LATE Response to the 14-19 Green Paper (Extending opportunities, raising standards)

The following points were raised during a Committee meeting of the London Association for the Teaching of English on 16th May 2002, which considered the 14-19 green paper.

1. There seems to be an assumption within the green paper that 'subject by subject setting' is the norm, and, more than this, that it is desirable. We would question both these assumptions. Certainly within English, and, indeed, some other subjects, mixed ability classes are favoured in many schools. There is little or no research that supports blanket setting of children across subjects, and, in fact, the majority of reported studies seem to lean towards all ability grouping as the better model.

2. The notion of taking GCSEs early is more problematic than it may at first seem. Whilst it might be that certain subject disciplines might lend themselves to an 'accelerated' approach, this may not be true of all areas. English, for example, and particularly the study of literature, might well demand levels of maturity that are not commensurate purely with an 'ability' level. There are a number of 'child geniuses' who study maths to degree level at a phenomenally young age - there are certainly less who do the same in the humanities subjects.

3. We would support the notion of more choice at 14-19, and the suggested opportunity for students to undertake a combination of academic and vocational work. It certainly seems to be the case that the current provision does not cater sufficiently for the needs of all students. For students 'accelerating' through the secondary curriculum, however, we would want to ensure that the acceleration left them with a chance to have a broader range of experiences, rather than simply being asked to do more of the same.

4. In some ways slimming the 'core' curriculum would be a positive move, but we would worry about the place of the arts within school. The study of art, drama, literature and the media should be available to all students - such subjects should not become any more exclusive than is currently the case.

5. There are a number of issues around assessment that the green paper does not really address. Most notably, the move to modular GCSE course, and the idea of students taking examinations when ready, would seem to suggest an increase in the amount of assessment. With the changes at AS/A2 it appears that the examination system is already close to, if not already at, a level of overload. It is a documented fact, too, that children in the English education system are the most tested in Europe. We would hope that if modular GCSEs were really to be introduced on a grand scale, the extent of teacher assessment would greatly increase. Certainly within English, we would argue that a modular GCSE, with students taking elements of the course when ready, would be ideally suited to a 100% coursework assessment structure.

6. The question of how to test the 'more able' at advanced level is an interesting one - we would suggest there are more imaginative and subtle ways of assessing the more able than merely through the setting of extra, or more difficult, questions, on A2 papers.

7. If a final award at 19 is to be graded at level 1,2 or 3, how do these numbers equate with current Key Skills levels? Equally, do they have any connection with National Curriculum levels? Clearly the answer to the latter question is no, so would it not be better to find some grading system that avoids confusion? Even within the education system it is sometimes difficult to keep a handle on what numbers mean when they are used for assessment in so many different contexts- to the lay person we wonder whether grading the 'matriculation diploma' in this way will be helpful.

8. Many teachers work in the context of 11-16 institutions. Whilst the move to a coherent 14-19 phase is to be welcomed, it seems that particular issues arise in relation to such schools. What happens to students who have been 'accelerated'? Do they move on early, or do 11-16 schools have to provide what is currently a post-16 curriculum? If students are not ready to take GCSEs at 16 do they 'stay on' or move to another institution before taking exams? If so how does this reflect on the school's performance data? Perhaps students who have taken examinations early might go on 'day release' to a sixth form college, but this raises other issues. The green paper touches on such areas, and maybe it is not the job of such a document to provide practical solutions to such questions, but we feel enormous logistic, organisational, institutional and personal questions are raised by the ideas, and we would want to see how these might be resolved in practice.

9. Finally, we wonder how the ideas in the 14-19 paper cohere with what currently appears to be the 'competitive market' within education. For the laudable aims of the document to be realised it appears schools would need to work together extremely closely; is this a realistic goal given league tables, OFSTED, PANDAs, etc….? As well as 'big' questions about how schools within an area would liaise to provide breadth and choice for all students, there are 'nuts and bolts' questions - what, for example, is the incentive for a school to have students take SATs a year early if Key Stage 3 league tables are to be published? Wouldn't many schools wait a year so that their 'more able' students would achieve the highest possible levels? Again, such questions are probably rightly not addressed within the green paper itself, but they are unavoidable - how the ideas would work within, or necessitate the change of, the current climate of leagues table, target setting and the like, are key issues.