Magazine article The Times Higher Education Supplement : THE

Recalibrate with Care

Magazine article The Times Higher Education Supplement : THE

Recalibrate with Care

Article excerpt

Reform of the high-stakes A level is an inherently risky business, says Mary Curnock Cook, who sees the value in a number-based scale.

Making A levels harder, which appears to be the government's policy, will depress demand and achievement.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless new generations of youngsters, obliged to stay on in education until they are 18, decide to flock to the vocational qualifications that provide a much narrower base for progression to higher education.

Or unless you are a parent, in which case you may be secretly hoping that the reforms will come only after your youngsters have secured their places at university.

The consultation on A-level reform published this summer by Ofqual, the qualifications and examinations regulator, raises interesting questions about the purpose, content, assessment and grading of A levels.

For example, does the fact that 34 per cent of candidates who study A- level chemistry achieve grades of A or A mean that it is easier than psychology, with its mere 18 per cent at A or A?

Standards and comparability are important. With such wide variations in subject performance, and with the Russell Group publishing its own list of "facilitating" A-level subjects, perhaps only root-and-branch reform will do.

But as well as the usual learned squabbles about content in various subjects, reform requires the application of deep assessment expertise. A consultation that does not discuss the popularity of subjects such as psychology or media studies (both of which are ahead of physics, geography and all languages) isn't getting to the heart of assessment issues.

Stepping aside from the polarising arguments about "real" or "Mickey Mouse" subjects, is it acceptable that the awarding bodies apparently cannot balance demand, assessment and outcomes between the two keystone subjects, English and mathematics? Just what is it about the assessment of English at A level that means that 7 per cent of candidates achieve A , where 18 per cent achieve purportedly the same standard in mathematics? Is it because the attrition rate between AS and A2 is 50 per cent higher in mathematics than in English, thus upping the concentration of higher performers? What is the correlation with prior GCSE performance? Or is the assessment methodology flawed?

Incidentally, the attrition rate between AS and A2 across all subjects is 28 per cent. The value of more than 300,000 AS qualifications held in each cohort without the matching A2 is not discussed in the consultation. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.