A strong contrast was noted between comprehensive and selective schools. Even after controlling for GCSE results, pupils at selective schools were significantly more likely to choose academic courses than vocational qualifications at 16 according to the TES.
Teaching the new A levels – Some teachers say there is now less opportunity within their subject for independent learning, particularly at AS, and are looking at ways to ensure that students still develop skills in this area. Ofsted calculates that, on average, less than 10 per cent of students’ time is not teacher-directed. Inspectors also point out that students are often positive about how much more they learn when they are required to be at ‘supervised workstations’. In several surveys, students have said that what they need most help with is time management – they find it difficult to make the move from recording what needs to be done, to scheduling their work in accordance with priorities. Students’ workloads are heaviest when they have two or more teachers for a subject, when coursework deadlines coincide and when they take subjects with similar demands (particularly essay writing). Studies indicate a significant difference in the number of hours that students spend on homework. Some teachers have found it difficult to determine the level of the AS and to adapt their teaching to the new demand. Teachers say they need to see more examples of students’ graded work to have an understanding of the level of demand of the A2 and to see results from their own students before they feel secure about the level. Many have chosen a specification because it is close to the syllabus they used previously, perhaps resulting in teaching at the same level. Previous experience of modular courses is useful in designing schemes of work, making decisions about entry for assessment and gauging appropriate teaching level. The clear assessment objectives in the specifications are helpful in planning schemes of work. Schools and colleges are responding to the teaching and learning challenges of the new qualifications by: ensuring resources are available to support independent study, including space, textbooks, periodicals, background reading, access to computers; making facilities and resources available for longer by opening them earlier, closing later and providing weekend access; devising ways of supporting students in managing their workload and the competing demands of work in different subjects or for different teachers; conducting a coursework audit to help staff and students plan ahead and avoid blockages; allowing students to become familiar with the style and level of demand of AS assessment. One school sets an assignment for each subject, assessed against AS criteria, during a specified period in the first term. This has proved popular with students as an early indicator of progress. In refining their practice after experience of the advanced level qualifications, teachers are: analysing the difference between the levels of skill and understanding needed for AS and A2, so that they can target their teaching appropriately; helping students to understand subject specifications and demands; focusing on skills, including subject-specific skills, early in the course, starting coursework earlier; exploiting links between units and between AS and A2 to avoid repetition and overteaching; creating more opportunity for formative assessment; using more team-teaching and sharing of practice. In response to large AS classes with a wide ability range and students who are less motivated towards their ‘fourth subject’, some teachers are developing the differentiation techniques used with younger students. This can help to foster an individual approach and more independent learning. Teachers have said that they will further encourage independent learning by: using the flexibility and choice available within coursework to enable students to develop an individual approach; introducing more assignment-based and research work; structuring some work as case-study or problem-solving group work; setting more project work, using it for assessment as well as learning; setting work that demands more independent learning; setting tasks that demand that students read around a subject. Independent learning has acquired a new importance in Curriculum 2000: with teaching time reduced to accommodate more subjects in the curriculum, students have to learn more of a subject on their own; with students studying more subjects, they have less time for independent study and need to use their time more efficiently. ICT can be used for independent learning.
There have been several government documents produced (e.g. the Green Paper 14-19 Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards (2002), DfES; 14-19 Opportunity and Excellence (2003), DfES; etc.). These have been referred to. Even with the latest plans until they are finalised or implemented it is difficult to say what the real consequences will be. Long term ideas are still vague. There is ongoing research.
There was too much work initially shown by poor grades resulting from ‘guinea pigs’ piloting the new system. The problems of the time pressure and complexity were reduced somewhat. The government also standardised A-levels across exam boards. A level study is all about self-motivation, self-development and independent thinking. A-level students need to learn to adapt to more homework which to a large extent they have not got before. Teaching style at A-level is more informal with more in class teaching time compared to GCSE in the proportion of time spent teaching and doing exercises. In an academic institution such as the CCHS a lot of exercises are done quickly. The dependence on calculators continues to be a problem. More logic and reasoning needs to be shown and developed. Full methods need to be given. At GCSE it is easier to prepare a student to answer more or less all the possible questions he / she may get. It is far more difficult to do this at A-level. The effect of, time taken by and contribution of coursework has an effect. The move to AS / A2 from A-level has had advantages and disadvantages. At least from the institution where I visited once things had settled down and the number of ASs had dropped from ≈ 6 to ≈ 4 results improved. Now there are those who suspect that when results improve with a new system that standards are slipping. This is not the situation at the type of top academic institution I visited. However it is difficult to be certain and objective about this nationally. The new AS / A2 course tends to be modular from the more previous linear and students can resit papers as many times as they like (the situation may be reviewed again). More time now has to be allocated to resits affecting the rest of the course. Now this resitting may explain the better results somewhat. But resitting may not always be beneficial. Comments have also been made that as a result of a course being modular, modules are naturally ‘chunks’. Now students naturally forget these chunks once they have finished them. The result of this is that with further modules dependent on the knowledge of previous ones leads to a lot more and continuous revision compared to before. This takes up time. There have also been issues raised by workload. However it is felt that the first year of the new full A-level (assuming one continues after AS) i.e. the new AS is heavier proportionately than the second year i.e. A2. Misconceptions of difficulty and poor results at the end of AS may lead to students not continuing to A2. Time is constrained. In effect there are 8 months for AS and 10 months for A2 because studies for A2 may begin in the AS year after the AS exams. In addition students may not be fully prepared for A-level study. AS students can be seen as older Year 11s. They are not as mature as when they are doing their A2. Because of the time constraints (requiring super speed teaching!) of the new system far less time can be given over to enrichment / private study / life skills or development for University compared to before. Motivation may have suffered. Teachers’ workload also has gone up. To rectify this situation the government is in effect splitting modules up with more flexibility as to when they are taken from next year. This has an effect on A-level. There will be a non-calculator based maths paper at A-level. The high workload has meant supporting students is more difficult. Equally with the general removal of ‘sixth term’ exam papers (STEPs), etc, the increased workload, the rigidity and time constraints of GCSE and AS / A2 mean it is harder and more awkward to take AS / A2s early and it is more difficult to bridge this gap with university work (even with Advanced Extension Awards (AEAs)). There are now no real benefits or incentives of doing things e.g. taking AS / A2s early. Some may feel that students now have a broader knowledge with the new changes but that they are less technically capable than years ago. The style of modern exam papers certainly helps. This reduction in technical capability is not apparent in the consistent established ‘Bac’ type system. Damage has been done to the international reputation and gold standard of A-level with the new AS / A2 levels. The new AS / A2 system has had no real effect on top institutions but has affected others quite dramatically. Also there are still weaknesses in syllabuses. For example it is possible to do Pure Mathematics and Statistics without studying any Mechanics however basic at all. Constantly changing policies and lack of stability mean it is difficult to assess how well a change has made. There’s a lot of emphasis on Statistics at A-level. In implementing certain changes planning was not good centrally. One must realise that schools plan 1 year in advance and late syllabuses of a new system don’t help. Teaching with the new system has been affected with time constraining all the time. Things are rushed. With the new system there is specifically Mathematics in A-level General Studies of approximately higher GCSE standard. There are applications of mathematics in other subjects. Further Mathematics is now better integrated (different modules from the same AS / A2 series as opposed to being treated as a completely different subject). With the new AS / A2 system administration has increased. Any changes and any implications aren’t really within a teacher’s control and all that can be done is to adapt to these appropriately and do the best possible. To analyse the effectiveness of a new policy it needs to be in place without any change for a sufficient period of time. At the moment it is too early to say, beyond what has already been said, particularly when changes are being made all the time. The long-term effectiveness and consequences need analysing. It maybe felt that in broadening the curriculum, that overall standards may have dropped. Broadening maybe antagonistic with yet higher standards. It may not be possible to do both without long-term planning. The advanced core skills are fundamental. Questions as to what extent knowledge is understood and retained may be made along with those concerning syllabus change in the knowledge and quality of knowledge they require. Locally this traditional selective grammar school (CCHS) is really a top academic institution not just locally but nationally. It is thus not nationally representative. It has not really been significantly affected at all with the changes to the A-level. Things are really done as they were done before. Here whether a student should get an A or an A* grade at GCSE is determined. Marking inconsistency maybe noticed. This may not be the case elsewhere. This may lead to a lack of confidence. It is already planned to remove a large coursework component out of a certain AS / A2 syllabus.
The following numerical data is from UCAS.
Impact of Curriculum 2000 Arrangements
The changes have been not so much in the Mathematics itself, but in the rest of the programme taken by a typical Curriculum 2000 student.
Most students are taking four AS in the first year, narrowing down to three A2 in the second year, frequently complemented by key skills. This represents an increase in workload over the years before Curriculum 2000.
Previously, many modular A levels consisted of either four or six units, only two of which were delivered in the first year. Some schools and colleges may have had difficulty in adjusting to the new arrangements.
The introduction of the November examination opportunity potentially allows schools and colleges to take more time over the delivery of AS in Mathematics.
The regulatory authorities are expected to make recommendations for improvements to the specifications for GCE A level and AS Mathematics from 2004.
The detailed arrangements for mathematics within Curriculum 2000 don’t represent a substantial change from those which applied to modular Mathematics A level in previous years. The overall content of specifications has changed little, though there have been some adjustments to the core content material, now specified in the GCE Mathematics subject criteria. The main difference is not in the mathematics itself, but in the rest of the programme that the student is taking. Most students are taking at least one additional subject in the first year of study, probably with the further addition of key skills. The arrangements for the examination of AS in the summer term have eroded the number of weeks available for teaching, putting greater pressure on the reduced time available.
The situation is aggravated in Mathematics by a change, for some, in pattern of delivery from a four-unit modular A level system or a six-unit system within which, commonly, the first two modules of modular A level Mathematics were taken in Year 12 followed by four modules in Year 13. This arrangement had been found to work well over a number of years. It is therefore doubly difficult for Curriculum 2000 students to cover the load of three units of AS during the first year of study.
One of the possible ways of tackling the resulting problems would be to deliver only two units in Year 12 and four in Year 13. This means that applicants to HE would be unlikely to be in a position to provide an AS grade on the UCAS application form, although this information might become available during the course of the admissions cycle, e.g. as a result of examination of AS units in November or January of Year 13.
The regulatory authorities have been undertaking a review of Curriculum 2000, and have included a specific review of GCE A level and AS in Mathematics in the light of the problems experienced in 2001. In the short term, the main outcome of this review has been the recommendation for the additional November AS examination opportunity but by autumn 2002, the regulatory authorities are expected to have put forward detailed recommendations to Government for improvements to the arrangements for GCE A level and AS in Mathematics with a view to implementation in autumn 2004, i.e. first AS examinations in summer 2005 and first A level certification in summer 2006. Clearly, such changes as may be recommended would not impact entry to HE until autumn 2006 in most cases, although they will affect the completion of UCAS application forms from autumn 2005. It is important that admissions tutors should have current information relating to the 2003 entry cycle.
Concerns relating to post-16 Mathematics
There has been a long-term decline in the number of people taking Mathematics as a proportion of those studying post-16.
Within Curriculum 2000, AS Mathematics seems to be perceived as difficult and more likely than some other subjects to result in a poor grade.
At present there are approximately 600,000 16-year-olds in the population of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, of whom approximately 420,000 stay on for post-16 studies. Of these, about 66,000 took Mathematics A level in 2001, but this declined to just under 54,000 in 2002, a reduction of 19%. The provisional number of students admitted to mathematics degree courses has dropped by 5% to under 3,700 for 2002 entry. June 2002 did, however, see an increase in candidates for GCE AS Mathematics from under 58,000 in 2001 to over 67,000 in 2002, a 16% increase. Nevertheless, there are concerns about the decline in registrations for entry to Mathematics A level, which is likely to affect the supply of well-qualified candidates for progression to HE for Mathematics courses and those requiring mathematical achievement. Whole areas of social sciences and sciences have become increasingly mathematical and ideally many more students should possess higher levels of mathematics qualifications. The need to close a perceived gap in the post-16 qualifications structure led to the creation of the new AS in Use of Mathematics.
While there are specific causes for concern relating to the introduction of Curriculum 2000, there has been a long-term pattern in relation to A level entries for Mathematics, which have been static, while the overall entries for all other subjects have risen substantially. The consequences are serious, e.g. it has been necessary for a number of biology degree courses to admit students with GCSE Mathematics only, even though the subject within HE is increasingly mathematical. Overall, there has been a widening gap between students’ post-16 achievement and the requirements of HE courses. Inevitably it has fallen to HEIs to make up the deficiency, but this can be an expensive, and not always successful, process and is fundamentally undesirable as an alternative to students being properly equipped from their post-16 programmes.
Within Curriculum 2000, mathematics post-16 has come to be perceived as difficult and is seen as a more demanding and risky option than other subjects where good grades may be more readily achievable. Students increasingly seem to be choosing subjects other than mathematics for strategic reasons and the entry requirements and entry standards decline correspondingly.
Take-up of A level and AS Mathematics within Curriculum 2000
Given the opportunity to increase the number of subjects in the first year of post-16 study from three to four, there was a disappointingly small increase in the take-up of Mathematics.
In 2000-1, drop-out and failure rates for GCE AS Mathematics were significantly worse than for any other GCE subjects.
Short-term measures to allow for more flexible patterns of delivery for AS Mathematics may help, but major changes are unlikely to impact entry to HE until 2006.
There is concern about the impact of Curriculum 2000 on the likely number of students taking post-16 Mathematics qualifications, and achieving them, for entry to HE programmes in Mathematics itself or in discipline areas where mathematics is either required or desirable. In the context of the broadening of the sixth form curriculum, whereby many students are taking four GCE AS qualifications in the first year, instead of three subjects as in former years, it was hoped that the opportunity to study more subjects might significantly increase the take-up of Mathematics. In practice, the increase was one of the lowest for any subject.
A UCAS report dated November 2001, giving the outcome of a survey of Curriculum 2000 provision in schools and colleges, conducted in June/July 2001, indicates an overall drop-out rate from GCE AS programmes in England of approximately 14%, but significantly less in Wales and Northern Ireland. UCAS doesn’t hold national figures by subject, but understands that, in a sample of sixth form colleges in Greater Manchester covering approximately 1,800 students, the drop-out rate for GCE AS Mathematics was 53%.
A further cause for concern was the failure rate in GCE AS Mathematics in summer 2001 by comparison with other subjects. The overall failure rate for all subjects was 13.6%. Mathematics had by far the highest failure rate – 28.6% compared with, for example, 5.3% in English, 9.0% in French, 13.0% in Business Studies, 15.6% in Biology and 19.5% in Computing. This contrasts with a failure rate for the 2001 GCE Mathematics A level (the last year of the old GCE A level system) of 10.9%. Provisional figures for 2002 suggest a reduction in the failure rate of GCE AS Mathematics to 22%, but this remains a high percentage. However, for those candidates who proceeded to take A level Mathematics in 2002, the provisional figures suggest a failure rate of only 9.5%.
As a result of comments from schools and colleges in the light of their experience during 2000-1, the Government asked QCA, in consultation with the other regulatory authorities, to review Curriculum 2000, and to include a specific review of Mathematics.
As part of the review, QCA undertook a survey of schools and colleges using a 10% sample. The following key points emerged. Many students chose Mathematics or Applied Mathematics as a fourth AS subject, but often tended to be weak at mathematics, even though their GCSE prior attainment profile was stable. Many institutions reported a reduction of teaching time to accommodate the greater number of subjects on the students’ timetable. There was also less time available for consolidation, practice and revision. Many institutions reported that there was too much content in AS Mathematics/Applied Mathematics to cover in one year; a number successfully delivered the content in four terms. Maturity was a major factor which determined how much students could assimilate in the first year of the two-year course. The halfway point in time did not correspond with the mid-point in terms of content. A significant number of students did not certificate AS Mathematics in summer 2001.
In terms of class contact time, in the academic year 1999-2000, 54.5% of centres had allocated five or more hours per week to teaching A level Mathematics. By comparison, in 2000-1, 39.5% allocated five hours or more per week teaching to AS Mathematics and 22% allocated less than four hours per week.
Of the schools and colleges sampled, 45% required achievement in GCSE at grade C or above in Mathematics for entry to an AS Mathematics course. A further 45% required grade B or above. Seventy-four per cent of centres allowed students who had taken GCSE Mathematics at the intermediate tier to enter for AS Mathematics courses, and 30% offered bridging courses to bring students up to scratch for taking AS Mathematics. Many students wishing to take AS Mathematics will only have taken intermediate tier GCSE, whereas the assumption of AS specifications in Mathematics is effectively that they have taken higher tier GCSE. The subject criteria include a list of assumed background knowledge, much of which is in the higher tier syllabus. It has therefore been suggested that students entering from intermediate tier GCSE have to undertake an amount of conversion work that is comparable to a whole unit before they are even able to start the specification itself. For such students, AS Mathematics is effectively equivalent to four units rather than three, making it a considerable burden in its own right and in comparison to other AS subjects.
HE admissions tutors, whether for mathematics or for other areas where achievement in mathematics is an entry requirement, e.g. most areas of engineering, need to be aware of the situation, and, it is known that many have been in the process of reviewing their admissions policies and entry requirements in the light of a possible shortage of students with GCE A level Mathematics. UCAS recorded a drop in applications for Mathematics for 2002 entry of over 12% at the 15 January deadline. For some HE courses, there is a significant issue if they admit students with lower standards in Mathematics in order to compensate for the downturn of well-qualified applicants from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a significant population of overseas students of very high standard in subject areas such as engineering, and further relaxation of entry standards for home students exacerbates the difficulty of coping with the disparity of standards between differing groups of students on the same course.
Responses by HE to the downturn in candidature for A level Mathematics
Mathematics departments, and those such as Engineering which rely heavily on mathematics, are faced with a downturn in applicants with GCE A level Mathematics.
Some flexibility is essential if intake numbers are to be sustained.
However, admission of candidates with lower grades or lower level qualifications, e.g. AS, GCSE, key skill of Application of Number, can create considerable difficulties.
Some HEIs already undertake the remedial teaching of mathematics – others have considered reducing the level of Mathematics in some courses or postponing its introduction to the second year. All of these strategies have their problems.
Mathematics departments in HEIs throughout the UK, and other departments such as Engineering which rely heavily on A level Mathematics, will already have had to face difficult decisions about how to respond to this situation. Where there is a shortfall of well-qualified students, only the most competitive of departments can afford to maintain their entry requirements and standards at their previous levels. Some flexibility is essential if intake numbers are to be sustained, and this might take a variety of forms such as: 1. lowering the minimum grade requirement in A level Mathematics; 2. allowing some students entry on the basis of AS Mathematics rather than full A level; 3. allowing students to enter on the basis of incomplete qualifications, e.g. having passed some units of AS/A level, but not having obtained the qualification as a whole; 4 accepting the AS in Use of Mathematics or individual FSMQs in lieu of A level/AS.
Clearly, there are serious implications in lowering the entry threshold in terms of mathematical knowledge and ability in any of the above ways, particularly for mathematics departments themselves. All HEIs will no doubt have reviewed the extent to which it might be desirable to provide remedial mathematics teaching, either prior to entry or during the first-year of study. Such measures are almost certainly necessary on a short-term basis pending the hoped-for upturn in candidature for A level Mathematics, which might take several years to achieve.
Longer-term strategies to alleviate the situation might include: 1. raising the awareness of Mathematics among young people by working with schools on projects; 2. working in partnership with schools and colleges to establish progression routes involving some mathematical study; 3. giving encouragement to applicants, and their schools and colleges, by stating that it is not essential for the AS in Mathematics to be completed and certificated by the end of the first year of sixth form study, and that other patterns of delivery such as two units only in the first year would not put the applicant at any disadvantage; 4. promoting the concept of giving credit for completion of individual AS/A level units even if the full qualification has not been awarded; 5. encouraging the development and use of FSMQs and the AS in Use of Mathematics.
Ultimately, there is inevitably a trade-off between the retention of academic standards and the need to respond to a changed market situation. It may necessary for HE to a lower threshold of knowledge, understanding the skills in Mathematics and mathematical ability, this need not threaten the quality of output from degree courses, but there is a risk that if entry standards are eased, more students may struggle through lack of the appropriate mathematical knowledge and skills, and that rates of drop-out and failure may increase.
I think I have done quite a bit of research on this topic. Infinite quotes are possible. I will give relevant quotes where necessary though. Although there maybe slight disagreements in exact figures and personal opinions, the majority of studies I have researched have common patterns and agreements. Studies researched included those reported by the QCA, Ofsted, MEI (Mathematics in Education and Industry), ATM (Association of Teachers of Mathematics), Loughborough University, UCAS, the Nuffield Foundation, IOE (Institute of Education, University of London), AoC (Association of Colleges), SHA (Secondary Heads Association), LSDA (Learning and Skills Development Agency), Bell, Shannon and Macalava (2003), in The Changing Pattern of A-Level / AS uptake in England (paper presented at the BERA Annual Conference, Edinburgh, September 2003); JCGQ (Joint Council for General Qualifications); the Guardian newspaper (UK), the BBC, the Times newspaper (UK), the Telegraph newspaper (UK) among others.
In the CCHS in 2002-2003 of 32 entered out of 90 for the year group for GCE ‘A’ Level Mathematics, 24 candidates got an A, 3 got a B, 4 got a C and 1 got a D. In 2001-2002 of 21 entered in the same institution for the same qualification and subject, 19 candidates got an A, 1 got a B and 1 got a D. In previous years 2000/2001 of 20 entered, 9 got an A, 8 got a B, 2 got a C and 1 got a D. In 1999/2000 of 25 entered, 8 got an A, 8 got a B, 2 got a D, 3 got an E, 4 got an N. In 1998/99 of 28 entered, 14 got an A, 5 got a B, 4 got a C, 3 got a D and 2 got an E. In 1997/98 of 22 entered, 12 got an A, 8 got a B, 1 got a C and 1 got a D. In terms as a percentage number of the total number in the year group and those entered, 35.6% studied maths in 2002-2003, 25.6% in 2001-2002, 22.5% in 2000/2001, 24.0% in 1999/2000, 31.1% in 1998/99 and 24.2% in 1997/98. This is a healthy uptake of mathematics and is again not representative of the situation when compared to national statistics. It is interesting to note the significant increase (10%) in those entered for mathematics as a percentage of the year group between 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. It appears that possibly curriculum 2000 at this school may have slightly increased the popularity in the uptake of mathematics, but further more long-term data not currently available is needed to substantiate this. In terms of results there is an issue. Looking at the figures above suggests that curriculum 2000 at this school has had a very good effect if standards have not dropped with better record results of late. The school is really now one of the best (state or private) schools in the country. However the school and staff are strongly adamant that while results have improved this is attributed really fully by a new and ‘better’ staff structure. Looking at this critically and comparatively, I think neither has had the whole effect, but it is probably the combination of the two ‘in symbiosis’ that has led to this. Though I have concerns myself over standards. The CCHS is not just a good school. It is outstanding. This is shown from the results of national tests and examinations looked at and an Ofsted inspection report on the school made in 2000. In this inspection report the following is shown. It has about 700 full-time students which is smaller than average. At the time of inspection in 2000 it had 27 (3.7%) students with English as an additional language which is higher than in most schools. There are zero students on the register of special educational needs. The average number of students at the CCHS per teacher is 16 which is below average. It is a selective grammar. Selection is made prior to entry to secondary school. It is therefore not and cannot possibly be nationally representative of the majority of schools nationally. It represents the ‘conservative’ selective/independent sector of education. Any problematic issues of national schools may not be shown here. The CCHS has an extremely good pastoral, careers and PSHE programme. This school is purely academic in nature with excellent extra-curricular participation.
From Inter Examination Board Statistics, QCA, et al , A level maths results have generally gone up year in year out for several years now including the advent of curriculum 2000. This has and continues to give some people worry that standards are not consistent. With record A level results this makes it more and more difficult to differentiate pupils for higher education. Those generally doing A levels for post 16 study generally continue in ‘conservative’ universities of some kind on degree courses if they continue to higher education rather than more vocational routes (if they know what they are).
There is a problem with the uptake of mathematics post 16 and the consequences therefore for higher education and thereafter. There’s a national shortage of trained mathematics teachers. Another problem is that most academic work has become increasingly mathematical. According to the MEI, the advent of modular syllabuses in post–16 mathematics from 1990 was entirely successful in halting the decline of students taking mathematics pos-16 during most of the 80s.
The ‘Qualifying for Success’ reforms, introduced in September 2000 were intended to encourage young people to study more subjects over 2 years, while also helping them to combine academic and vocational study.
Important quotes (mainly MEI) follow. I am not specifically looking to use MEI quotes, but if there is repetition in the ideas of other publications they will not be used. I am not trying to bias source relations towards MEI. It is just that there is no point repeating common patterns found in other sources. Primary evidence is of course involved.
‘A consistent finding from a number of studies has been that mathematics is harder than other A levels’. ‘The various mathematics based AS Levels are now widely seen as harder than those in other subjects. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is insufficient time for an average student to complete the syllabuses’.
‘A direct consequence of the reduction in numbers taking mathematics post-16 has been that universities have had to dig deeper when selecting their students for numerate courses’.
‘The basic problem with Curriculum 2000 is that students don’t have the time to fulfil its requirements’. ‘The idea was for students to study a broader curriculum but it requires only simple arithmetic to see that this involves a doubling of the workload in Year 1’.
‘Far from having a richer education, students are now enduring sweat-shop sixth forms’. ‘The effect has been particularly devastating in mathematics’. ‘Students no longer have the time to gnaw away at problems. Instead their experience is increasingly one of carrying out standard routines, cookbook style’.
‘A level mathematics has been modular for a long time and several syllabuses have had 6 modules for an A level, as in Curriculum 2000. However after considerable experimentation most schools found that they were better doing 2 modules in the Year 1, followed by 4 in Year 2. They are now finding themselves having to do 3 in Year 1’. This is the case with the CCHS which does P1, P2 and S1 of the OCR (felt to harder than the Edexcel looking at the textbooks) syllabus in the first year. The other 3 modules are done in the 2nd year. All A level syllabuses require P1, P2 and P3. There can be quite a variety in the rest of the options though. There is a bias towards statistics options at the CCHS though because of the gender issue and possible further study in medicine, biological sciences, etc. Dependency avoids multiple qualifications. However these rules need to be thought out carefully. Probity needs to be ensured. There may be concerns over marking.
‘At the time of writing this marks are beginning to arrive at the examination boards; the early evidence we have is that there is a substantial, measurable deterioration in students’ performance and understanding’.
‘Giving credit for single modules is the single most important step towards establishing a good sixth form curriculum’.
‘Anecdotal evidence from teachers and students throughout the year suggested that effective teaching and learning had been seriously compromised. This was confirmed by the examination scripts from June 2001’.
‘Schools and colleges predict a high drop out of students not going onto the full A level’.
‘In this country only about 10% of the age cohort take it (mathematics) after GCSE’. This is substantiated by the QCA. From the QCA ‘Elements of the 1983 core have been reintroduced and there is more emphasis on correct use of notation, algebraic manipulation, logical deduction and proof. There are to be more multi-step problems and fewer structured questions. The prerequisite knowledge is to cover expectations for the upper grades at GCSE (B-A*)’.
From interpreting from the MEI there are issues with assumed knowledge with A level mathematics and its consequences (e.g. those coming from intermediate tier GCSE). ‘The key to achieving any significant improvement in mathematics uptake lies in establishing a smooth progression from GCSE to AS Level’. There are issues over syllabuses and their content and assessment means. Schools also have funding and timetabling pressures.
‘There has been very little change in mathematics’. ‘The content has hardly changed at all’. ‘So there’s no reason to expect any sudden improvement in the quality of students arriving at university’.
‘In most subjects the AS modules have been made reasonably easy and short. In mathematics we were not allowed to do this. Uniquely to mathematics, there was already an AS core in place and this was toughened rather than relaxed for Curriculum 2000’.
‘I can’t teach properly any more. For example, I don’t have the time to explain why the derivative of ex is ex. I know I should but instead I just have to tell them to accept it’. ‘Time pressure is forcing me to move onto the next topic even though I know that some of the students have not understood this one’. ‘There is no time for any enrichment material. All we can do is focus on the sort of questions that will come up in the exam’. ‘As a result of the pressure, student depression is now a serious issue in our college’. ‘We expect 50% of our AS students to drop maths at the end of the first year’. ‘Maths is now much harder than other subjects’. ‘We can’t afford the time to allow students out to go to university open days’. ‘We have had to cut extra curricular activities, like the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. There’s just not time any more’.
‘It is entirely predictable that the mathematics of those who have taken A level is weaker than at present’.
‘Another negative effect of Curriculum 2000 is that it has caused a decrease in the numbers of students taking Further Mathematics’. According to the MEI credit for individual modules will better reflect individuals’ ability and uptake for the subject may increase.
‘Almost everywhere in the world all school students continue with mathematics to the age of 18’.
It has been mentioned to staff at the CCHS that information and material were unavailable initially. This was a problem as preparation is done in advance. This was a problem reiterated in other sources (students not having new specification textbooks, etc.)
According to a FE college in Richmond on the ATM website, the numbers for AS maths have not grown.
About 30% of candidates failed AS maths in summer 01. This contrasts to a failure rate of about 13% across all AS subjects.
QCA – ‘In certain respects the experience of Year 12 students has improved: the significance of issues such as teacher uncertainty with the new specifications, exam clashes, and expressions of frustration with being ‘guinea pigs’ is less marked in the evidence of students’ experience in 2001/02’. ‘In general, however, the time constraints and content and assessment demands, led to problems that were not alleviated with the 2nd cohort. The discontent clearly reflected that of their predecessors’. ‘The response to time constraints was to drop or reduce extra curricular activities in order to accommodate study, or in some cases, to balance the demands of study and part time work. This is supported by the national survey, where a decrease in enrichment / extra curricular activities was mentioned 102 times in unprompted comments (QCA / UCAS)’. ‘ Students reported difficulties managing the workload’. ‘Where subject specific issues were raised, this was most commonly with respect to mathematics’. ‘Students frequently reported that, contrary to their original intentions, they were stopping maths at AS and often said A2 groups were drastically reduced’. ‘Preliminary evidence from IoE / Nuffield centre visits in 2001 / 02 also indicated that there is a continued rush / congestion for AS students and no time to consolidate learning. On the other hand, initial reports from OFSTED showed that teaching of AS levels was settling down in the 2nd year of implementation’. According to Ofsted most colleges have seen an increase in the retention and pass rates for the new AS qualifications. In most colleges, however, the pass rates in AS mathematics are low. The application of number is the least well developed of the 3 key skills. ‘Year 13 students work more independently, and their increasing maturity enables them to take more control of their own learning’. ‘ About a ¼ of all students changed course or dropped an AS subject after entry into the 6th form. The main reason for this is that students had not been sufficiently well prepared for the demands of work in the 6th form and they found the challenge of taking 4 AS subjects too great. Such a reduction in breadth nullifies the main purpose of Curriculum 2000 and suggests a lack of commitment to the underlying principles’. ‘It is now the policy for AS students to return after their examinations to begin A2 work. It is not a policy viewed with great enthusiasm by all students, although they usually concede that it is to their advantage to start as early as possible on A2 work’. This is the case at the CCHS. ‘The larger group sizes, resulting from students’ choice of 4th subjects, have increased teachers’ workload in terms of preparation and marking’. ‘Curriculum 2000 has added substantially to the cost of post-16 education’. Curriculum 2000 had 4 underlying aims – broaden study, introduce greater standard consistency between and within qualification, rationalise the number of subject specifications and improve alignment between general and general vocational qualifications in order to encourage mixing of study and more movement between qualification tracks. The AS is set at a lower level than the A2 to encourage a broader uptake. Curriculum 2000 reforms have evolved as a result of reviews by David Hargreaves and Mike Tomlinson. According to IoE studies ‘There is, however, stronger evidence that learners have been able to achieve higher grades in the AS / A2 than with the legacy A levels (JCGQ) because they have had the opportunity to retake modules to improve overall grade achievement’. A lot of what happens depends on the institution. With Curriculum 2000 the volume of study should be nearer to Europe.
Students may have issues with exam scheduling, tiredness, assessment overload, exam overload, clashes, the media (standards, marking), the high-volume, the fast-paced nature, the reduced delivery time compared to A2, motivation, multiple teachers, etc. There maybe issues with accommodation, timetabling pressures, course suitability for students, study volume, pressures on teaching staff, pressures on equipment, class sizes, the availability of resources and support, etc. Year 13 students were happier than Year 12. ‘In the second year there was more time to take on other things…but the first year was a ridiculous timing situation with the amount of work required’. ‘As I was only doing 3 subjects this year I had enough time for other activities’. ‘Others commented positively that the increased demand of A2 presented a new challenge and a sense of progression’. Curriculum 2000 reforms which were described by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills as ‘the most complex changes to the examinations system that have ever been undertaken’ met with considerable problems in their 1st year of implementation and were under review just 10 months after introduction. Any attempts prior to Curriculum 2000 to broaden the diet of 3 subjects studied in depth had been vigorously resisted – the failed Higginson reforms in the late 80s and the abortive core / key skill initiatives in the early 90s. IoE – ‘some higher achieving students complaining that the AS specifications were ‘too bitty’, prescriptive and not demanding enough’. ‘There was concern that the ‘joy’ had gone out of Year 12’. ‘Interviews with Year 11 students showed that the vast majority were not making choices of 6th form provider based on approaches to Curriculum 2000, but that they mostly intended to stay at the same school and essentially accept the curriculum choices on offer’. ‘Lower attaining learners were pushed onto high volume programmes where there was considerable drop out and resentment’. ‘In selective schools and independent schools all but the most able learners found taking 4 subjects a challenge in terms of workload. This individual experience of managing this extra workload was mediated by a variety of factors including levels of expectation, prior attainment, conscientiousness and the amount of paid work done’. A levels are the norm to be the only post-16 qualification in selective and independent schools and reflects the CCHS. ‘There are marked differences between the numbers of students in the 1st year and 2nd year of advanced level courses in different institutional types’. The DfEE survey data suggests that across all institutional types there are 24% fewer advanced level students in the 2nd year than in the 1st of 2 year courses; independent schools have 3% fewer. According to the Guardian ‘Half of 16-year-olds don’t achieve a GCSE grade C or above in maths’. ‘We’ve got to see the improvements in literacy and numeracy in primary schools followed through at secondary. However, even at primary level, all is far from well. Attainment of 11-year-olds has remained at a plateau since 2000, and 25% of pupils remain below the threshold for the basic skills of literacy and numeracy’. ‘Differences in marking between AS and A2, caused mainly by a failure to pilot the A2 part of the new system, led to a crisis in summer 02, with 2000 students having their marks upgraded’. This lack of preparation and lack of piloting has been a contentious issue. A level students can now take re-sit their exams as many times as they like, although previously they could only do this once. ‘2003’s record pass rate of more than 95% at A-level will be further inflated in the future and even more quickly to a 100% pass rate’. ‘Mr Tomlinson’s inquiry into 2002’s A-level debacle found that the changes were not fully piloted, which meant that examiners didn’t know how to mark the A2 units’. P1, P2 and P3 have been replaced by C1, C2, C3 and C4. This change will start from September 04 in mathematics. There will then be two application units. This is to try to rectify the maths problem. ‘Numbers taking maths fell by a fifth when the 2 part curriculum was introduced. The number of A-level maths entries fell to 53,940 in 2002, the first full year of the new course, compared to 66, 247 in 2002. Consequently applications to study maths at university dropped by 10%. Many potential candidates had been scared off by poor performances in AS level exams’. ‘Despite the drop in numbers taking A-level maths in 2002, it remained the 3rd most popular subject. The pass rate also improved. Some 37% gained grade A, up from 29% in 2002 and the numbers gaining at least an E grade rose’. ‘The head of the top grammar school in the Guardian’s league table of A-level results (2002), Colchester county high school for girls in Essex, said the exam had squeezed out extra-curricular activities and left students less time to engage with their subjects’. ‘The raw figures of a highest-ever pass rate of 94.3% and more than a fifth of entries obtaining A grades came alive in another raft of extraordinary stories’. ‘Terry Tyacke, 76, offered a long view on the debate about whether A-levels are getting easier after passing his 29th, in social policy. “This year, with the AS-level system, it could be seen to be getting easier, but that is offset by all the exams’. ‘The boards (exam) themselves are now the subject of regular complaints. Schools in August now regularly ask for results to be re-assessed when they seem out of line with expectations. And that result can change in a result, on average, by some 10%’. ‘Their answers are bound to be superficial. Perhaps this no longer matters since some 25% of them are fated to get an A’.
I could go on and on and on over quotes. However they all generally reiterate the same ideas.
Conclusion
In evaluating this project this was not a good choice of topic to meet the brief set. It is a very complicated, vast topic to analyse fully and ‘correctly’. This is particularly the case when things are continually evolving and changing. I should not have picked this topic for the assignment. I should have picked an easier topic and been more specific in the issue I wanted to cover to give comprehensive analysis and high ‘quality’. However I did find this topic very interesting and I enjoyed studying it. Even though this topic may not be appropriate for this assignment, it is an extremely important and relevant issue, particularly with the ‘next advent of changes’, which will be radical, which I think will be announced by Mike Tomlinson in February 2004.
Any problems with Curriculum 2000 may have their origins in the 96 Dearing Review of the post-16 curriculum. There was close co-operation between the review team and the government then. This meant that when the report was published it was instantly accepted by government. There was no independent evaluation. SCAA should have done this but they carried out the review in the first place. This was in marked contrast to the Higginson Report earlier.
The effects of curriculum 2000 have been largely predictable. Less teaching time is given to each subject. Teaching has become narrower, focusing on examination requirements. Students have less time for private / independent study. Their performance in any subject is less good. Extra curricular activities have been cut back. There is increased student anxiety and depression.
Does a broader curriculum mean subjects are studied at less depth? If standards have not changed and neither the depth, then logically workload must go up if there is a broader curriculum. This would naturally suggest that attainment per subject would go down or at least initially until adjustment was made for the greater work to the same standard in the same or less period of time.
The future! Well this probably involves change. A radical shake-up of the current 14-19 provision the like of which has not been seen for 50 years is expected to be reported in February 04 outlining a 4 tier diploma to replace the current 14-19 provision. It may be welcomed by teachers. Industry may be worried about confidence, image and reputation. They may well be worried about the poor core numeracy skills. This report is to be led by Mike Tomlinson. Any changes must not be hasty like Curriculum 2000 which the government admitted was rushed through and not planned out properly. It is also expected that Mr Tomlinson will reinforce the fact the reforms to A level have only been partially successful in promoting breadth and that excessive consequential mechanistic assessment has resulted.
From the above it is clearly seen that every single school has felt some impact under the reforms of Curriculum 2000. The effect on the CCHS has been marginal. Yes its results have gone up, but the school suggests this is because of its teaching. From talking to staff and students most of the above have been confirmed. Workload has gone up, although direct pupil views are not possible because of a transition period.
In critiquing my own writing I would say it is extremely scrappy in terms of the order of the writing. The writing needed to be more logical, step by step, like a science experiment. I have a Masters degree in engineering after all. There isn’t really an excuse because I know what Masters’ level study involves. The layout and grammatical structure is also very poor. Although I feel the content couldn’t have been more comprehensive, it couldn’t have been much shorter to cover this topic ‘properly’. It does appear to be a bit too general and not specific enough. However some refined editing could have helped. There’s quite a bit of unnecessary repetition. The writing is far too long, but I feel this is appropriate to cover this topic adequately. This topic should not have been chosen for this assignment, although I have learned a lot. The style of writing is poor. I think the content is acceptable, but it is not easily read by somebody unfamiliar with this topic, which a good piece of writing should be. A good piece of writing should be easy to understand by somebody who is unfamiliar with the subject matter. This piece is not and is therefore poor. It must be very carefully read to avoid misinterpretation. To some degree this is the result of my picking foolishly a very broad (although felt to be interesting and very relevant) topic which is difficult to analyse comprehensively and ‘correctly’. I would like to study this topic if I hadn’t done it before because I would think then that I would find it interesting. However if I wrote about this again I would write about it in a different way to a higher quality I know I am capable of. However I would not do this topic again for this assignment. It is not appropriate for the brief. It is very complex and requires comprehensive analysis. Although long, I don’t think an executive summary is quite needed
In terms of the reliability of sources used, whether primary, in other words the information I got from students and staff, both verbal and written or secondary I have looked at common factors and recurring issues in all sources. I have been careful to avoid contentious areas or irregularities (please do not misinterpret), particularly in respect of exact figures. It may appear that I am biasing my sources towards MEI. This is an important source if one looked at the other sources which I used. I feel it is representative of the sources and from looking at them I would just be repeating myself.
You might say my viewpoint has given the reader a pessimistic view of the results and consequences of Curriculum 2000. However I feel most writers would generally have a negative view. However as Curriculum 2000 is very institution dependent and therefore dependent on its enthusiasm there have been positive effects of curriculum 2000. It has broadened the options available for those who have followed through with the experience. Students have referred to additional subjects and qualifications as ‘early progress indicators and a safety net’. Others have said that instead of reducing motivation, some have experienced ‘reverse’ motivation, saying that the ‘increased’ pressures of the reforms have motivated them to do better. Certainly exam results continue to rise, but how much of this is attributed to the set up and assessment procedure is questionable. Change appears to be required as the current new situation is not satisfactory. However change must be evolutionary with stability and not rushed. The problem with change is that it isn’t possible to assess whether a policy has been successful or not properly until it has been established for some time unchanged. It must be possible to assess the success as far as possible. Is the level of understanding important or the grades obtained? As can be seen the reforms of Curriculum 2000 have generally not been very successful. References used are available for inspection at any time but cannot be e-mailed. I’m having trouble e-mailing. All we can do is prepare ourselves for the future. Teachers and students have little control. Good flexibility and adaptability is needed. I need to be fully informed about new developments and best practices so I can give my best and inform my students appropriately so it is easier for them. I have limited control over government policy. I have to conform. But communication is the key with information and continuous professional development. I am very sorry for any misinterpretation. I am sorry about my writing. I never mean to offend or cause controversy in any way. Please help me when I do things wrong. I really want to learn. I really am very grateful. I am very sorry.
