MINISTERS faced fresh calls to scrap A-Levels today, just 48 hours before 250,000 teenagers receive their exam results.
The centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think-tank called for a new "British baccalaureate" diploma to be introduced, with A-Levels "phased out" from 2008.
The baccalaureate should cover both academic courses and work experience and would help address the UK's high drop-out rates among 16 and 17-year-olds, IPPR said.
Last year the Government rejected similar recommendations from former chief schools inspector Sir Mike Tomlinson to replace GCSEs and A-Levels with a diploma.
Vocational
Tony Blair insisted that A-Levels would stay and ministers announced plans for a set of mainly vocational diplomas to run alongside traditional qualifications.
The Government promised at the time to review the situation regarding A-Levels in 2008.
Richard Brooks, IPPR's Associate Director, said the Government's proposals were unlikely to succeed.
"Practically all young people in the UK should now be in education or training until they are 18 or 19 years-old," he said.
Policies
"Not only are too many still missing out but current policies don't seem to be increasing the numbers of those who stay on in learning until the end of their teenage years.
"The new 14-19 diplomas will not flourish alongside an un-reformed system of A-Levels and it is time for a more radical approach."
A spokeswoman for the Department for Education and Skills rejected the think-tank's calls.
"Our position has not changed. A-Levels are here to stay," she said.
"They are valued for the depth of study they require and the choice they offer students.
"We are piloting new ways of stretching students at A-Level with tougher questions and an extended project.
"In addition, the new diplomas will offer young people real choice in what they study - 2008 is simply an opportunity to review progress on delivering diplomas.
"It is not an opportunity to re-run the Tomlinson debate.
"The delivery of the new specialised diplomas is already well underway.
"We are confident they will motivate more young people to stay on and succeed."
Sixth-formers across the country will receive their A-Level results on Thursday.
SHOULD A-Levels be scrapped? Have your say.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
'Tougher A levels questions that stretch the student' you mean like real A levels of old before the dumming down?
Absolutely Colin! GCSE are a joke as well. I recently helped my son who is 15 with some with some maths homework. He is in the top set and expected to do well, however, I was slightly appalled at the level of maths they were teaching from the current syllabus at his school (expensive private school too)! He can use a calculator as well. Bring back slide rules, log tables and the CSE/GCE system. Then when thats sorted look at A levels. Also, this A level in General Studies should be scrapped! Pointless and not appropriate for any course of study. This government again wants to make schooling easier to get more undergrads at Uni so they can massage the employment figures for school leavers! In my humble opinion. Ha....
I think there are pros and cons to the current education system. On the plus side, GCSEs and A-levels have become more about application of knowledge rather than developing encyclopaedic brains. The move away from behaviourist 'chalk and talk' teaching to a more task-oriented style will appeal to a broader range of learning styles and abilities. However, these changes haven't tackled the pressing social issues that prevent children from performing at school such as deprivation, neglect, malnutrition and being taught the basic social etiquette necessary to conduct oneself in a school environment.
I do agree that the examination structure could be improved. GCSEs particularly do little to prepare kids who intend to work straight after school. They are most definitely intended for kids who want to study further. I also think 14 and then 16 is far too early for kids to start having to make such lasting decisions about what they want to do beyond the age of 18. The baccalaureate does seem to offer a more rounded and broad education and the opportunity to study more subjects for longer.
To suggest that schooling has been dumbed down is an insult to today's students. 6 year old's are learning about AND and NOT electrical gates. 7 year olds are learning about Roman politics and Mary Seacole. The curriculum now is broader and more detailed than ever and I speak as someone with some degree of knowledge about education, having worked for an educational charity and having an ex-primary school teacher and now educational psychologist as a partner. NOT someone trotting out the same lazy rhetoric their parents most likely employed 20 years ago. Not as good as it used to be? Thank heavens for that! :P
Planet X, fair points, but its still a fact, exams are now easier! The programs like 50s Grammar School shown this. The GCSE students in this program were all in all in top flights at school, 80% couldnt pass the 11+ maths exam! Proof in the pudding. But for educational professionals that pudding is very difficult to swallow!!!!
Yes some valid points by X, but theres is no argument, well there is beut its an invalid one, that the exams of today are significantly easer that even ten, let along twenty years ago. The move away from rote learning has to be a good thing, but the use of coursework as part of the assessment is open to fraud and cheating by students/parents providing a false impression of ability. The end result is that average students are seen as high achievers wherease the genuinely talented are tarred with a broad brush and are not allowed to excel
I don't think the fact that youngsters don't perform well on exams written 50 years ago is evidence enough to suggest today's exams are easier. They are designed to test different skills and the supporting curriculum is delivered far differently than today. The world has changed much since then, including what is considered important to know. Just where is the evidence that they are any easier? A friend that works for a leading exam board presents a very strong scientific argument to the contrary and I'm more inclined to believe a well-structured and evidenced argument than claims that seem to amount to little more than media spin.
I do feel sorry for young people. We complain that they are lazy, rude and unmotivated. Then when they do well we dismiss their achievements because things were harder back in our day. Just what kind of message does that send? You can't win by doing well so you may as well not bother.
Still cant agree. I interview A Level and new graduates for positions on a regular basis. I also work as a mentor within the company to help new engineers as well. We pick the best from a poor standard of A Level students, and they are lacking in some very fundamental skills. The further training and costs to the organisation is not money well spent. They should be equipped with a sound level of knowledge to build on when they leave education, it is clearly absent from the current curriculum.
well having just takin my gcse's i find it hard to believe that they are easy! the fact that you compare the school program taking today's children into 50's classrooms and not being able to pass the 11+ doestn show that they were harder, just that the students have been taught todays ciriculum and not that of 1950's.