Article from: The Australian
Aban Contractor, London June 24, 2009

AN independent think tank has condemned Britain's once prestigious A-level examination system, saying it stymies independent study and original thought, and universities should be put back in charge of overseeing the system.

The rise of the "ersatz A-level", after radical changes in 2000, has damaged the exam's intellectual integrity, the report, A New Level, says.

"Ersatz education will only be challenged by much greater openness, transparency and honesty in the system and by the academic world reclaiming its role," it says. "Universities should be responsible for ensuring that the A-level delivers the academic foundations that they need."

The organisation behind the study, Reform, a non-party think tank whose mission is to set out a better way to deliver public services and economic prosperity, said the present A-level system had created a generation of high-maintenance students who struggled to think for themselves.

"The key change was the wholesale introduction of modular exams in 2000 which saw the quantity and cost of exams doubling," says the report, released last week. "Re-sits have created a group of students who always seek a second chance. Mechanised marking has prevented examiners from rewarding clear flows of argument, originality and flair."

The report calls for action to be taken toreconnect A-levels with their strong academic heritage and for universities to take responsibility for the quality assurance of A-levels.

"Universities should quality assure individual subject A-levels, co-operating with examination boards to develop them," the report says. "Universities should be able to veto exam boards' specifications if they are not sufficiently rigorous or do not require the right content or the development of the correct skills."

Universities UK chief executive Diana Warwick said universities would have to consider the report's proposals carefully.

"The A-level result is still one of the best predictors in measuring skills and knowledge, but is only one of a number of factors that universities take into account when selecting students," she said.

"Others include the personal statement, school recommendation and educational context, interviews in some subjects and relevant skills."

But the report's findings suggest that allsubjects have much more heavily directed questions and marking, and the frequency of tests is preventing the study of off-syllabus material.

"Exams allow candidates less scope for using their own mind, thinking through problems and expressing originality. Subject content is questionable or inappropriate in some areas due to a lack of university input."

Reform asked a team of academics to look at four of the top 10 A-level subjects - English, history, chemistry and maths - and analyse examination papers from 1951 to last year. None was involved in the setting or marking of exams.

The group also interviewed heads of department and admissions tutors from a range of universities to establish how well A-levels prepared students for further study.

"The most important change in exams over the period 1951-2008 is that sitting a mathematics A-level paper now is more like using a sat-nav system than reading a map," University of London statistics professor RA Bailey told the report's authors.

"If you read a map to get from A to B, you remember the route and learn about other things on the way. If you use a sat-nav you do neither of those things. The questions inthe 2008 paper are heavily structured in this way and the result is that students will retain very little knowledge and develop very little understanding."

The report found that specific changes in the nature of A-levels had turned the qualification into a series of limited and discrete challenges rather than overall analysis of a subject.

"The result is the creation of qualifications that have the same superficial contents but an ersatz version of deep academic study," it says.

With the introduction of mechanised marking students were now examined for meeting prescriptive criteria and reproducing what the examiner was looking for, not for demonstrating a high level of skills.

The report found there was nothing to be gained from looking beyond the checklist of assessment objectives, or thinking originally.

"Markers' judgment is no longer considered necessary or even desirable."

Might explain some teachers' dissatisfaction with the context in which they work.

Cheers, Rowan