Technical Issues

Criticisms and critiques of A levels in this area generally fall into two sub-categories;

assessment and structure. While the focus of this thesis narrows to considerations specific to Physics, these are the broadest areas, but also important in two important ways; first is that they affect all A level qualifications, irrespective of the subject area; second is that these are areas that changed the nature of the qualification itself yet substantive changes were implemented prior to the reform process and without any consultation process by the Department for Education or Ofqual.

One of the most common criticisms of the A level was its modular nature that was softly introduced in ‘Curriculum 2000’. These criticisms tended to be based around students compartmentalising knowledge, such that they would focus on it while studying the module, but then ‘dump’ that knowledge after their examination, leading to difficulties when

students encountered the material again at an undergraduate level (Royal Society, 2011). First highlighted by Michael Gove in 2010, he proposed that a “shake-up” of A levels would “see fewer modules and more exams at the end of two years of sixth form and, as a result, a revival of the art of deep thought” (Gove, 2010a). University sources were often cited by Gove, Nick Gibb (the Schools Minister), and Department for Education spokespersons as the driver for this, however the only exemplifying example of ‘deep thought’ used was that:

“schoolchildren lack basic facts, such as who Miss Havisham is or who was in

command at the battle of Waterloo…the great figures of literature that still populate the conversations of all those who regard themselves as well-educated should be known to all.” (Gibb, 2010)

While no suggestions were made by the government at this stage regarding how reforms to an A level in Physics would increase a student’s ability to quote Shakespeare, it was the structure to the A levels were at the forefront of the changes at this stage. With

compartmentalisation seen as the result of the modular nature of most A level courses and “students preparing for exams almost as soon as they begin a course” (Truss, 2013), it was clear from as early as July 2010 that the government were intending to separate AS and A level courses into individual qualifications, and return to terminal examinations (Gove, 2010a). While it was not the government’s proposal to eliminate AS level study, the terminal examination requirement would mean that any student wishing to complete two years of study could not have any examinations in their first year. A further result of this was a specified end to the “re-sit culture” through which students attempting to improve their modular results to gain higher overall grades and reach university offers “can be seen as undermining the qualifications and educationally inappropriate” (Department for Education, 2010b, p. 49).

The responses to these announcements were many and mixed. However, Cambridge University was the first HE organisation to respond to the proposals with the Director of Admissions, Dr. Geoff Parks, noting that without AS results from students they would

“reluctantly be forced to fall back on GCSE results, interviews, bespoke admissions tests and predicted grades” (University of Cambridge, 2010), none of which Cambridge felt were as reliable as AS grades due to its ‘semi-hooked’ nature and that it makes up 50% of the A level result (excluding re-sits) (Sutch, Zanini, & Benton, 2015).

While the Department for Education refuted this, highlighting a correlation between GCSE results and degree classification (Department for Education, 2013a), a replication of their analysis by LSE showed a weak relationship between GCSEs and A levels (Johnston, 2014). As one of the “elite universities” that Michael Gove traditionally referenced regarding A level reform (Gove, 2012), Cambridge felt that it was possible to improve A level courses in the areas that they had concerns about, and that the removal of the January examinations in AS and A level courses would be sufficient. Notable also was that Cambridge was seeing significant rises in applications, especially in places won by students from state schools and colleges, and under-represented groups due to “the confidence engendered in students

from “non-traditional” backgrounds, when they achieve high examination grades at the end of Year 12” (University of Cambridge, 2010).

Within the sciences, SCORE was also in favour of retaining the AS qualification for use as a performance indicator for higher education institutions, on the whole highlighting how they were crucial in allowing students to start with studying a range of subjects in their first year, and then narrow them in the second year, making it more likely that students would

encounter A level mathematics either in a mathematics course, or as part of a science AS level. They advised reweighting the current qualifications, so that the AS would be worth 40% and the A2 60%, but ensuring that the examinations in both years would “embrace a synoptic character”. They also agreed that students spent too much time preparing for examinations and that the system of “numerous re-sits” had introduced “perverse

incentives for teachers to focus on accountability measures” (SCORE, 2012b, p. 6), reduced teaching time, and suggested that students may not take some exams seriously if they knew they could re-take them if they did poorly. SCORE’s advice was to limit A levels to one re-sit per examination and that only the most recently awarded grade should count towards a student’s final grade, even if it were lower.

Summary

Regarding the assessment of A levels the view of HE and learned organisations was clear: retain the AS examination part-way through the A level, eliminate the modular assessments, ensure all examinations are synoptic, and consider different options to limit (but not

remove) the number of re-sits students can take. When we consider how highly the HE community was placed in a position of power over the A level it is important to note that their suggestions regarding the structure of the A level qualifications in schools were not adopted by the Secretary of State for Education. They have been afforded authority, but no power in the process. Their arguments are refuted by the Department for Education, despite subsequent data showing the statistics used by the DfE to be flawed.

While it is not suggested here that a position regarding removal of an AS level qualification is an ideological one, that this position is stuck to firmly shows how firmly the Secretary of State believes in his assessment of the educational landscape and what must be done to correct it. With only predictions of what might happen to university admissions and the

challenges faced by universities in selecting candidates, the interplay between truth and power becomes one of beliefs and power. Here Michael Gove overrides the organisations who he has suggested should take more of a role in the A level qualification, supporting the ideas that reform discourses are not necessarily shaped by who and what can be said, but by when.

While we have examined here the views of several Higher Education institutions and learned organisations, these have been related to the structure of the A level and decision around these structures were not part of the formal A level reform process. The structural changes were made before the announcement of the reforms, but it is to the wider issues that were raised during the reforms themselves that we now turn.