. (Because the IB offers both a whole curriculum package as well as a qualification, it is less vulnerable to such marginalisation.)
One consequence of this would be to enhance the importance of GCSE exams at age 16. For many institutions (and, one suspects, students) this might be a price worth paying, even though this would run counter to the grain of current policy rhetoric (which is to promote exams at 16 as a "progress check", rather than as an end point). As so often with centrally determined policies which ignore practice on the ground, the law of unintended consequences looks set to kick in once again.
Where does this leave A level? The answer must be "in terminal decline". However much Tony Blair and his ministers wish to preserve the A level, its destiny now lies outside their control. The real irony is that in failing to address the root causes of its malaise - high grade inflation and low A grade differentiation - they, more than anyone, have colluded in subverting its original and primary purpose. Belated attempts to address these twin problems, such as publishing the actual marks achieved overall or making offers based on the grades achieved in each of the six units that make up the A level, may help universities differentiate at the top. But they will do nothing to increase the demand or stretch of the A level itself, particularly for the exceptional students.
Had the government accepted the Tomlinson proposals to integrate more challenging material into A level while, at the same time, extending the grading scale with new A+ and A++ "super grades", above the top of the current grade A, the A level might (just) have been saved. As it is, the White Paper proposals are too little and far too late for A level.
1166 words