A-levels, and the Defence of Education
A-Level Results in England and Wales were released to students and the wider public today, indicating a rise in both the number of A-grades and the number of overall passes. Now, no doubt this will be claimed by some as a fall in standards, and by others as a major achievement. There will be the traditional claim by the clueless that a 97.5% pass rate is somehow problematic, and the bizarre idea that A-levels should ‘mean the same thing’ as the old ones (what on earth does it mean to say that the A-levels my dad took in 1968, that I took in 2003 and my brother took in 2009 should be the same?).
Now, I’m no defender of the A-level and the associated university application system. I’m at my parents’ house at the moment, where my brother has just recieved his results, and my dad, who is an admissions tutor, has had one of the most stressful weeks of his life (universities find out the relevant results on Sunday so they can begin a feverish process of accepting, rejecting, and touting for spare places). The system is ridiculously designed, seemingly to cause maximum anguish for all involved, and to create a wierd air of uncertainty, making both student and institution unsure of everything up until only a few weeks before term begins. There is also no point in denying the growth of a culture of teaching to the exam, and of dodging teaching certain kinds of skills (such as essay writing). But, it’s important to celebrate these results for what they are: The result of the hard work of a generation of young people and teachers. Schools minister Ian Wright that “The bottom line is that post-16 education is no longer the preserve of the elite and privileged few – more students than ever before are carrying on studying until 18.” The situation is much more complex, but to the extent that it is true this too ought to be celebrated.
It is important to defend this as a good thing because a real cloud hangs over these results, and that is the brutal reality that this could be the last year of improved access to post-16 education. Already the government is asking Universities to cap or cut its student numbers, and there are major cuts already on the horizon in the Further Education Sector. This report from the University and Colleges Union makes sobering reading. There are nearly 6000 jobs currently under threat in the Higher and Further Education Sector, and this is before the cuts across the public sector that Labour and the Tories seem to be trying to out do each other with. There have already been some significant battles, for example at Doncaster College, where 300 jobs were under threat, and these are surely a taste of things to come.
During the depths of recession in the 80s there was actually a marked growth in the further education sector, with investment in things like the Youth Training Scheme to address chronic unemployment. Early signs are that no such programme is on the cards for this recession, and in fact cuts are the proposed remedy. It’s against this background that it is important that we defend the value of widening access to education. There are major fights to come in the education sector, and unless we defend this principle we will fight them with one hand behind our back.
Reader Comments
I feel there is some confusion here. The author seems to correlate improving a-level results with improved access to higher or further education. However this is clearly no the case. Improved access to education is due to other changes in government policies, technological advancements and socioeconomic changes The fact that an A is statisically more likely is not the reason why more people are staying in education to 18 or to degree level.
I am fairly critical of the A-level system as it stands. Am i denigrating the hard work of children? Well if so then I’m denigrating my own results from about 5 years ago. No one is suggesting that those who take the exams are putting in effort or that they should not be congratulated. What we are saying is the system doesn’t work effectively. Nowhere in this article did I see a suggestion of what A-levels are meant to achieve apart from some wishy washy talk about opening up access as if improved A-level scores were somehow a cause of this. The author notes that university education may well be cut yet seems to suggest that A-levels are a good thing that encourage the extension of education to the working class.
We should celebrate that more people are staying in education and gaining qualifications. We should celebrate the hard work that students put in. But, the author, who apparently is no defender of the a-level system or university education, provides no real insight in the failings of the A-level system or provides a defence against these criticisms except some straw doll argument that critics believe the system should return to some bygone era.
Why, for instance, would A-levels that provided less grade As be a step backwards? Would using the IB be something that would prevent more students going into higher education? Given that more and more students will have to go into 16+ education are A-levels plus the everchanging vocational subjects and qualifications really that suitable?
Let us celebrat what is good. But criticise a system that is problematic for everyone who really matters – universities, employers and students. Not defend a system of ever improving results from some leftist stereotype that shouts down criticisms as doubting the youth of today.
Look, this is a blog post not a policy document. The commenter seems to want far more from me than I ever purported to offer. My intention was to highlight the threats to education, and to suggest that much of the rhetoric surrounding the A-level results gives ammunition to those who want to justify the cuts. Since I certainly don’t know know the commenter, I am certainly not accusing him of denigrating the hard work of students, nor am I ‘shutting down criticism as doubting the youth of today’. I am even doing him the honour of talking about him in the third person, like he did to me.
However, I think there is a connection between the expansion of post-16 education and the growing pass rate (if not the grades themselves). If A-levels are something that is increasingly seen as an integral part of secondary education, with the aspiration that most young people will take them, then we ought to expect the pass rate to increase. Failing (i.e. having nothing whatsoever to show for two years schooling) should be seen as the equivalent of not graduating high school in the US, a severe consequence for only the most inadequate students. Now, this necessitates a shift in perception of the A-level, and perhaps (more than perhaps) the existing A-level isn’t up to the job.
I’m off to play with my straw dolls now, and hopefully get in a couple of hours of leftist stereotyping.
Much as I agree with Dan on the gist of this post, it’s also worth pointing out that 50% of the grades achieved by students attending private schools are A grades, compared with only 20% in state schools. Add this to a marked difference in the subjects offered by private schools (classics, languages, maths etc.) and their state counterparts (media, drama etc.) and whatever the change in numbers receiving post-16 college education, the country’s top universities remain the preserve of the elite.
“Why, for instance, would A-levels that provided less grade As be a step backwards? “…FEWER grade A’s
The system in place until the 1980′s meant that only the top 10% of passing candidates received an A grade. There was available an extension paper called an S-level. From the 60′s to the 80′s poor working class children could attend university with a full maintenance grant, providing they passed 2 A-levels. only 10-15% achieved this in the 70′s, the drop-out rate was 1%. candidates who were bright but not academic could attend polytechnic to study vocational subjects. there were flaws in the system, but as a product of that system I can state quite categorically that I should not have been able to attend university under the present regime, let alone become a lecturer. I can also assure you that many 3-rd year undergraduates struggle with material that in the 60′s & 70′s was introduced at A-level.