Skip to main content

ABacc - a huge missed opportunity?

Stories in The Times and The Daily Telegraph suggest that the reformed GCE A-levels will remove January modules and resits, and that if students do a contrasting AS level subject (maths or a humanity), complete a 5000 word essay and do voluntary work as part of their portfolio, they will acquire an ABacc certificate which will help give them access to Russell Group universities.

It is clear that this idea borrows slightly from the International Baccalaureate and from the AQA EPQ. It is also a response to criticisms that too many students cannot write essays and that they are assessed too much on skills and knowledge acquired in the short term, rather than embedded, all round understanding of subjects. It also tries to deal with the criticism that our A-level students are too narrow in their choice of subjects. A broader curriculum would allow students to postpone key choices until later whilst providing them with a better understanding of the world.

It is a timid reform and, as usual, defers too much to vested interests. I'll explain why.

In 2000 an opportunity was missed when we moved from three A-levels to four AS-levels and three A2-levels. This barely broadened the curriculum at all. At the time many argued for something closer to the German Abitur, whereby students would study five or six subjects, thus ensuring some breadth of coverage - scientists would have to do some arts/languages/humanities and "arts" students would have to do some maths or science. This model was rejected and the lobby defending the "gold standard" A-level won the day.

This lobby consisted of, firstly, universities, whose interest was to receive well qualified specialists on their own subject areas; secondly, schools and teachers who also were happy to go along with a near status quo and thirdly conservative traditionalists in general who feared a watering down of traditional academic excellence.

What was forgotten was the students themselves who deserve an all round education. As a teacher I was well aware that some, usually less brilliant, students were happy to drop subjects and even had trouble putting together four AS level subjects. But there were also many students who reluctantly dropped subjects because their chosen university course meant they had to study a limited range of subjects (medicine is a good example).

There is an alternative which would be manageable by school, maintain a degree of depth and provide for greater breadth. Schools could offer five subjects over two years, with a terminal exam at the end of upper sixth (Y13). This would mean that students would study each subject for about 3-4 hours per week, instead of five. They would necessarily have to choose at least one contrasting subject. (It would be easy to insist on this in any case.) You could do away with "general studies" which is, in my experience, barely taken seriously by students and often considered a chore by teachers. I agree that inclusion of voluntary service is an excellent idea. A long, special topic essay could remain a possibility, but I doubt it would be necessary given the breadth a five subject programme would ensure.

Should maths and English be a compulsory part of a post 16 curriculum, as Labour suggests?

I think not. I have a bias against the hegemony of maths - the modern Latin -  since I believe that large parts of it are a waste of time for most young people and adults. But in any case, we do not have the means to offer maths to all post-16. (We barely have the means to offer it up to 16!) So there are sound pragmatic reasons for not forcing schools to offer maths and English to all at A-level. But there are principled reasons for rejecting compulsory maths and English. To do so could effectively exclude other worthy subjects, for example languages.

There may be a stronger case for including maths and English in some form of Tech Bacc along the lines of what Stephen Twigg has just suggested.

In sum, Gove's reform appears feeble, conservative and a sop to the universities. Let us be bolder, put students and their general education first.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite Ć  60 ans

Suite Ć  mon post rĆ©cent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'Ć¢ge lĆ©gal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir Ć  quel Ć¢ge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'Ć¢ge rĆ©el de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prĆ©tendre qu'il y a peu de diffĆ©rence Ć  cet Ć©gard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation Ć  Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite Ć  60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six FranƧais sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui dĆ©fend la retraite Ć  60 ans (BVA) CĆ©cile QuĆ©guiner Plus de la moitiĆ© des FranƧais jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la rĆ©forme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de dĆ©fendre l’Ć¢ge lĆ©gal de dĆ©part en retraite Ć  60 ans ". RĆ©sultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Ɖchos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majoritĆ© de FranƧais (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui dĆ©fend le maintien de l’Ć¢ge lĆ©gal de dĆ©part Ć  la retraite Ć  60 ans,