GCE A levels in the school curriculum

Jeremy Higham
School of Education, University of Leeds

Abbreviations
Reforming A levels
A and AS Code of Practice
Incremental change?
A high failure rate?
A level entry requirements
Narrow academic syllabus content
Assessment formats
Teaching and learning styles
Conclusion
References

ABBREVIATIONS

I could see us actually abandoning A levels eventually in favour of GNVQ 3 as being more suited to the kind of students we get and more appropriate to their needs. But there's obviously a kind of cultural thing as far as the staff are concerned, the A level is a kind of gold standard in the view of the government, parents and so forth (TVEI Co-ordinator in an 11-18 school)

As the above statement indicates, the public face of government policy in this area has remained consistent and the value of A levels has been consistently reaffirmed by ministers. Even in announcing the wide-ranging review of 16-19 education led by Sir Ron Dearing, the Secretary of State stressed in the boundaries of the remit that 'nothing will be allowed to get in the way of protecting the rigour and depth of GCE A levels' (original emphasis) (DFE News 79/95, p. 7). This statement further increased the political capital invested in the academic status quo through repeated ministerial assertion that A levels are a 'trademark of educational excellence' (DFE News 203/94, p. 1). Nonetheless, in recent years, post-16 education and training in general and GCE A level syllabuses in particular have increasingly been the object of strong criticism from a wide range of organisations and educational commentators.

As criticisms of A levels have proliferated and intensified, much of the wider debate on A levels has focused on the need to reformulate GCE A level to broaden the 16-19 curriculum and, more recently, to abolish the qualification or relocate it in the continuum of compulsory schooling and post-compulsory education and training. The present concern is, however, to consider the nature and extent of the 'problems' internal to A levels prior to the Dearing 16-19 Review.

Leading up to the Dearing 16-19 review, the general agreement on the need for the reform of the 16-19 curriculum was symbolised by a joint statement in October 1994 by six of the leading headteachers and college principals associations: Post-Compulsory Education and Training (AfC, GSA, HMC, SHA, APVIC and SHMIS 1994). The joint statement emphasised the view of the associations represented that there should be a 'single national framework' (ibid., p. 3) with a modular structure. Free-standing modules or units would be 'banked' to accredit achievement and then accumulated towards a longer term qualification. Importantly, in political terms, the joint statement claimed that the proposed changes 'can evolve from within the present systems' and would 'retain the best of the present structure' (ibid.) highlighting the measures that could be taken to facilitate credit accumulation and transfer. These were given as the lifting of restrictions on A level modular development and assessment so that A level modules could be of different levels and have a weighting system equivalent to vocational qualifications.

The stance adopted in the Joint Statement was akin to the pragmatic approach being taken by a number of post-16 curriculum developers. Recognising that the government is publicly committed to the retention of A level reinforced by the rhetorical promotion of the label as a 'beacon of excellence, sending out an unwavering signal to higher education, employers and parents alike' (DFE News 391/93, p. 7), they have sought to reform A level syllabuses and assessment formats from within. Course-work has been introduced, modular syllabuses have begun to proliferate, new examination formats assessing practical skills have come to the fore and modern syllabuses focusing on areas of learning and experience rather than the traditional academic disciplines have been developed. All these changes have implications for patterns of subject study and approaches to teaching and learning. Perhaps therefore the question should be asked: 'Are A levels what they were or have they changed their nature but not their name?' Indeed is it still appropriate to dismiss them as 'highly specialised and old-fashioned exam-based courses' (Finegold 1990, p.15)?

The current structure and content of A level syllabuses is governed by a voluntary code of practice developed in July 1994 by the newly-formed School Curriculum and Assessment Authority in conjunction with the GCE examination boards and entitled Code of Practice for GCE A and AS Examinations (SCAA 1994). This code of practice built upon the Principles for GCE Advanced and Advanced Supplementary Examinations (SEAC 1992) and outlined the implementation of these principles. It should be noted that when these principles were published by SEAC it became clear that the results of two prior extensive consultation exercises had been reduced to twelve brief principles in which the proposed internal course-work limit had been reduced from a norm of 40% to a regulatory maximum of 20% of total marks in most subjects, against the clear view coming from the consultation. The thrust of the government's thinking on modular courses was revealed by the rewording of the relevant draft principle from 'Any course made up of modules should be demonstrably coherent' (SEAC 1991, p. 116) to 'ensure that any course made up of modules is demonstrably coherent and to the same standard as other A and AS courses' (SEAC 1992, p. 3). Another indication of the attitude towards the role of examinations in the maintenance of academic standards could be seen in the replacement of the draft wording 'A and AS syllabuses should employ a variety of approaches to assessment in order to maximise the range of opportunities for candidates to demonstrate positively what they know, understand and can do' (ibid. p. 117) by the requirement for assessment 'to be predominantly by means of externally assessed terminal examinations' (SEAC 1992, p. 4).

The Code of Practice includes the requirement of a progressive revision by GCE subject of all advanced level syllabuses so that they conform to the code and to parallel joint A and AS subject-specific core content requirements before approval by SCAA. Internally assessed coursework is confirmed as having a normal limit of 20% of the total marks with eight subjects accepted as exceptions (the highest limit being Art and Design at 60%). With regard to modular examinations it is made clear that each module is to be assessed at the full standard for advanced level irrespective of whether it is required to be taken early in the course by the stipulated sequence of modules (although the module may be resat later in the course). Because of minimum requirements for module weightings (15% of total marks) and for terminal examinations (30%) syllabuses may have no more than six modules of which at least two must be assessed after the examination entry date in the final year. The definition of terminal examination does, however, include the external assessment of modular examinations and practical work.

The A and AS principles and code of practice thus can be seen as restraining forces which provide the national framework for the structure of syllabuses. However, in order to gauge the extent of actual change in A level provision and student experience at the school level a research project entitled '16-19 School Curriculum Policy and Provision' was undertaken by Leeds University School of Education between September 1993 and April 1995. The project was co-directed by Dr Paul Sharp and the author, with David Yeomans as the project's Senior Research Fellow. The research included a postal questionnaire survey of curriculum provision and planning in the sixth-forms of all schools in North and West Yorkshire with more than four hundred pupils on roll. (71 (54%) of the 131 schools returned completed questionnaires.) Visits were also made to a stratified sample of 20 of the 131 schools where semi-structured interviews were conducted with those with responsibility for the sixth-form curriculum and small group interviews took place with students in Years 11-13.

While it is self-evident that sixth form students are not in a position to comment on change over time they were felt be uniquely qualified to comment on the current experience of A levels and the relationship to the GCSE courses they took. Year 11 students were also interviewed in small groups from their perspective of having to make a choice on their future qualifications path. The teachers interviewed were deputy headteachers or heads of sixth form together with GNVQ or TVEI co-ordinators. Most of those interviewed had responsibility for teaching GCE A level subjects and were keen to comment on both the wider aspects of A levels and curriculum organisation in their sixth-form and more generally and on their own subject.

The following section draws on the research project data, principally on the views of those involved in GCE A level courses. It should however be noted that the data collection was completed before Dearing's 16-19 Review reported and that analysis of the data and policy could not therefore take Dearing's presentation of evidence and recommendations into account.

It is to the principal accusations which have been which made of GCE A levels that we will now turn in order to consider these in the light of the views and experiences of those working daily with A levels and to assess the current position.

A high failure rate?

'A levels are a risky investment of time' (Smithers 1994, p. 358) is a principal accusation of the unsuitability of A level courses, with high failure rates identified as a major cause for concern by many commentators. Stanton sums up the problem thus: 'Thirty-seven per cent of 16-year-old school leavers get five or more GCSEs at grade A-C, compared with 25% 10 years ago' and 'nearly 35% of the age group take A level compared with 26% a decade ago, but only 22% of the cohort get two passes.' (Stanton 1994, pp. 244-5).

This was a concern addressed by the Audit Commission in a detailed analysis of participation and completion rates in 16-19 education. In 1993 the Commission reported that of those students confirmed as being enrolled on courses at 1 November in a given year 'non-completion rates average about 13% for A-level course' with a further 17% unsuccessfully completing the course of at least two A levels (Audit Commission and OFSTED 1993. p. 2). While some non-completion may be accounted for by those moving to jobs or different courses, a major concern of the Audit Commission was, understandably, the cost of providing courses on which 3 students in 10 did not achieve the aims of the course namely to gain at least two A level passes.

Irrespective of the high cost of 'failure' rates, estimated at £500 million for all 16-19 provision, such a significant proportion of A level students failing to gain two A levels serves no good purpose. The problem lies in that neither those who, for whatever reason leave the course early, nor those who complete but do not gain a pass grade have any formal recognition of what might be considerable achievement in personal terms. In the case of students who transfer courses or who are compelled to leave the course part-way through because of personal circumstance the achievement may in fact be high in A level's own academic terms.

The most recent figures for A level subject entry (summer, 1995) reveal that 16% of all entries (some 116,000) are not awarded an A-E grade. The figure for science subjects is higher with nearly 1 in 5 entries failing. Education Minister Eric Forth in commenting on the similar results of 1994 turned the figures on their head seeing that a pass rate of 80% was a matter of pride (Young 1994, p. 4.), the government's position being that the failure rate is indicative of the rigorous academic nature of the examinations. This seems to miss the point expressed succinctly by Sir Christopher Ball that it is a bold nation 'that thinks it can afford to fail at 18 nearly one-third of those identified at 16 as academically most able' (quoted in Kerr 1992, p. 45).

In North and West Yorkshire research the difficulty of A levels as compared to GCSE was felt more acutely by some Year 12 and Year 13 students than others though nearly all thought that the transition from GCSE to A level had been marked by a 'big jump' in difficulty. What differed most, however, was the nature of this difficulty. For some the jump from GCSE to A level had been high because of a necessity to gain a full understanding of concepts rather than to learn and reproduce explanations and facts. Others had experienced problems coming to terms with the wide-ranging scope and greater depth required for subjects. All found the total work load heavy and much increased from pre-16.

The A level science subjects were generally found to be significantly harder than at GCSE especially by those who had not studied single subject sciences. The widest gap in standards between A level and GCSE was considered to be in Chemistry. Physics and Biology were also felt to be much harder as was Mathematics. Students taking arts subjects were less concerned about the transition from GCSE. For them the level and amount of work was more demanding but did seem to be an extension of GCSE work. Geography was seen to have much more factual content to learn with a greater need for mathematical skills while in History there was much more emphasis on the students finding out information for themselves and on writing essays. English Literature demanded a new style of literary appreciation and essay writing and Modern Languages such as French were found by some students to be particularly difficult though this varied. One school had sought to address what was perceived as very real gap between GCSE and A level by encouraging departments to adapt the way Year 12 students are taught in the first term and to have an induction course to fill gaps in knowledge and understanding which would have been covered by GCE O level.

There was general agreement amongst sixth form students that while GCSE had felt difficult at the time, looking back it seemed easy and had prepared them inadequately for A levels. They wished they had covered the subject knowledge in greater depth, had been warned of and prepared for the ways of working post-16 particularly with reference to more independent ways of working, the need for self-reliance and motivation and the huge increase in work load. Interestingly, while A levels were universally acknowledged to be demanding in terms of the level and style of work, only a few sixth formers were in favour of bringing A levels into line with GCSE. The consensus was that GCSE syllabuses and teaching needed to extend students more and prepare them for further study and the different methods of working at A level. Several students complained that they had not been given a true picture of A level work and that they had not been psychologically prepared for the huge gap in difficulty. This general feeling was summed up by one Year 12 student:

I chose subjects that I liked, but nobody told you that A level History will be nothing like GCSE History. Now can't stand History. Big jump from GCSE to A level. It should be explained. No-one explains how hard it is - they say its general progression but it's not.

One student commented that even students who get high grades in GCSE might think they can do A levels but that this is giving them a false sense of security.

So does the problem of the difficulty of A level for many students lie at the door of inappropriate entry requirements laid down by schools for entry to their sixth form? The Audit Commission in its investigation found that there is a 'marked relationship between prior GCSE results and the non-completion rate' (Audit Commission/OFSTED 1993, p. 27) and, unsurprisingly, that 'success at A-level correlates well with achievement at GCSE' (ibid. p. 30). The consequent advice to schools and colleges was that students whose GCSE achievement was beneath four grade C's and three grade D's should 'not be admitted to A-level courses without being made aware of their low chances of success' (ibid.. p. 27). This minimum entry requirement is in line with that expected by schools in the North and West Yorkshire research project. The general practice was for schools only to admit students to the A level courses if they had at least 4 GCSE's at grade C though there was some flexibility in individual cases. The range of requirements for GCE A level study varied from 3 to 6 GCSE's at grades A-C with some individual departments requiring an A or B grade for a particular subject However, some schools would permit students with a grade D in a subject to study that subject at A level, sometimes on a trial basis. This flexibility in entry requirements is in fact supported by the figures given by the Audit Commission which indicate that over 40% of students with GCSE grades below the minimum given above do complete the course and, on average, achieve a modest but significant total A level score of some 5 points (where a grade E is weighted at 2 points and a grade D at 4 points).

Confirmation of the inadvisability of relying solely on GCSE scores to predict A level performance comes from the Youth Cohort Study which found that 'summary measures to total GCSE grades did not appear to be such good predictors of A-Level success as similar summaries of O-levels and CSEs had been' suggesting that

the main reason for this appears to have been that young people with relatively low scores in the post-GCSE cohort did rather better in terms of A-Level success than similarly poorly-qualified young people in the pre-GCSE cohort. (Ashford 1993, p. 13).

A similar point is taken up by the Government Statistical Service which found that although there was a 'strong link (...) between a candidate's GCE A/AS level score and the same candidate's score at GCSE' (DFE July 1994, para. 4), it was equally true that 'candidates with similar levels of performance at GCSE achieved a wide range of GCE A/AS level scores (ibid. para. 2).

The Department for Education has sought to assist initial grade prediction (as well as curriculum planning and resource targeting) at the local and national level by publishing GCSE to GCE A/AS Value Added: Briefing for Schools and Colleges (DFE 1995). This document, accompanied by a technical briefing, provides national data in the form of graphs of matched GCSE/GCE results to allow curriculum managers to compare their students' performance again the national picture in terms of value added between the two examinations.

The points discussed above have implications for careful and appropriate student guidance. This is however beyond the remit of our discussion though it is worth pointing out that the Audit Commission report also highlights the findings of studies by HMI that 'even where most students were well qualified to tackle A-level, many were doing so in subjects where their previous attainments had been modest, and over 50% chose at least one new subject for which they had no qualification' (Audit Commission/OFSTED 1993, p. 27). One example of a A level subject not commonly offered pre-16 is Economics. Predictably students taking this subject for the first time commented on difficulty though this did not seem to be a problem for those that had taken GCSE Economics.

Thus, while the application of a minimum entry qualification might appeal in an attempt to raise successful completion rates, caution must applied not to make the entry requirements too inflexible nor too strict given the uncertainty of using GCSE results as sole predictors of A level performance. Perhaps surprisingly the publication of a school's A level results in terms of the proportion of A level students passing two A levels did not arise as a major issue in the North and West Yorkshire research though the pass rate was one of the considerations in the setting of minimum entry requirements. Schools are clearly keen to ensure that students do not embark upon a course at which they are likely to fail though the uncertainty highlighted above coupled with pressure from students influenced by the status of A levels can be difficult to resist.

The academic curriculum as a whole has been criticised for over specialisation and narrowness. However, the same accusations have also been levelled at the content of individual A level courses. Syllabuses have been said to neglect important skills and to be irrelevant to the needs of society, even of Higher Education - their raison d'être. Such criticisms were identified by a SEAC consultation on A levels in 1989 where the principal internal weaknesses of A levels were put forward as being their 'narrow academic orientation with an unwarrantedly restrained knowledge base' and their 'over-burdened content, sometimes unrelated to the real world' (SEAC 1990, p. 32). However, recent years have seen a rapid increase in candidate numbers in new subject areas many of which are inter-disciplinary in nature and do not fit neatly into the traditional academic categories.

While A level subject entries as a whole increased by some 19% between Summer 1989 and Summer 1993 as the post-16 staying on rate rose, the corresponding rise for some non-traditional subjects was much higher. The most significant increases during this period in terms of candidate numbers were in Sociology (21,730 to 31,577), Business Studies (6,977 to 22,678) and Psychology (6,440 to 16,322) with a host of smaller subject entries experiencing high percentage increases including Sports Studies, Politics and Political Studies, Media Studies, Theatre Studies and Communication Studies (SEAC 1990 and SCAA August 1994). Psychology and Business Studies have registered further significant increases between 1993 and 1995 as have Sports Studies and Media Studies. However, as the Further Education Funding Council points out there are wide variations in levels of subject entry between types of institution. For example, the area of Social Studies

is the most popular subject in general further education and tertiary colleges with 23 per cent of all entries, but (in 1994) it accounts for only 10 per cent of sixth form college entries and five per cent of school entries (FEFC 1994, p. 9).

Despite the caution expressed above, there was considerable interest in the schools in the North and West Yorkshire research in the non-traditional subjects and newer subjects such as English Language (7,860 entries in 1993) though few as yet had made significant changes to their GCE A level subject provision other than adding two or three of these subjects to the existing curriculum. Some heads of sixth form stressed that the new less-traditional subjects had been introduced in response to student demand:

A lot of the students that were doing Economics were saying 'Well I'd quite like to have been able to do Politics or Sociology to go with the Economics' and so with quite a number of students indicating that that was something that they would like to have done we listened to that and then tried to put those A level courses on for those students. They've got a group of about 18 students. So the new courses seem to have bedded in quite nicely and be towards the top end of the numbers that are taking subjects. I'd say definitely pupil demand and parental demand which has then allowed us to look at whether or not we could provide those courses and we've managed to be able to do that. That hasn't been at the expense of any other course which has gone in the sixth form.

Schools clearly feel a need to offer as a wide a range of GCE A level subjects as possible to retain students in their sixth form who are looking to take A level courses in non-traditional subjects. Indeed several Year 11 students commented that they would be leaving against their general wish in order to study subjects at college that weren't on offer in their school. This was most frequently the case with A level Psychology and, to a lesser extent, Sociology.

The trend towards expansion of the newer A level subjects such as Media Studies, Sports Studies and Business Studies has meant that these multi-disciplinary syllabuses with their emphasis on greater integration and application of knowledge allied to elements of project and practical work are now forming part of the A level curriculum for a higher proportion of the increasing numbers of students. In the same period of 1989 to 1993 these increases in entry numbers for non-traditional subjects are being matched in the growth in numbers taking the revised or new syllabuses in the more traditional subjects of A level (e.g. 16-19 Geography from 2,100 to 11,869). Indeed it is often the new subjects and the new syllabuses which show the most dramatic increases in numbers of candidates whereas entry rates for some of the traditional subject syllabuses have remained static or only increased slightly despite the significant increase in A level entries.

A level syllabuses have frequently been criticised for their narrow assessment methods, namely terminal, written examinations with a focus on knowledge and factual recall. However, the growth and popularity of the new subjects and syllabuses identified above is partly attributable to changes in assessment formats that have taken place in recent years. These developments can be said to fall into two main, but interlinked, categories: coursework and modular syllabuses.

As the internally assessed coursework element pre-16 increased with the introduction and development of GCSE syllabuses, the pressure from schools and colleges on the examination boards to limit the dependence on terminal examinations bore some fruit. Arising out of the work undertaken by syllabuses developers such as the Schools Council subject groups an increasing number of syllabuses have been developed with a project or coursework element. In 1993 HMI were able to report that, of 60 syllabuses analysed as part of their DFE instigated inspection, a course-work element is available (though usually not compulsory) in the majority of syllabuses.

Course-work or project elements in syllabuses have found favour with many teachers, lecturers and students for their emphasis on the assessment of carefully planned, prepared and presented project or topic work that is relevant to the students' own context, experience and interests. This practical focus and relevance together with the more immediate assessment format and decreased reliance on terminal examinations has had a beneficial effect on motivation. An internal briefing note from SCAA's Post-16 team sums up the position:

In some subjects, it is important for candidates to be able to show what they know, understand and can do in a way that is not possible in the closely controlled conditions of an examination room. This might involve a variety of activities including, for example, fieldwork, research, experimental and oral work. Coursework can be particularly motivating and allow candidates to display skills of diligence and perseverance (SCAA 1993, p. 1)

This view is confirmed by FEFC who in their 1994 national survey on A and AS levels reported that 'many students are articulate, hard-working and committed. This was particularly evident in extended coursework or project work' (FEFC 1994, p. 18)

HMI found in their analysis of syllabuses in 1993 that the proportion of the coursework element in syllabuses 'can vary from 10 per cent to, exceptionally, 75 per cent, but it is commonly about 20 per cent.' (OFSTED 1993, p. 16). In limiting the normal coursework proportion of a syllabus to 20% the GCE examinations boards' voluntary Code of Practice conforms to the government's Principles for A and AS Level Examinations and would seem to be in line with the norm to be found in A level syllabuses. However, a closer examination reveals that the Code of Practice's exceptions to the normal limit of 20% are to be found only in some of the more practical A level subjects such as Art and Design (60%), Design and Technology (50%), Music (50%) and Home Economics (40%) and Physical Education (30%) as well as subjects in the general area of media, communication and the expressive and performing arts (40%). New syllabuses developed in the more traditional subjects as well as those in applied and vocational areas must conform to the 20% coursework limit with substantial revisions necessary to many existing syllabuses and consequent implications for teaching and learning methods and student motivation.

The almost arbitrary limitation on course-work at A level (and at GCSE) arises from the government's barely concealed lack of confidence in the reliability of teacher assessment as personally expressed by the Prime Minister John Major. The suspicion is that course-work is easier than an examination and that it is in danger of undermining the rigorous standard of the A level qualification. The government's public commitment is to the maintenance of the A level standard and rather than to the improvement of achievement. As Spours points out:

higher performance due to coursework tends to reduce the exclusive nature of an academic award and it is precisely this form of selection which has been historically dominant in English qualifications. (Spours 1993, p. 151).

Several sixth form teachers in the North and West Yorkshire survey expressed disappointment with the government's attitude to coursework. One commented

We feel really that A levels with a course work component are under threat and in the end we wonder whether we're going to be forced back into a situation where the bulk of A levels is going to be examined at the end of two years.

There was general agreement among teachers that coursework was not eroding standards and was certainly not an easy option, benefiting good or very good students at least as much, if not more, than those on the pass-fail borderline:

It's easy to go along the line of thinking that students do better when producing their own coursework. I think actually for the average student it's quite difficult; very able students can produce marvellous research assignments and coursework, but it's quite difficult for average and below average A level student to do that. I think the solid, classic syllabus that we do at English A level is much more structured and suits those students.

Students also thought that coursework could be more challenging than a terminal examination especially with the emphasis in some subjects on preparing and writing extended essays as part of their coursework. As one teacher commented 'they're not very good at getting themselves organised'.

Perhaps the single most important change internal to the A level system has been the development of modular syllabuses, not simply in terms of their structure but because, having in many cases been developed from first principles, they incorporate new ways of teaching and learning often influenced by GCSE. The rapid expansion of these schemes both in terms of the range and number of syllabuses available and the huge increases in student numbers testifies to their popularity and this was confirmed by the schools in the North and West Yorkshire research project. Teachers felt the new modular syllabuses offered students greater flexibility and made the transition from GCSE less traumatic.

The early modular A level schemes were often developed by regional consortia in conjunction with GCE boards and included the twelve 'Wessex' A level syllabuses which had 40% internal assessment (see Rainbow 1993). While many of the modular schemes have survived the restrictions on coursework introduced by the A and AS Principles and consolidated in the Code of Practice, these particular developmental A levels have been discontinued by the Associated Examining Board. The decision to cease this pilot project was taken to the disappointment of schools and developers amid suggestions that the uncertainty of approval by SEAC reflected the government's equivocal attitude to modular schemes in general and to this trail-blazer in particular (see Nash 1993, p. 3.).

Though the Code of Practice may have restricted the scope of innovative schemes and of the coursework element in A levels, it has not ultimately curtailed the expansion of the provision and uptake of modular syllabuses. In fact in incorporating the rationalisation of the A and AS subject cores and in laying down the ground rules for the minimum size of modules and the maximum amount of coursework the Code of Practice may ironically have given a boost to modular development. Modular syllabuses now have a greater uniformity of structure by having to conform to the 20% limit on internal assessment (with increased examining board moderation), the 15% minimum size for modules and the 30% minimum requirement for terminal examination. In practice this has meant the maximum and typical number of modules is now six with two being externally assessed after the examination entry date in mid-February. The assessment of the modules is, however, principally by unseen examinations taking place at two or three points each year though this may include externally set and examined practical or oral tests.

Several of the original modular A level syllabuses have been restructured and have been joined by many other syllabuses with a modular format developed since the Code of Practice and introduced in September 1994 with SCAA approval. In some cases more traditional syllabuses have been reformulated with the previous papers and options presenting a new modular structure. This reformulation has brought with it the advantages of shorter-term goals, earlier indication of success and the 'banking' of credits as the course progresses, There is also greater choice though in many cases this is at the institutional level rather than for individual students. One significant constraint, apart from the limit on coursework assessment, has been the fact that the modules, at whatever point they are taken in the course, are examined at the full Advanced level. This contrasts with the stepped levels in many HE modular schemes, though there is the possibility of non-terminal A level modules being retaken to improve grades. It is also fair to say that there is already concern at the expense of setting, administering and marking modules at up to three points in the year without the added complexity of stepped levels which would not only increase examination costs but decrease the flexibility of teaching arrangements.

Some examination boards have developed modular provision further by offering new integrated schemes of related modules which may be taken in prescribed combinations and sequences to lead to the accreditation of AS level, A level or multiple A level awards. One example of such a scheme is the GCE advanced science provision of the NEAB which covers Science, the specialist science and related sciences including Psychology. These subject area modular schemes offer greater flexibility of routes and accreditation than a closed subject scheme as credits accumulated can count towards different GCE subject qualifications. This can be particularly important for students who choose to change direction or the weighting of their subjects. As Moon points out 'The assessment process can be diagnostic allowing targets to be reformulated whilst safeguarding the value of credits already completed' (Moon 1988, p. 8). Some schools in the North and West Yorkshire planned this flexibility into individual programmes with decisions on the A or AS only being made at the end of Year 12. Such schemes also have obvious benefits for schools and colleges that wish to co-teach to maximise teaching resources and to keep individual students' choices open as long as possible.

Despite the introduction of the restrictions in the Code of Practice, continuing governmental concern that modular syllabuses entail lower standards led to the commissioning by SCAA of a report from Newcastle University on the comparability of A level performance. This report suggested that results and pass rates in Modular A levels were significantly higher than for standard A level courses. (Burstall 1995, p. 5.). However, caution must be applied to this finding as previous research from Newcastle indicated

'If some syllabuses consistently resulted in greater motivation and higher performance this could not be distinguished, statistically, from lenient grading.' (CEM 1994, p. 8).

The relatively short two-year A level courses are often regarded as being dominated by the narrow assessment methods of the terminal examinations with their focus on a high level of subject content. With the advent of the newer subjects and syllabuses and the increase in modular structures and more widespread incidence of coursework, one focus of the North and West Yorkshire research was to investigate the teacher perception of change in the students' experience of A level courses.

Heads of sixth form tended to admit that their comments on teaching and learning in their school were influenced to some extent by their own subject teaching and indeed the opinions expressed varied widely as can be seen in the following two comments in similar schools:

In the main, I would think that the way of learning and the whole process is pretty much the same as it was 20 odd years ago, very much so.

People think A levels same as they were 10 or 15 years ago but few are, most have adapted to some degree, some are unrecognisable, different ways of doing things.

The general view, however, was that some of the newer A level subjects and the new modular syllabuses have begun to change the nature of the teaching and learning, quite significantly in some cases, and that even in the more traditional syllabuses some degree of change had come through the influence of other pre and post-16 courses:

I think it has changed, we have learned more . . . probably from vocational courses. We feel that the experience that the students on vocational courses have are experiences which all students should have, so that's probably having a spin-off in the teaching and learning styles that people have adopted.

This view is balanced by the findings of FEFC who reported that 'Students taking a GCE A level subject in combination with vocational courses often find difficulty in adjusting to the styles of teaching and assessment at GCE A level which are narrower in scope' (FEFC 1994, p. 6).

The key to understanding any changes in teaching styles may well lie with the attitude and approach of the individual teacher or department more than with the subject or syllabus. This is the finding of the statistical analysis of students' views on A level courses undertaken by CEM who found that 'A level teaching styles vary quite dramatically from subject to subject, and also from classroom to classroom, but these differences are not systematically related to syllabuses within a subject'. (CEM 1994, p. 15). In this respect one head of sixth form commented:

It depends on how courses are taught as much as which particular course is chosen. I don't think the crusty, traditional caricature is particularly accurate. You can use a straight A level paper but still teach in very varied and interesting way. I think it has changed, the style of teaching, in the last ten years.

Although it is clearly the case that teachers who feel that traditional courses don't offer what they want 'opt for more varied and innovative styles of examination (including modular schemes) which they consider will appeal to a broader student entry and which they judge will provide good continuity with students' earlier learning' (OFSTED 1993, p. 39), it is also true that many schools in the North and West Yorkshire research project had not yet made wholesale changes in terms of adopting modular syllabuses though some were intending to make changes in several subject areas.

The view of the A level students of their current courses was surprisingly consistent from school to school. With one or two exceptions, they very clearly felt that at GCSE the emphasis was on factual recall rather than understanding. At A level they were struggling to come to terms with the emphasis that was placed on them to find out information for themselves and to understand underlying concepts. Subject teachers agreed that there was a desire for reliance on the teacher at A level and commented that it seemed to come about in those students who had only just passed GCSE and who were used to being spoon-fed.

While many students found adapting to the new ways of working hard, criticisms of A level teaching styles were few and far between. Only in on school was their obvious dissatisfaction with the A level courses. Perhaps significantly this was a school in which the head of sixth form commented that although there were innovative courses available, the sixth-form staff in this comprehensive school were comfortable with fact-based, traditional teaching methods. This attitude is confirmed by HMI who found that 'A few departments acknowledged that they play safe and continue with long established syllabuses, either because they are satisfied with the result achieved or because staff are comfortable with the styles of teaching and learning required.' (OFSTED 1993, p. 39)

Many other staff in schools had embraced the new modular A levels with relief and one school had sought to go further and develop a more radical sixth-form provision to try and 'change A level experience and move students away from idea that it's the last bit that counts, actually help students take control of their learning a lot earlier'. Drawing on the experience of offering BTEC courses the school had introduced its own programme of modularisation of A levels, not specifically in terms of offering modular syllabuses, but through the identification of component parts. At end of each component the work is assessed with achievement recorded to allow monitored progression and to build in a formal opportunity to devise subject-based action plans. The programme which aims to change teaching and learning styles at A levels is being introduced throughout the academic sixth form after successful piloting in two subjects, one with a modular syllabus the other with a traditional syllabus.

The present eclectic approach to the opportunities presented by the wide variety of syllabuses available within the main subjects was summed up succinctly by one head of sixth form:

Institutionally A levels have not forced changes in terms of, say, teaching and learning styles, coursework, internal assessment of practical skills, etc. The framework has changed such that it's inevitable that there will be major change. The notion that A levels have changed radically is probably not viable.

The accusation frequently levelled against A level syllabuses of the narrowness of traditional subject content, assessment formats and teaching methods continues to hold to some extent, though it is equally clear that the experience of A levels is shifting beneath the surface of the sacrosanct label. In the eyes of teachers A level is changing its nature incrementally not only as teaching and learning styles are evolving more generally under the influence of GCSE and vocational course, but as syllabuses are revised and alternative syllabuses and new subjects are introduced. Schools and colleges are responding to student demand accelerating this change by the adoption of new syllabuses and subjects which are in turn showing a disproportionately high increase in student numbers.

While changes internal to A levels are not radical, as the quotation at the end of the last section suggests, and are certainly not sweeping enough for some heads of sixth form interviewed, the overall result is that the incidence of practical work, coursework, modular assessment, applied and vocational subjects is demonstrably much higher than it was at the beginning of the 1990's. Such creeping modernisation of A levels, however limited, has not escaped the attention of successive government education departments who have made a number of attempts to restrict A level curricular development. This protective attitude even permeated the long overdue 16-19 review which, though welcome in its wide-ranging investigation into the possibilities for increased post-16 coherence, fell short of taking a fresh look at the purposes and syllabus content of A levels.

Accepting the remit to retain A levels and maintain their 'rigour' Dearing's work in respect of GCE A levels focused on standards and forms of assessment giving particular emphasis to the comparability of standards between subjects, over time and between modular and terminal assessment. Indeed a separate section of the report is given over to the themes of 'comparability' and 'rigour' and Dearing himself does not claim to have questioned the appropriateness of the A level syllabus content: 'All the issues and their associated projects were concerned with the comparability and rigour of various components of the A level examination system' (Dearing July 1996b, p. 1). Fully cognisant of his remit and the importance of his report gaining government approval, Dearing had thus neatly side-stepped the wider issues relating to GCE A levels. He is clearly not unaware of the forces of school and student choice as illustrated by his approach to modular A levels, where his apparent disapproval is tempered by the recognition that 'if students generally prefer the modular approach, and, if ( . . . ) the modular route produces better results, it could be that over a number of years the linear route will largely wither away (Dearing July 1996a. p. 93)

So while the case against A levels has been ruled out of court by the government, the public trial may yet take place for ironically as Tim Boswell as Further and Higher Education Minister reminded delegates at the 'Future of A levels' conference that the value of qualifications

is established by the "market place", and needs to be earned. And value will depend to a large extent on a clear understanding amongst the "users" - particularly higher education and employers - of what the qualification means - means in terms of knowledge, skills and understanding, and the kind of experience that the holder will have had. (Boswell 1994.)

What may have slipped his mind is that schools, colleges and students are also users and will equally 'shop at the qualifications 'market'' (DFE News 107/94, p. 1). To limit the development of a more modern and relevant A level system in response to market forces may ultimately be to hasten its demise.

Ashford, S., Gray, J, and Tranmer, M. The introduction of GCSE exams and changes in post-16 participation. Youth Cohort Report No. 23. Employment Department, Sheffield, 1993.

Audit Commission and the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) Unfinished business: full-time educational courses for 16 to 19-year olds. HMSO, 1993.

Boswell, T. 'GCE qualifications and the new post-16 qualifications framework' Text of a speech to the NEAB Conference 'The future of A-levels'. May, 1994.

Burstall, E 'Leaked report fuels A-level fears' in The Times Educational Supplement 20/1/95. p. 5.

Curriculum, Evaluation and Management Centre (CEM), Comparing Examination Boards and Syllabuses at A-Level: students' grades, attitudes and perceptions of classroom processes. NICCEA, 1994.

Dearing, R. Review of Qualifications for 16-19 Year Olds: full report SCAA, London. July 1996a.

Dearing, R. Review of Qualifications for 16-19 Year Olds: quality and rigour in A level examinations SCAA, London. July 1996b.

DFE 'GCE A Levels "A Trademark of Educational Excellence" - Forth' DFE News 203/94, 16/8/94.

DFE 'Gillian Shephard speaks to the Secondary Heads Association' DFE News 79/95, 10/4/95.

DFE 'Let the Customer Shop at the Qualifications 'Market' DFE News 107/94, 9/5/94.

DFE GCSE and GCE A/AS Level Performance of Candidates Attempting Two or More GCE A/AS Levels DFE Statistical Bulletin 9/94, July 1994.

DFE GCSE to GCE A/AS Value Added: Briefing for Schools and Colleges. DFE, 1995.

FEFC General Certificate of Education Advanced Level and Advanced Supplementary Qualifications National Survey Report. FEFC, December 1994.

Finegold, D. et al. A British 'Baccalauréat': Ending the division between education and training. Institute for Public Policy Research Education and Training (IPPR) Paper no. 1, 1990.

Higham, J.J.S., Sharp, P.R. and Yeomans, D.J. The Emerging 16-19 Curriculum; policy and provision. David Fulton, 1996.

Kerr, D. 'The Academic Curriculum - Reform Resisted' , Chap. 3 in Whiteside et al. (1992).

Nash, I. 'Wessex A-levels scrapped' in The Times Educational Supplement 30/4/93, p. 3.

National Commission on Education Insights into Education and Training. Heinemann, London, 1994.

OFSTED GCE Advanced Supplementary and Advanced Level Examinations. HMSO, 1993.

Rainbow, B. 'Modular A and AS Levels: the Wessex Project' in Richardson pp. 87-100.

Richardson, W., Woolhouse, J, and Finegold, D. The Reform of Post-16 Education and Training in England and Wales. Longman, Harlow, 1993.

SCAA A and AS Examinations: Candidate Numbers. SCAA, August 1994.

SCAA and the GCE Examining Boards of England Wales and Northern Ireland Code of Practice for GCE A and AS Examinations. SCAA, July 1994.

SCAA Post 16 Team A/AS Coursework, Briefing Note. SCAA, December 1993.

SEAC Examinations Post-16: Developments for the 1990's. SEAC, March 1990.

SEAC Report on the Consultation of Draft Principles for GCE A and AS Examinations. SEAC, June 1991.

SEAC Principles for GCE Advanced and Advanced Supplementary Examinations. SEAC, March 1992.

Smithers, A. 'The Paradox of A Levels' in The Curriculum Journal, vol. 5 no. 3 1994, pp. 355-363.

Spours, K. 'Analysis: the reform of qualifications within a divided system' in Richardson (1993) pp. 146-170.

Stanton, G. 'Post-16 Curriculum and Qualifications: Confusion and Incoherence or Diversity and Choice?' in National Commission on Education (1994). pp. 241-256.

The Association for Colleges (AfC), The Girls' Schools Association (GSA), The Headmasters' Conference (HMC), The Secondary Heads Association (SHA), The Sixth Form Colleges Association (APVIC) and The Society of Headmasters and headmistresses in Independent Schools (SHMIS) Post-Compulsory Education and Training. 1994.

Whiteside, T. Sutton, A. and Everton, E. 16-19: Changes in Education and Training. David Fulton, London, 1992.

Young, S. 'More pick A-levels that link up to jobs' in The Times Educational Supplement 19/8/94, p. 4.

ISBN 0 900960 92 2
© J J S Higham 1997

Post-14 education and training has been the site of intense policy debate and change for over two decades both in Britain and throughout the world. These changes have led to substantial re-organisation of forms of governance, organisation, curricula and pedagogy and have had major implications for the lives of young people, mature students and adult learners.

The Post-14 Research Group, a unit of the University of Leeds School of Education, has interests in the analysis of these changes across: secondary education, further and higher education; workplace and lifelong learning; and youth training. Methodological approaches draw upon: curriculum study; policy analysis and evaluation; historical and sociological research; and youth ethnography. Research has been supported by extensive ESRC and Government funding, together with grants from a variety of educational foundations, regional bodies and local education authorities.

External and internal seminar series act as a focus for discussion both within the School and region and this Occasional Publications series publishes recent research by group members:

No. 1 D. J. Yeomans, Constructing Vocational Education: from TVEI to GNVQ (1996)

No. 2 J. J. S. Higham, Breadth in the Post-16 Academic Curriculum (1996)

No. 3 I. M. H. Bates, The Competence and Outcomes Movement: the landscape of research (1997)

No. 4 J.J.S. Higham, GCE A Levels in the School Curriculum (1997)

No. 5 P. R. Sharp, The Development of the Vocational Curriculum for 16-19 Year-Olds in Colleges and Schools, 1979-1995 (1997)

No. 6 J. J. S. Higham, The Post-16 Core Curriculum (1997)

No. 7 I.M.H. Bates, Problematizing 'Empowerment' in Education and Work: an Exploration of the GNVQ (1998)

No. 8 M. Priestley and J. J. S. Higham, New Zealand's Curriculum and Assessment Revolution (1999)

No. 9 J. J. S. Higham, P. R. Sharp and D. Machin,
The Monitoring of Academic Progress 16-19 (2000)

No. 10 P. R. Sharp, J. J. S. Higham, D. J. Yeomans and D. M. Daniel, Working Together: the independent/state school partnerships scheme (2001)

No. 11 J. J. S. Higham, Curriculum Change: General National Vocational Qualifications (2002)

Paper copies of the above publications are available from the address below at a
cost of £5 including postage and packing. Please make cheques payable to
'The University of Leeds'.

The Secretary
The Post-14 Research Group
School of Education
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT
Tel: 0113 343 4659
Fax: 0113 343 4541
post-14@education.leeds.ac.uk
http://education.leeds.ac.uk/devt/research/post-14.htm

This document was added to the Education-line database on 16 October 2002