Vanilla cribbiana Soto Arenas, sp. nov

Where SCORE see the potential for schools, knowingly or not, to rate their accountability statistics more highly than the number of students choosing STEM subjects, the Institute of Physics also points to HEI accountability. University league tables rate HEIs on their A level entry grades and low drop-out rate which the IoP feels causes some institutions to “play safe with traditional entrants” (Institute of Physics, 2012c). Where students have lower GCSE scores, yet bucked the national trend, the competition for a small number of places at some institutions may bring GCSE grades into consideration and they may be rejected in favour a student who performed identically at A level but had higher GCSE grades.

Similarly limiting are the additional skills and experiences that are often required (or highly rated) in the sciences, mathematics, and modern foreign languages. Work placements, additional qualifications and experiences abroad may all have an effect on a student’s offer for HE study and unfairly affect students of lower socio-economic status. While HE is often criticised for being too narrow, particularly considering aspects such as social mobility, the IoP consider it difficult if schools and colleges only produce potential candidates from the higher socio-economic classes (Institute of Physics, 2012c). While they did not feel a lowering of standards was appropriate, they suggested that additional school level accountability might alleviate the issue.

Regarding the issues of gender in Physics, 49% of mixed maintained schools did not produce a single female A level student in 2011; while the figure was different in other schools, the IoP considered whether gender stereotyping may be more prevalent in this type of school, but also how it should be tackled. Physics entries are lower in several student groups (as mentioned previously) however schools have a public sector equality duty to not

discriminate against students; while the IoP does not suggest there is active discrimination taking place within Physics departments in schools (and that it is more how various groups relate to Physics in the manner suggested by Hollins et al. (2006)) they do state that such a duty would signify a requirement for an institution to consider its statistics in these areas:

“However, there is currently no real incentive or requirement for schools to measure their progression rates (in physics or other subjects) by gender or to address any problems that the measurements reveal.”

(Institute of Physics, 2012c)

The IoP believe that an appropriate incentive for schools would be for Ofsted to take such statistics “more seriously”, including them as part of the Ofsted inspection criteria and asking schools to provide evidence for the measures they are taking to redress situations where the school is performing badly against the national or local averages (ibid). Targeted inspection points such as this are not uncommon during Ofsted inspections, already such inspections seek to determine the appropriateness of provision for certain groups of students, and how schools may be spending the money that they receive for them; but it would also match similar diversity responsibilities that are expected of HEIs from RCUK and HEFCE via the Research Excellence Framework. The IoP similarly pointed to Ofsted’s subject specific inspections when asked to submit views to the Education Select Committee

regarding the annual Ofsted report. In it they described how the thirty inspections carried out each year (on average) were not reliable enough for them to learn what is going on across the nation’s science departments due to this small number and what subject-specific data was being collected. As a learned society who offer guidance to teachers directly and through published materials they wished to get an independent review of “progression rates, the amount and quality of practical work and the number of specialist teachers in each of the science subjects” (Institute of Physics, 2012a). A lack of specialist teachers is not unique to Physics, and is raised in the following section, but of relevance here was the suggestion that schools may be evaluated based on the amount and quality of CPD that schools were using to tackle these aspects.

Summary

Across these four areas it can be seen how a suggested A level reform process can involve considerations from policies in many varied fields and across multiple sites. Gender issues within Physics were not mentioned in any reform announcements, however these issues are directly linked to A level education within Physics, and are highlighted as being of

involve compromise behind what a reform can try to tackle, and what it can realistically accomplish, the aspects identified in this chapter linked to A level Physics have clear impacts outside of this environment. If they are not tackled during a period of educational reform, then when will they be?

The direction of the A level reform process is set by the Secretary of State, but when informed of concerns relating to subject comparability from Ofqual and SCORE, the Department for Education made no comment and gave no directions pertaining to this to Ofqual as regulator. Notable here is that while subject grade equality was not publicly discussed by the DfE, subject equality was – by the Secretary of State for Education in the media. It is understandable why a Secretary of State for Education would defend the validity of all school subjects, however the strength and voracity of his response, even when

expressing a view that was contrary to his previous policy actions, demonstrates that he only wished for certain voices to be part of the educational reform discourse.

Finally, the Physics context allows us to see the complexity of a reform and the challenge of considering its potential impact. If the long-term goal is to ensure an increase in the number of STEM graduates then there must be more A level students, yet if numbers decrease because the media report A levels are considered not fit for purpose, and that the reformed A levels are more challenging, then this will have the opposite effect. In this regard A level challenge is a highly complex policy lever. If shifted in the opposite direction, and standards are lowered, this will produce more A level candidates but is unlikely to produce the

intended effect of an increase in the quality of STEM undergraduates. Notable here is that Michael Gove publicly said that he would make A levels more challenging, and we will later discuss the changes that were made to A level Physics to evaluate the impact of this.

In considering issues that were related to A levels and suggestions for what may be included in the reform there were some policy areas and suggestions that did not directly fit into the above three categories. They are, however, worthy of consideration when considering the breadth and detail of responses to consultations during the reforms and as independent policy proposals. These are discussed in the following section.