Media headlines seem to back the government’s view that GCSE and A level have become easier and therefore are in desperate need of reform. However, evidence from one school indicates that the most significant factor in increased attainment at A level is not grade inflation but students delaying specialisation to three A levels until after the completion of AS.

A load of hot air?

Recently at Durham Johnston School, we conducted an analysis of our AS and A level data to assess the impact on attainment of the four-AS levels to three-A levels curriculum model. While we suspected that the delay in decision over courses would be significant, we were surprised by the strength of our results.

Durham Johnston has a sixth form of more than 300 students and offers A levels in 25 subjects. Besides our own year 11s , we admit students from a wide range of other local schools.

Applicants to our sixth form are asked to list their selected courses in priority order. Comparing records of this data since 2003 with their final results at AS and A level in 2011 has enabled us to model what the results might have been if students had taken just three subjects, as was normal before Curriculum 2000.

The current four-AS model provides a safety net as students make their choice of three A levels. In some cases, all four subject choices may be strongly linked to degree or career plans but in most cases this is not so. Instead, students tend see to their fourth subject as:

• a chance to develop essential skills for academia or employability such as modern foreign languages (MFL) or maths
• providing space for enrichment with students following personal aptitudes perhaps in art or music
• the opportunity to start a new subject, such as economics, politics or psychology

The fourth choice

As colleagues know, the advantage of the fourth subject option is that, if students do less well in their original first three choices at AS, they can have a rethink on which subjects to pursue to A2 – and, potentially, what their degree or career options might be. The data we collected illustrates the point (see table below):

The table shows that, at AS:

• The highest average point scores are for option 4 and the reserve subjects.
• The ranking for the average point score for options 1-4 is: 4, 3, 2, 1.
• The lower point scores are for subjects that have to ‘fit in’ (Other 1 to Other 4). 

And at A2:

• The highest average point scores are for option 4 and the reserve subjects.
• The ranking for the average point score for options 1-4 is: option 4, 1, 2/3.
• Again the lower point scores are for the ‘Other’ subjects.

	AS Point Score		A2 Point Score
	Average	StdDev	Average	StdDev
Option 1	5.59	1.36	6.17	1.17
Option 2	5.62	1.37	6.14	1.22
Option 3	5.64	1.34	6.14	1.16
Option 4	5.72	1.31	6.26	1.06
Reserve 1	6.08	1.11	6.27	1.07
Reserve 2	5.86	1.36	6.26	0.99
Other 1	5.34	1.40	5.79	1.23
Other 2	5.10	1.47	5.94	1.21
Other 3	4.92	1.55	4.60	1.82
Other 4	6.00		7.00
No options specified by student	5.20	1.35	5.00	0.85
Overall averages	5.55	1.39	6.07	1.17

The focus here is on the students who chose to take three A levels that includes their fourth preference. In our sample, that is 24 per cent of the cohort.

We analysed what the effect would be on the grades of these students if they had been forced to stick with their first three preferences to A2. The AS result they achieved in year 12 was used as the grade for the missing subject.

Our calculations suggest that students would have got -0.37 of a grade lower on average per course if they had been limited to their first three choices. Since all of these students were taking three or more A levels this means that, on average, they would have scored at least one A level grade lower in total.

Easy option?

This analysis goes some way to substantiate the anecdotal view of teachers that the fourth AS is at least partly responsible for the rise in attainment at A level so often attributed to grade inflation.

It also calls into question whether a move back to a two-year, linear, three-A levels approach is in the interests of students.

It could be argued that the current structure leads to students dropping ‘harder subjects’ such as sciences and languages after AS, and that it would be better for them to choose the three subjects they needed for progression and stick to them regardless – a two-year, linear approach.

However, we would counter this by saying that the safety net provided by the current system gives young people the confidence to be more ambitious with their options choices – particularly those moving to a new school or college at 16 who may need additional encouragement and guidance. With the AS model, students may be willing to have a go at more challenging subjects like mathematics or a science. When they have some success, they are encouraged to continue to A2.

Without that safety net, we believe, aspirations will be lowered by students playing safe with their options and it will significantly reduce the skills of undergraduate entrants.

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us