Procesamiento de Datos

General Certificate of Education Advanced Levels have now been in

existence for well over half a century. They were first introduced in 1951 as a replacement for the Higher School Certificate (Kingdom, 1991, p.46) initially on a pass or fail basis, and then after two years on a grading system

consisting of a two level scale: pass and distinction, achieved, respectively, by obtaining 40 per cent and 75 per cent of the final marks (Robinson, 2001). Students who narrowly failed to meet the A-level pass standard were awarded an O-level pass for reaching a level of attainment, which was equivalent to a pass at Ordinary Level. This system remained until 1963 when, in its

penultimate year as the institution overseeing the development of the A-level qualification, the Secondary School Examination Council introduced a seven scale grading system (House of Commons, 2003). This ranged from grade ‘A’ as the highest pass grade, through to grade ‘E’ as the lowest. The O-level pass was retained, with grade ‘F’ indicating an outright fail. A norm-

top 35 per cent of candidates were awarded ‘good A-level passes’ of ‘A’ to ‘C’, followed by another 35 per cent who achieved the ‘bare pass’ grades of ‘D’ and ‘E’ (Kingdom, pp 74-75). In effect, therefore, 30 per cent of candidates were expected to fail each year, irrespective of the quality of their answers.

This system of grading remained in place until 1987, when it was slightly modified to include a new grade ‘N’ instead of the ‘allowed ordinary’ grade, which became redundant with the introduction of the General Certificate of Secondary Education (Kingdom, p.84). Grade ‘F’ was also replaced by grade ‘U’, to indicate where a candidate failed to achieve a pass grade. The same year, 1987, in fact proved to be a busy time on the 16-19 educational

landscape…

Firstly, there was the switch to a criterion referencing system, whereby grades became awarded against pre-determined performance criteria. It is difficult not to resist arriving at the conclusion that this change triggered the start of a rising pass rate at A-level as within just two years of it being introduced, the pass rate had increased to 75 per cent (BBC News website, 2001). Secondly, in response to widespread criticism that an “overly narrow curriculum” at post- 16 was “forcing students to become specialised prematurely” (School

Examinations and Assessment Council, 1990, p.21), Advanced

Supplementary levels were introduced in 1987 to encourage them to broaden their knowledge.

The original form of this qualification, studied to the same depth as the full A- level but consisting of fewer topics, was logically worth half the number of

UCAS points. It lasted until the introduction of Curriculum 2000 and from then onwards, modular A-level courses have consisted of AS-level study in the first year, before progression to the academically more challenging A2-level in the second. Both parts are equally weighted, but university offers are invariably conditional on the successful completion of the full two year course (although occasionally a ‘points offer’ may include subjects which have been taken to AS-level only, in addition to those taken through to A2-level). The introduction of new A-level specifications from September 2008 leaves the weighting of the two parts, AS and A2, unchanged, but the inclusion of an A* for outstanding candidates extends the grading system back to a seven point scale. In addition, the number of modules which are examined is reduced from six to four in the vast majority of subjects.

The survival of the A-level from the era of post-war austerity to at least 2013, the year which has been set by the present Labour Government for a review of its future, has meant that the qualification has developed a ‘pedigree’ as the country’s ‘academic gold standard’ which Brooks (2002, p.171) believes has helped to explain its longevity. Whilst Brooks (p.171) plays down the impact which the incremental changes detailed briefly above have had on maintaining its dominance as the flag-bearer of the post-16 curriculum, others, such as Wiliam (2000, p.1), are more concerned by their contribution to ‘divorcing’ educational assessment from the process of learning. Despite an ever- extending list of wide-ranging concerns about the qualification, including the belief that is has become ‘too academic’, or ‘too easy’, or ‘too specialised’ - arguments which in various guises have been voiced from a number of quarters for decades, its survival may have simply been assured by the

continued support it has received from its key stakeholders. Theymay have refrained from beingtoocritical about its longevity and how it has been changed on the grounds that more significant reforms, or even its abandonment altogether – possibly for a quasi-vocational/academic

qualification imposed by the Government onallpost-16 students, might well have made matters much worse for them.

Their restraint is likely to come as little surprise to Eggleston (1990). From a sociological perspective, he sums up in his consideration of “who and what should be examined” in schools, that “to achieve…desired changes, an

attractive route would appear to be to take the examination system apart…yet in doing so the very process where…many such…critics found their own route to power may be cut off” (p.66). An interpretation of Eggleston’s (p.66)

conclusion could be that “the gradual rather than the dramatic model of social change” which he considers to be ‘inescapable’ for ‘social behaviour’ in the context of terminating a long-established examination system, is applicable to the A-level qualification. This is in light of the legitimacy which can be

afforded to it after being in existence for nearly sixty years.

Using the evidence of Dore and Berg, Eggleston (1990, cited, p.65) makes an observation that may also be relevant to the future support of A-level from its key stakeholders, especially in light of post-16 alternatives, when he suggests that “employers, colleges and universities and the students themselves – are remarkably conservative and are unwilling to devote time or effort to

‘unproven’ qualifications. In the all-important context of higher education, Wildeet. al.(2006, p.25) found that “A-levels remain the key entry

requirement even if institutions identify problems with them…UCAS tariff points are awarded for [other] qualifications…but they may not be viewed as equivalent by some [universities] for admissions purposes in practice.” In a discussion that I had with the senior examiner in Business Studies referred to earlier, he was “absolutely convinced” that the association of ‘business’ with ‘vocational’ qualifications did “more harm to the reputation of the subject and its perception by universities”, than both the Cambridge list and the

aforementioned research by Coe, as to what constitutes a ‘hard’ and ‘easy’ A- level. In a broader sense at post-16 level, its reputation is also likely to suffer by its further inclusion in Cambridge’s additional list of five subjects (also published in 2006), which the university considers to be “less effective at the higher level of the International Baccalaureate” (BBC News website, 2006).

Implicit in Wilde’s remark above is the understanding that he is referring to ‘academic’ A-levels as opposed to the ten ‘applied’ A-levels (including ‘Business’) that can also be studied. Research conducted by Bailey and Bekhradnia, 2008) concluded that students taking vocational A-levels are much less likely to attend prestigious universities, which is likely to reduce their chances of securing graduate-type employment. Therefore, the

Government’s admission (BBC News website, 2007b) that these courses “will no longer be needed as part of the qualification offer in England”, when the first cohort from the expanded 14-19 Diploma programme qualifies in 2013, is hardly surprising.