| Once again last Summer
(2003), there was much talk in the media about the future of the exam system for
older students in both state and independent secondary schools. Stripped of all
the extraneous material, this discussion, much of it covering familiar territory,
can be dealt with under FOUR main headings: the future of the GCSE; the timing
of the universities admissions procedures; the question as to whether or not A
Levels are getting ‘easier’; and the desirability or otherwise of introducing
on a nationwide basis a British version of the International Baccalaureate. These
topics are, of course, all related to one another; and there is often a particular
vision of the future of education underlying the way in which each one is presented. (1)
The future of the GCSE as a common system of examining at sixteen-plus is very
much tied up with the possible future structure of a single Baccalaureate-style
diploma; but the discussion that began in the national press in August had a quite
distinct and separate provenance. It was in The Daily Telegraph of
the 4 August that a story appeared by John Clare with the headline: ‘Eton leads
way in abandoning ‘dumbed-down’ GCSE exams’. The clue to the whole tenor of the
piece lies in the use of that term ‘dumbed-down’, for the main point of the story
was that leading independent schools were preparing to jettison the GCSE – believing
that ‘continuous dumbing-down’ had made it ‘too easy for able pupils’. In the
view of Tony Little, having just completed his first year as Head of Eton: ‘It
is just like Boy Scouts collecting badges. … One has to ask what the educational
value of it all is.’ Boys admitted to Eton in September 2004 would bypass GCSE
and move straight on to AS Levels which they would be able to take in at least
five subjects a year early, at the age of sixteen. They would then have two years
in the Sixth Form to study a range of subjects in depth, including as many A2
subjects as they might need ‘to secure entry to the best universities’. This
story was followed up by an interview given to The Times by Dr Ken Boston,
which appeared on the 11 August, in which the Chief Executive of the Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority (QCA) stressed that all schools were free to abandon
GCSEs completely, if they thought that was a good idea. Dr Boston said he was
quite happy to let individual headteachers decide whether teenagers should sit
any GCSEs at all or move instead straight on to AS exams as part of their A Level
courses. In his view, pupils were ‘over-burdened’ by sitting GCSEs, AS Levels
and A Levels between the ages of sixteen and eighteen; and the whole system had
to be made less rigid: ‘if a school wants to offer only a few GCSEs or not hold
them at all and go straight to AS and A Levels, then that is perfectly open to
them. … It shows flexibility in the system, which is admirable. Not surprisingly,
after pressure from the Government, Dr Boston felt obliged to rein in his comments,
and he was soon reassuring a BBC interviewer that the GCSEs were ‘robust, internationally
recognised, flexible qualifications’ and that ‘the QCA would not be doing anything
as crude as dropping them’. Meanwhile, Education Minister David Miliband spent
the 11 August touring radio and television studios stressing that reform of the
examination system was a long-term project and urging people not to be distracted
by the unfortunate and ill-informed debate triggered by Dr Boston’s remarks. As
long ago as the Spring of 2000, I wrote an article for this journal with the headline:
‘Why the GCSE should be abolished’ (Volume 42, Number 1, pp. 28‑30). My
argument was that the GCSE had failed to become a comprehensive and liberating
system recognising the abilities and talents of all pupils. The importance of
league table success had led many secondary schools to develop new ways of identifying
and encouraging those pupils who might, with the right sort of support, manage
a C grade in a number of subjects, while neglecting those youngsters thought unable
to contribute to the all-important A*-to-C grades benchmark. The GCSE had, in
fact, become like the O Level it replaced in 1986, an exam for the ‘most able’
pupils. This year’s results, published on the 21 August, revealed a worrying trend
where the overall pass rate – grades A*-to-G – fell from 97.9 to 97.6 per cent,
while up to 60,000 pupils were estimated to be leaving school with no qualifications
at all. These seem to me to be legitimate reasons for wanting to see a radical
overhaul of the fourteen-to-nineteen exam system which we will return to later
in this Editorial. There is certainly a case for moving towards a situation where
eighteen is the effective school leaving age. What worries me about hasty
adoption of the Eton plan is that it could result in the GCSE being viewed, in
the words of John Clare of The Telegraph, as ‘an exam for the less academically
able’. (2) Somewhat less controversially, a story appeared in The Observer
of the 10 August which talked about plans for a ‘shake-up’ of university admissions
whereby teenagers would apply for universities places only after receiving
their A Level results. In the view of Professor Steven Schwartz, the chief government
adviser on university admissions and Vice-Chancellor of Brunel University, this
major change to the admissions procedures would encourage youngsters from ‘a broader
range of social backgrounds’ to go to university. It would give more flexibility
by allowing youngsters to apply for courses based on actual rather than
predicted results. Those who received unexpectedly good results – often
from ‘less privileged’ backgrounds – would then not be at a disadvantage. Unusually,
the new scheme appeared to have the backing of private school heads and of the
Conservatives – despite the fears of university admissions tutors that it risked
causing huge upheaval. (3) Our third major story takes us back to the question
of standards and to the English obsession with identifying and cherishing elites.
A story appeared in The Times of the 14 August (and where would we be without
this wonderful harbinger of terrible times ahead?) headlined ‘Pass rate soars
as pupils chase ‘easy’ A Levels’. On the day that the A Level pass rate hit a
record 95.4 per cent, it was reported that students were shunning ‘traditional
academic subjects’ in favour of ‘less demanding A Levels’ to help them win a place
at university. Damian Green, the Shadow Education Secretary, called on the QCA
to carry out an inquiry to ensure that all A Levels were of equal difficulty.
‘This would avoid the worrying phenomenon of students dropping languages, maths
and sciences for other allegedly easier A Levels’, he said. Four days later
(the 18 August), a story appeared in the same newspaper reporting that Oxford
and Cambridge were turning their back on A Levels and reintroducing their own
entrance papers after being ‘overwhelmed’ by candidates with top grades. A new
two-hour paper for medical students, to be introduced in the Autumn, would be
used as the template for separate entry tests in a range of other subjects. Cambridge
actually abandoned its own entrance papers in 1987, followed by Oxford in 1995.
At that time, the universities were responding to pressure from some headteachers
who were arguing that the system unfairly advantaged carefully-coached students
from the independent sector. They also argued that preparation for these entrance
papers took too much time out of A Level studies. Now we seem to be contemplating
putting the clock back and creating these iniquities all over again. (4)
After all this, it is something of a relief to turn to the current debate about
positive proposals for a reform of the public examinations system. In January,
the Government launched a major review of qualifications for students aged fourteen
to nineteen, to be carried out by Mike Tomlinson, the former Chief Inspector of
Schools. At the time of the launch, David Miliband criticised those who talked
of reform in terms of the lowering of standards: ‘It is a credo suited to the
19th and not the 21st century, a credo of weeding people out of education, rather
than supporting them to succeed. Our challenge is to show that the potential of
all our young people can be realised. They will not all achieve the same;
but they can all achieve their potential’ (reported in The Times Educational
Supplement, 24 January 2003). Mike Tomlinson’s initial proposals, which
were published on the 16 July, included plans for a broad ‘baccalaureate-style’
diploma at four levels of difficulty. The entry level would be equivalent to the
standard expected at fourteen; foundation level would be the same as the lower
grades at GCSE. The Intermediate Diploma would be roughly equal to five GCSE passes
at Grade C or above; and the Advanced Level would be roughly equivalent to existing
A Levels. The Tomlinson plan did not explicitly call for the abolition
of GCSEs and A Levels, but simply presented that as one of two options. Alternatively,
the old examinations could survive as component parts of a single diploma, rather
than as free-standing qualifications. The publication of these initial proposals
signalled the start of an important debate on an English Bac. But this debate
has to be about more than the ‘scrapping’ of A Levels and GCSEs and the precise
structure of an inclusive system of diplomas from entry to advanced level. Among
the many advantages claimed for the Bac, it is argued that it will broaden sixth-form
studies, improve parity of esteem between academic and vocational courses and
lead to more young people obtaining worthwhile qualifications. Writing in
The Times Educational Supplement of the 15 August, Ann Hodgson and Ken
Spours argued that reform of fourteen-to-nineteen qualifications was not merely
about widening access to higher education: ‘The aim of an English Bac is not simply
to funnel more young people into university, but also to improve vocational education
so that more fourteen-to-nineteen year-olds will become the highly skilled workers
our economy needs. … A major challenge is to provide a curriculum and qualifications
‘climbing frame’ from fourteen-plus to motivate more young people to continue
learning, rather than dropping out.’ Back in 1990, David Miliband was one
of the authors of A British Baccalauréat, a report published by the Institute
for Public Policy Research (IPPR) advocating a new, unified system of education
and training leading to a single ‘Advanced Diploma’ or ‘British Baccalauréat’.
It is good to see that there is at least one leading New Labour figure who has
not abandoned all his ideals on assuming high office. Clyde
Chitty | 
