What’s an Advanced British Standard, then?
David Kernohan is Deputy Editor of Wonkhe
Tags
Rishi Sunak wants to scrap A levels (has he been reading Wonkhe?)
It’s a deft demonstration of the way the Overton Window can shift surprisingly quickly. It’s not too many years ago that A levels were a sacrosanct “gold standard” to be defended at all costs.
To hear the proposal greeted with cheers at Conservative Party Conference must have jibed oddly with party stalwarts like Michael Gove. Back in 2012 his reforms of A levels, ostensibly driven by universities, saw changes that included a new emphasis on open ended questions and encouraging independent study. A levels would, once again, be fit for purpose.
The Advanced British Standard seems informed by a close study of post 16 curricula around the world. The UK has always been an outlier in allowing for early specialisation, with young people in most other countries studying a range of subjects (including maths, their home language, and both humanities and sciences to age 18). The other major influence is the modern focus on vocational education – elements of the employer-led T level approach (surely now the Liz Truss of vocational qualifications).
Under the new plans young people in England will study a range of subjects at both “major” (equivalent to more than 90 per cent of the current A level syllabus) and “minor” levels. There will be a choice of subjects, as now, but these must include English and maths in some form (either as a major, a minor equivalent to the current “core” offer in maths, or as a level 2 qualification for those who don’t have them.
Majors can be vocational or academic – and both may include double majors. Vocational components would be based on current and incoming T levels, so would include extensive placement opportunities. It is expected that the standard diet would include the equivalent of three majors and two minors (with a “higher” offer of three majors and three minors, and a “higher occupational” requiring a double major occupational specialism, plus another major and two minors).
All this would mean more time in class with a teacher – up from around 1,200 hours currently to more than 1, 475 – which would require more teachers. An expansion of bonuses paid to teachers (including, for the first time FE teachers) in shortage subjects for the first five years is part of an initial down-payment on this aspiration.
If you think back to Gove’s reforms of A levels, you will recall that these changes were driven by what were perceived to be the principal end-users of academic level 3 qualifications – universities (it was, in fact Mark E Smith, then at Lancaster University, who was most closely associated with the development of the first wave of new curricula). Though higher education providers will be consulted and evidence gathered, it does not feel like the same central role is on offer this time.
This is more clearly visible in Sunak’s crowdpleasing lines on a knowledge-based curriculum – universities are far more concerned with building skills and the ability to learn independently – on this basis more teacher time and a further focus on knowledge (witness Nick Gibb’s guest verse on “knowledge-rich” curricula) feels a little like a step backwards here.
To be clear, major qualifications reform takes time. Gove took eight years, and Sunak’s aids are briefing that this is a decade-long endeavour. That said, we can expect a formal consultation later this year and a white paper next year – initial decisions will come thick and fast during the final year of this parliament.
If you were wondering, there is nothing here about university admissions – perhaps a surprising omission if we recall we are talking about a system where for nearly half of students university admission is the next step from a level 3 qualification. Everything from points-based offers to subject coverage expectations will need to be rethought, both by higher education providers and professional bodies.
It is tempting, given the current political climate, to see the Advanced British Standard as a desperate legacy move from a Prime Minister who’s legacy currently looks like it will amount to leading his party to their biggest defeat in recent history. Although these proposals may not happen, it would be unwise to bet against a long-expected broadening of level three curricula. If it is done right, it will be transformative.
Is No.10 really so unaware of political sensitivities that nobody thought it worth questioning why a scheme that applies only to England is called “British”?
I refer you to GBR – Great British Railways (England only, and not London or Merseyside…)
being a student of history, worth reflecting perhaps on the debacle that was the 14-19 diploma – canned immediately the incumbent government lost the general election. perhaps this parrot is dead?
That seems to be the dominant interpretation (though they have an election to lose first….). Ideas have a funny idea of persisting though – I’d predict some kind of KS4 refresh in the coming years and these plans may influence that.
Dear David,
You say that Sunak’s proposal for BSSs ‘seems informed by a close study of post-16 curricula around the world’ but a quick look over the border at Scotland – apropos the complaints above about the usual English cackhandedness in omitting other supposedly constituent nations of the UK – would have shown the very similar scheme of 5 ‘highers’ for university entrance in Scotland at 17, allowing for the foundation first year denied to most English and Welsh undergraduates. This has worked effectively since the introduction of the Scottish Leaving Certificate in 1888 to encourage more school leavers in Scotland than in England and Wales to move to HE and FE. Indeed, ‘Post-16 Education’ has been advocating this approach for many years with the proviso that the redesign required be undertaken by school, college and university teachers through their subject associations and in consultation with their students through an exercise in what we have called ‘democratic professionalism’. As it is, it is easy to see from your very clear account, that ‘major’ ABSs will be chosen by so-called ‘academic’ applicants to so-called ‘elite’ Higher Education Institutions while ‘minors’ will replace T-levels for entry to so-called ‘technical’ HE, to FE and to ‘apprenticeships’. This will preserve the selection predictable also between A-levels and T-levels, selection being inherent to the English system dominated by its private schools and antique universities. As the great Scots poet Hugh MacDiarmid said in his epic ‘A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle’: ‘British is too nigh brutish’!
Patrick Ainley, Editorial Board Member ‘Post-16 Educator’.