Abolition of A-levels
July 10th, 1990
A letter to the Times which was published on 10th July 1990.
James Cornford, director of the Institute for Policy Research, calls for the abolition of A-levels in favour of a single qualification at 18 for all. Here is yet one more shot in the ceaseless agitation to destroy what remains of academic education in British schools.
A levels are not “narrow”, nor are high achievers “confined to three A-levels” since many will have taken nine or ten GCSEs and the A-level general paper. In fact, of course, A-levels are not attacked because they are narrow, but because they are difficult and only a minority of people can tackle them.
In the sciences, knowledge and undersanding of the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, and the concepts and operations of mathematics, as presently covered by the A-level science syllabuses, constitute the broadest, indeed the only secure and practical foundation for absorbing and initiating technological change over a life-time’s career.
The fact that this work has been done up to now in the sixth form rather than at university is the reason why this country has produced engineering and science graduates at 21 who can hold their own academically with the products of foreign systems who are two to three years older.
Only a small minority of our population, or any country’s population, will ever have the inclination and ability to follow this path. And indeed no country’s economy will ever require more than a small minority of its workforce to be scientists and engineers. But the quality of this small minority is absolutely critical to any country’s industrial success.
No able youngster could endure the mish-mash of pseudo-courses on “careers guidance”, social “sciences”, “community-based” projects and the like advocated by Mr Cornford’s institute in its latest offering. Good students want to get on and tackle real subjects. If denied this opportunity many would drop out or go abroad to seek a decent education.
You could not find a better prescription for restless boredom and disruption in our schools than to subject 16-18 year-olds of all abilities to Mr Cornford’s prescriptions.