What is to be done?

In my last post, I expressed my antipathy for the IB, whilst at the same time accepting that A levels, as they stand today, are far from perfect. Subsequently, I got to thinking about what it is that I dislike about A levels, and what might be done.

On reflection, it turns out that there is only one aspect of the current A level system that I really dislike, which is its modularity. All A levels are split into either 4 or 6 ‘bite-sized’ chunks, each of which students can study, sit an exam in and then move on. This was introduced with the best of intentions; to maintain student interest and focus throughout the year, to allow students an early opportunity to assess their standard and to give students a qualification after one year of study, therefore increasing flexibility and allowing more subjects to be studied.

These benefits, however, have come at a price, which is an inability to ask questions which cut across module areas. In some subjects this probably doesn't really matter - in History, for example, an inability to compare Hitler and Henry VIII probably isn't a huge loss (although I stand to be shouted down), but in the three subjects in which I have a personal interest (Economics, Business Studies and Maths), modularity is definitely a problem.

Of the three, Economics is the subject where there are the fewest problems (even so, I enter my own students for an exam board which is effectively non-modular), simply because there are certain underlying principles and approaches which always apply to any area. Nevertheless, the split which most exam boards make between micro and macro-economics is limiting because no exam paper can include questions which touch on both areas. The real world, however, makes no such distinctions – any discussion of (for example) rising oil prices should obviously involve both micro (the market itself) and macro (the impact on national and global economics) elements.

In Business Studies, modularity is faintly absurd. How are students to be tested on marketing, the integrating function of business, in a module that specifically excludes most of the other business functions and knowledge of the external environment in which businesses operate? How can one understand operations management divorced from sales and economic forecasts? Obviously it is possible to study business in such a way, but it is hardly satisfactory.

This is nothing, however, compared with the problems which afflict Maths. For Maths, modularity is an abomination, a cancer which strikes at the very heart of the subject. When I work with my students on Oxbridge entry, I will frequently look explicitly at the application of pure maths and statistical techniques to economics (something that the A level itself excludes). Time and time again Further Maths students are unable to apply techniques such as basic calculus and geometric series to simple economic scenarios.

Once I was flabbergasted and frustrated. But now I understand. These topics all form part of the modules taken in the students' first term of study. This creates two problems. Firstly it was all a long time ago – they have moved on to more specialist topics in calculus - by the time I start wanting to use the techniques, they have essentially forgotten them all. Secondly, because each module contains only certain specific topics, the range of questions which can be asked is very narrow – students know exactly which techniques and approaches will be needed, because they are the only ones that they have been taught for that module. Hence when presented with a real-world scenario which requires maths-based skills, but where they don't know for sure which ones, they are flummoxed.

As someone who loves maths, I find this utterly depressing. In my own (non-modular) A level, I loved not knowing which techniques were required in exam questions – it was a puzzle that had to be worked out – a genuine intellectual test. A levels have been criticised by some for creating a “sat-nav” generation, and whilst this is perhaps a little harsh, I understand clearly what these critics mean.

So, what is to be done? For me, all that is required is an end to modularity. This would give greater freedom over how the course is to be taught and would allow students to be set more interesting challenges in exams, which should in turn discriminate between them better. I am not alone in this, and a new qualification has been launched with these goals in mind (the Cambridge pre-U), one which logically I should therefore like very much. The pre-U has done away with modules, and reverted to the twentieth century world of final assessment after two years.

I have, however, two reservations about switching horses away from A levels. Firstly, the pre-U is a new and elite qualification, with only a handful of the very best independent and state schools offering it. Until we can see how the exam is working and how it is marked, it would be a disservice to students to use them as guinea pigs. Secondly, there has been some criticism that the actual course material is ‘antediluvian’, failing to reflect developments in subjects over the last twenty years or so. Although this is not true in economics, where the course content looks strong, in business and management, the course looks very traditional (and I mean that in a bad way!).

So, perhaps in a few years I will be offering pre-U economics. It addresses my criticisms, and if it works, it could prove an attractive option. Alternatively, if the pre-U starts to gain market share, perhaps A levels will be reformed, reining in some of the worst excesses of modularity and reasserting their ‘gold standard’ status. My gut feeling is that there is going to be major turbulence in independent education over the next few years. We live in interesting times.