Reduction in the number of modules from six to four

“I can see there being even more re-sits of the first module in those subjects which enter candidates in January [in the lower sixth].” This was the simple, immediate answer given by the DOS, when asked how the ‘two plus two’ modular system would impact on examination performance, which indicated that he had already given this kind of question a good deal of thought. The logic he employed to reach this prediction was twofold: firstly, he foresaw that “the rush to squeeze in all the teaching and then prepare candidates for a January module with greater content than before is likely to be inadequate in some subjects.” The second and, he believed, more pertinent reason was…

“for most subjects, the first module now counts for 50 per cent rather than 30. There is now a 50/50 split between most AS modules whereas before it was typically 30/30/40. Put another way, January and summer was weighted 30:70. Therefore I think more people (that is, students) will ‘get it wrong’ in January – plus the fact they will be even more motivated to take a module again which counts for half the marks [at AS-level] and not just a third.”

The GEO on the other hand, whilst agreeing with the DOS, pointed to the transitional difficulties that some students may have in making the step up from GCSE to A-level. He thought that the work required in preparing for the first module would be a “shock to the system for many of our lads, who

breezed through GCSE and probably expect to do the same again.” It seems that a number of departments at School X which previously entered

candidates for a January examination in the lower sixth (in subjects which consist of six modules in the outgoing syllabuses) have also concluded that it is too much of a ‘rush’ to finish it, with the introduction of the new

specifications. A discussion with the AEO revealed that only eight subjects entered candidates for the January module in 2009, compared to thirteen a year earlier, although he believed that this decrease is tempered by the fact that “a couple of departments (which previously entered candidates) have changed examination board and didn’t fancy too much change all at once.”

The DHC was also drew attention to the fact that School X teaches a number of subjects which have retained six modules. Most significantly, Mathematics and Further Mathematics were not reviewed for 2008, due to the significant overhaul they underwent in 2004 and subsequently, this department has not been affected. As QCA’s Programme Leader for A-Levels informed me by email in response to a number of questions I sent him by this medium on the restructuring of the qualification, it was thought by the examinations’ regulator that “a period of stability” was important for these subjects (QCA, 2008b). Elsewhere, despite having new ‘stretch and challenge’ specifications, it was also “thought that a six unit model was more appropriate” for other subjects, some of which are taught at School X, namely, Music, Biology, Physics and Chemistry. (QCA, 2008b). This is due to the ‘theory and practice’ elements which are deemed to be necessary in them (QCA, 2008b). From those taught at the school, only the Music Department, one of two departments to change examination board, has stopped entering candidates for an AS-module in January.

4.2 Focus Groups

The use of a focus group on three occasions, consisting as it did as an item on the agenda of annual meetings between the Heads of Business Education departments at the eight Group Y schools, was largely opportunistic. By not having to host any of them and therefore relieved of the burden of many tasks which are normally associated with the moderator’s role, I was able to collect a wealth of data in these hour long sessions. The contributions of my

colleagues were important in achieving my objectives, particularly as their interaction produced a ‘synergy’ of views which are relevant, specifically, to a range of examination-related issues in the teaching and learning of A-level Economics and Business Studies. Again, areas of analysis for the focus groups reflect the simple coding frame that was used for recording the discussions that took place and are arranged into the three sections that follow.

4.2.1 The extent of re-sits: past, present and with a view to the

future

At the time of the third focus group meeting in June 2008, the Economics and Business Studies departments in five of the eight schools in Group Y,

including School X itself, entered candidates for a single AS-level module in the January of the lower sixth year (see Appendix 4 for examination entry details for the group’s schools, identified as ‘A’ to ‘G’, in addition to School X

sit this module a few months later in the summer term, along with the

remaining two AS-level modules. In the upper sixth, further opportunities to re-sit exist in January and June, meaning that over the two years, candidates can be entered up to four times for the first module and up to three times for the other two.

In three of the schools (one of which only offers Economics and not together with Business Studies like all the rest), AS-level modules, as determined by a school-wide policy, cannot be taken until June in the lower sixth, but like in the other five schools, can still be re-sat in both January and June in the upper sixth. The departmental re-sit policies in all eight schools are unlikely to change with the new specifications (School G is then moving to IB in 2010), although in line with the policies of five of seven of my colleagues in the group, I too would like to see School X allow upper sixth students to sit January A2 modules. At the time of writing, as indicated by the school’s Deputy Head (Curriculum) in the previous section, this is an unlikely prospect.

Three schools therefore follow a linear route at AS-level in the lower sixth. This aside, in all but one of the schools in the group, there was no ‘active’ and consistently applied school policy which put a limit on the number of re-sits that could be taken in any one examination series. Perhaps unsurprisingly, School G “monitor[s] the papers [students] do, with four the suggested maximum…increasingly disillusioned [as they are] with A-levels”. Instead, there was a tendency in the group to counsel students on a one-to-one basis. This level of interaction is the context for the advice that Davies (1986) offers to tutors who strive to motivate their students to maximise their examination

performance. He urges them to first appreciate (p.19) “differences in temperament, past experiences, attitudes and ability” before trying to help students on an individual basis. In those schools where the advice of form tutors took precedence over departmental members (as it does at school X, ultimately in the form of a signature acknowledging consent for their tutees’ re- sit plans), colleagues admitted that more students would be likely to have their number reduced, than if the opposite scenario applied andthey, as head of the subject, had the most control. Problems identified with this procedure included the possibility of a ‘kneejerk’ reaction to ‘examination overload’ by some tutors, who may not fully appreciate the generic skills which are

employed by students in both Business Studies and Economics modules and the extent of overlap there is, at times, between them.

In addition, problems associated with ‘inconsistency of application’ by tutors (some seeing four modules – that is, an average of one re-sit per AS-level as representing the ceiling, and others, as one member admitted, “signing whatever came their way”) were also noted. But irrespective of which party had the most influence on a student’s plans, the importance of these

counselling sessions was stressed by one colleague who commented that candidates were inclined to “think they can ‘do it all’ and need to be reigned in.” This was particularly in schools which sat A2-levels in January, where examination overload during this month was a more likely prospect. A

number of common themes emerged in the advice that was given to students, as departments became more knowledgeable over time about playing the ‘re- sit game’ and these were voiced with more conviction, with each annual meeting of the group. Two that were prominent amongst them were: