What do they take them for?

Anastasia De Waal, 16 August 2007

It’s not the efforts of A-level students in question, but the government’s efforts to educate them.
A new report released today by Civitas argues that A-levels have become more about preparing the government for the next election than preparing students for their future; that knowledge and skills have been forfeited to make government policy add up, and that students have been discouraged from taking subjects with riskier ‘grade-returns’.
The Results Generation, exposes the way in which the government has focused on artificially generating indicators of improvement instead of focusing on actually improving schools. This prioritisation of grade gaining over quality devalues both A-levels and students.

The government’s annual response to criticisms about standards at A-level is that it is ‘insulting’ to pupils. The real insult however, is the government’s use of ‘students’ feelings’ as a smokescreen to discourage debate about its own failure to maintain standards. Young people today undoubtedly work as hard as any earlier generation. Their effort is not the issue – they can only do their best according to the standards of the day. The real issue is the insincerity of a government that has not upheld education standards over time and thus betrayed the interests of young people.
The government announced this morning that the proportion of A-grades awarded at A-level is now over 25 per cent, over one per cent more than last year. Schools Minister, Jim Knight, claims higher pass rates mean more young people are achieving advanced qualifications.
However, robust evidence shows that A-levels cannot be taken as a valid measure of improvements in education. For example, research based on independent comparisons conducted by Robert Coe of Durham University shows there has been an unambiguous trend towards students of the same ability gaining better A-level grades. In fact, on average, there has been a rise of one whole grade since 1996. This shows that students’ general abilities are becoming increasingly detached from the A-level grades they achieve. [see p2]
Much of this disparity is explained by altered A-level arrangements:
*Courses allow pupils to take any single module at four points in the year, allowing one segment of knowledge to be learnt in one term and then disposed of – a process termed ‘learning to forget’ [see p5];
*Overall grades can now be bolstered considerably by repeatedly re-taking AS modules (normally taken in the first year of the course) until they make up for any weaker performances in the more demanding A2 modules [see p5].
Students are also being discouraged from taking ‘riskier’ subjects in favour of subjects with better ‘grade-returns’:
*’From 1996 to 2006, the number of A-level entries increased by 95,000. However, this increase has not been reflected in more traditional subjects. In fact, many have a declining number of entries: physics, French, German and mathematics have all registered reductions of between 3,000 and 11,000 over the last decade. By contrast, psychology has increased by 30,000; media and film studies by 16,000; ICT by 12,000 and PE by 10,000.’ [see p3]
This situation is causing considerable concern amongst employers, academics, universities and crucially, students. [see pp 3-4]
Anastasia de Waal, Head of Family and Education, asks: ‘If it’s getting to the stage where neither universities nor employers find them valuable, and students are coming out neither better educated nor stimulated, then how are rising A-level grades beneficial to anyone but the government?’.
Meanwhile, ministers can only parrot unfounded assurances that standards are being maintained. They claim that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) upholds standards. But in fact, the Independent Committee on Examination Standards, advisory body to the QCA, has categorically stated that the ‘watchdog’ cannot maintain exam standards. [see p9]
The authors conclude that ‘the government’s treatment of A-levels has displayed a greater commitment to generating its results than to the students who produce them.’ [see p1]
The report, The Results Generation, can be found here.