I don't know much about the qualification itself, but it sounds to me like a better alternative. I have always regretted the degree of specialisation I was forced into by A-Levels. I was very much of an all-rounder at school, but because I wanted to do an English degree I ended up giving up all maths and science to do English, history and French (my sixth form college only really supported doing three A-Levels, although I wish I'd carried on with German as a fourth).

Personally, I'd hate to have to do it. I was very glad to drop maths and science as they weren't my strong points to say the least. I don't know too much about the "Bac", but don't you have to do six subjects and complete so many hours of sport/music/voluntary work? What about having time to have a life?!

I'd say keep A levels, even though they're flawed (like everything else). I also think more emphasis should be put on grammar and spelling, with marks deducted if they're poor. I guess I'm sort of old-school on this (pun not intended! )

I must confess to knowing absolutely zip about the International Baccalaureate.

As for A-Levels, I also agree about the tendancy to over-specialise, or to even allow for people with more rounded skills.But then I also have a problem with an education system based around the attaining of certificates rather than actual education. We spend more time learning how to pass exams than we do actually learning. A more fluid education system, where you are graded as you go along (say, you must demonstrate knowledge in this, this and this to attain grade 3 maths) seems to make more sense to me.

I do think that most of qualifactions in this country (and in truth, worldwide) are based on outmoded concepts, like bell curve distribution of grades.

Well, I would have hated the bac as I was not what you could call an "all rounder" at school. I would not have liked being forced to continue with subjects I was not good at (and would therefore lower my overall grade) and the voluntary work I have heard about sounds crap... doesn't seem to me like you'd be 'volunteering'. I think I may have ended up leaving school at 16 rather than continuing to HE as the bac would have scared me off sixth form studies far more than A-levels.

That's just me though.

---

by halojones
I'd say keep A levels, even though they're flawed (like everything else). I also think more emphasis should be put on grammar and spelling, with marks deducted if they're poor. I guess I'm sort of old-school on this (pun not intended! )

---

A-Levels do have spelling and grammer marks on them, but I think this is a waste of time. Either the marks are so insignificant that it gives no incentive to improve spelling and grammer, or you put a ridiculous weight on it thereby penalising gifted candidates in subjects where it is of far less importance, such as the sciences.
Apart from anything else, if a spelling and grammer is poor by the time someone has reached A-Levels then there is something seriously wrong with the education system.
Oh wait...


Many of you have mentioned specialisation as a drawback of A-Levels. There is nothing in the structure of A-Levels that prevents a broad curriculum, though of course that does not preclude problems of timetabling at specific institutions.
I myself have A-Levels in chemistry, maths, further maths and english, which was no barrier to my studying english at uni.

*It Briefly occurs to Demona that she actually only got one university offer* Um, or maybe not. Make of that what you will.

---

by Jayjay
We spend more time learning how to pass exams than we do actually learning. A more fluid education system, where you are graded as you go along (say, you must demonstrate knowledge in this, this and this to attain grade 3 maths) seems to make more sense to me.

---

I agree with the gist of what you're saying. I would go even further and say that there are some things that should be taught but not necessarily assessed at all.
Be careful, however. Demonstarting knowledge mostly only demonstrates a good memory. It's the application of knowledge that makes it education rather than instruction.

mmmmmmmmmm i'm sure i've always been told that our post 16 qualification system is the envy of the world and carries much more weight than most foreign qualifications. Why change that???

It seriously bugs me that every year you get the "A levels are getting easy" arguement - and then you get the debacle that is this years encouraged down grading. Hasn't anyone thought that maybe teaching methods are getting better and therefore standards are increasing????

or maybe all kids in this country are stupid! Lets face it, that seems to be what they are encouraged to believe

(Edited by Sydney 29/09/2002 01:12)

Demona, by demonstrating I meant to imply not the regurgitating of information but evidence of the correct use of that information. Possibly through a teacher just observing the continued correct use and application the grade could be awarded. No exams, no coursework. Just continued learning and evaluation.

International Baccalaureate Try saying that when you're drunk...quickly...ten times!

Sorry that wasn't a very intellectual post

---

by Sydney
mmmmmmmmmm i'm sure i've always been told that our post 16 qualification system is the envy of the world and carries much more weight than most foreign qualifications. Why change that???

---

Well, people like to think that. Doesn't necessarily mean it's true..

---

It seriously bugs me that every year you get the "A levels are getting easy" arguement - and then you get the debacle that is this years encouraged down grading. Hasn't anyone thought that maybe teaching methods are getting better and therefore standards are increasing????

---

Well, to be honest, no, or if they are that's certainly not the whole story. When I was studying maths at A-level, we were in the first year of a new curriculum. In the absence of any past papers for it, we had tests with past papers from the previous one. Firstly, there was a lot of stuff there that we had no clue about, because the scope of the course had been narrowed, and so we skipped it. What was left, the questions were a lot harder than we were used to or got in the final exams. A similar thing happened in physics, although that was largely down to it being a modular course (which, incidentally, our maths teacher refused to introduce, because it was 'too easy' ). So, in some of the courses I studied, yes, A-levels were demonstrably getting easier. I ended up getting an A in maths without having to try very hard, and while, without wishing to boast, I'm aware that I'm very good at the subject, surely a course which is the envy of the world should stretch even the very brightest students?

This is also, of course, related to the first point. Because we seem to have a superiority complex about A-levels, people are especially worried if there is any sign of them getting easier.

---

or maybe all kids in this country are stupid! Lets face it, that seems to be what they are encouraged to believe

---

Well I certainly wasn't. It's more that it's very hard to believe that kids are getting cleverer year by year.

---

by Jayjay
Demona, by demonstrating I meant to imply not the regurgitating of information but evidence of the correct use of that information. Possibly through a teacher just observing the continued correct use and application the grade could be awarded. No exams, no coursework. Just continued learning and evaluation.

---

I'm sure the teachers would be thrilled to have all this extra paperwork thrust upon them.

Seriously, this is exactly what a lot of coursework I did was like. It was marked by teachers and counted towards our grade fairly transparently. However, they did have to send some papers out for external assessment to check if they were marking in a similar way to everyone else, and I think this is a necessary thing. Not all teachers are capable of objectively assessing the performance of their pupils.

Actually, what I am suggesting should mean a lot less paperwork. And while I take your point about assessment, you were still aware of this work counting towards some final grading. This causes a lot of stress for some students, which can alter their performance.

What I am suggesting is that there is no formal assessment. Rather, when a teacher is satisfied that a pupil has attained a suitable level of knowledge that they be marked as having reached that grade. It could even be used to be more specific than the current system. You could have a student with, say, Grade 4 Algebra, Grade 3 Geometry and Grade 5 Arithmetic, instead of a generic Maths evaluation at the end of the course (GCSE or A-Level).

Also, the use of grades (1 being the most basic level, and then incrementing accordingly with knowledge attained) makes learning open ended, instead of crude A to E valuations, which have no true comparability across years or even exam boards.

As for evaluation of the teachers, this should be done as part of the school being OfStEd-ed. The teacherÂ’s ability to judge a pupilÂ’s attained knowledge should be observed then. But then the whole process of OfStEd examinations needs to be looked at and restructured, from its current aggressive, intimidatory approach. But thatÂ’s a whole other discussionÂ…

I don't have an opinion on this really as I never fif A-Levels. In Scotland we have Standard Grades(which are the equivalent of O-Levels I think) which are made up of 8 subjects which you choose at the beginning of your third year of high school. You spend 2 years on your SG's which are made up primarily of 1 or 2 peices of coursework which are to be completed throughout each year, an exam at the end of each year(the first exam is to check you are in the correct grading{Credit, General or Foundation} and are understanding what you are taught, the second exam gets you your final mark) and about 20% of your final mark is from continual assessment.

When you finish your SG's you have the choice to stay on at school for 5th year and take Highers. You can only take Highers in subjects that you have passed a Standard Grade on and you are only allowed to take them if you got a Credit Grade in that subject. You can also take a 1 year module to make-up your Standard Grade to an acceptable level so that you can do the higher the year later or you can sit a 2 year higher module which gives you more time to learn the subject(however you cannot gt higher than a C grade). Highers are more or less structured the same as the Standard Grades but the work is far more difficult and you go through things much quicker.

Standard Grades I found relativley easy and got 2's(a Credit Grade) in every subject except French. Highers I found slightly more difficult even though I did revise for them slightly(to be honest probably not enough) and I managed to get C's in all the Highers I took.

I don't exactly know how A-Levels work but I think the scottish method seems really solid. Even the people at my school who were really intelligent had to work hard to get the grades they deserved.

So does this sound like a better system than A-Levels or is it much the same?

---

by Jayjay
Actually, what I am suggesting should mean a lot less paperwork.

---

I don't see how. Records have to be kept, whatever system you use. Continually assessing students means continually updating those records, and the responsibility for it would now rest on the teachers rather than the exam boards and markers.

---

And while I take your point about assessment, you were still aware of this work counting towards some final grading. This causes a lot of stress for some students, which can alter their performance.

---

Not always negatively. Being the lazy so-and-so I am, I pretty much need pressure and deadlines to get me to do anything at all.

In any case, it would count towards a final grading, just in a less clearly defined manner. Under this system, universities would still expect certain grades before you could start their courses. If you want to go to the college of your choice next September, therefore, you need to achieve those grades. For sure, you could take another year in further education to try and reach the required level, but nobody would want to, just as nobody wants to have to resit A-levels now. Seems to me that this could easily result in pupils who are prone to stress simply being stressed the entire time.

---

What I am suggesting is that there is no formal assessment. Rather, when a teacher is satisfied that a pupil has attained a suitable level of knowledge that they be marked as having reached that grade. It could even be used to be more specific than the current system. You could have a student with, say, Grade 4 Algebra, Grade 3 Geometry and Grade 5 Arithmetic, instead of a generic Maths evaluation at the end of the course (GCSE or A-Level).

---

But what would be the point? Firstly, such specific grading wouldn't help you get into college, and it wouldn't help you get a job. Nobody cares if you've reached a Grade 3 in Geometry, and if they did, they'd devise their own tests to make sure that you really did have that knowledge. Secondly, it would go out of date very quickly. I can't remember half of what I studied when I was 17. I've no doubt I could pick it up again fairly quickly if I needed to, but essentially, any piece of paper saying that I had a particular piece of knowledge would be a lie, because I no longer do.

---

Also, the use of grades (1 being the most basic level, and then incrementing accordingly with knowledge attained) makes learning open ended, instead of crude A to E valuations, which have no true comparability across years or even exam boards.

---

Somebody has to decide what level of knowledge would be sufficient for each grade. It seems very likely to me that it would be the same people who currently work for the government and the exam boards deciding those things for A-levels, and that the same continual changes and arguments over standards would continue.

And I don't think true comparability across years is ever going to be possible. Methods change, the available tools, especially in maths and science subjects, change - I have no idea how to use a slide-rule, and people who studied maths 30 years ago might well have no idea how to use my graphical calculator. New subjects are introduced and others become much less popular - do you really want to try comparing a qualification in latin with one in media studies? etc.

Right, I have had a thought which moves somewhat away from the original topic, but since we're already talking about theories of education...

I have never believed much in the relevance of education to the workplace.
A-Levels are relevant to university because it is the continuance of academic discipline and the resulting degree and knowledge may be relevant to some careers, such as scientific research, medecine or law (although, if one can do a one year conversion course in law, what else essential is being learnt in the other two/three years at uni?).

I've said it before, the point of education to encourage thought and the information gained during education is rarely of use in of itself. I may consider someone's life poorer for not having an intimate knowledge of Shakespeare's life and works, but I am equally well aware I will never need to know that the first Globe burnt down when, during a performance of Henry the eighth a canon was fired, setting fire to the roof... In any case, whatever benefit there may be from cultural enrichment, one can only force the information on students, not the benefit from love of a subject.

Is it a mistake to split the curriculum into academic subjects at all until, say, 16 years of age? It was only at A-Level that I really began to understand any of the subjects I was studying.

The IB has a compulsary section titled 'theories of knowledge', to bring this somewhat back on topic. Children should be taught the tools of thought, and then put them into practice in several of the conventional subjects.

Perhaps this is a rather silly idea, and I've no idea how it would work in practice. I do know that there is little communication between subjects, or appears to be from what is taught at undergraduate level. The primary tools of history, philosophy or the sciences remain within their own disciplines when they can be of great use to each other.

Milky, about from the fact that most highers are done in one year while A-Levels are done in two, there is little or no difference between the Scottish qualifications and those used in England and Wales. For the most part they're are fine, but to my mind have the same flaw - the end is the qualification, not the education.

Dan, your missing my point mate. All your concerns are about how this would apply to getting into college or getting a job. As you have suggested, and Demona has said outright, education has almost no use in vocation. Apart from basic maths and english, what exactly do you learn at school that you need to be a bricky or to work in a shop? Even a technical job like mine, Almost all of it has been learned here. All that I needed before hand was basic maths, english, and an analytical mind. Should we reduce our curriculum to Maths, English, Analysis and Foreign Languages (although it's debatable how essential they are)?

My whole point is based on trying make education the means and the end. Whether the skills are lost, are needed or just lead to a more well rounded society, education is essential to a truly cultured society. Placing the emphasis on qualifications to see if you are fit for college or a job is clumsy and misleading. It makes more sense to me to concentrate on encouraging interest in subjects, supplying the means for the children to gain the knowledge and to understand the application, than creating crude qualifications of dubious use.

On paperwork, no, there would be no need for greater paperwork. Remember, no examination, and no coursework. What would be required would be for the teacher to spend time observing in class what skills the children have, and when they are convinced that a child has reached a certain level, fill out the necessary form. This would replace the current system of preparing for exams, mocks, setting and marking course work, SATs, the lot. Now tell me this system means more paperwork? Surely it means teachers will spend more time on actual teaching and far less on paper work.

The point of grading on a more specific level is that it is a clear method of showing where a child is lagging. You have a child with grade 5 in spelling, essay writing and grammer, but grade 3 in Oral, it doesn't take much to realise that there is something holding the child back in this area and to try and address it. This would also be much easier to communicate to parents and teachers in following years, than a set of notes kept by the teacher.

Comparability. No, there is no way to have true comparability across a generation. However, the current system means that there is no true comparability between my grades and yours. Between two people 1 year apart. Between two people of the same age but who sat exams from different exam boards. Now, surely just because we can't get comparability across two seperate generations is no excuse for doing better than we are now? By asking teachers to ascribe a pre-specified grade level to a student once they have demonstrated understanding and application of a level of knowledge would make that difference. Yes, as knowledge changes so the grades will change, but this will be a slow, gradual change, instead of a yearly battle. And I'm not talking about comparability across subjects. If we both have an A at GCSE maths, there is no true comparability unless we took that exam in the same year and with the same board. I also fail to see what changes in teaching methods and tools matters. If a child knows that 2+2=4 then they have the same level of knowledge, whatever the tools and methods were. This would also mean we wouldn't have the current smoke screen over standards. Either a child had a specified knowledge or they wouldn't. With exams and course work you are left with a crude qualification that is almost impossible to tell what exact standard has been applied.

Now, I'm going to read up on the International Baccalauriate so that I can actually try to post on subject...