Education
Down with their alphabet!
Leslie Johnston
Effective co-operation between secondary schools in Europe would necessitate a move in this country from a three A-Level system to a five or six subject pattern, preferably with a distinction of major or minor subjects. The exact number of major subjects which a pupil would be expected to study in depth, and the exact combination of major and minor subjects which would be required for entry to higher education, are difficult questions ... (Michael Hart: The EEC and Secondary Education in the United Kingdom)
Much thought, time, and money have been spent over the last few years on suggested changes in the secondary school curriculum aimed at broadening the spectrum of subjects studied (and examined) at sixth form level. We have had many letters of the alphabet: Peterson's. ABC, then Q and F, next N and F. And no agreement is reached. There are those who wish to preserve 'excellence' and 'study in depth' (a much misused phrase); there are those who wish to use curricula and examinations (or the absence of examinations) as tools in their 'social engineering;' some university teachers are worried about a possible fall in academic standards among first year undergraduates and a need to lengthen degree courses. And no agreement is reached.
Unless there is direct government intervention and legislation, it is difficult to see how any agreement can be reached as long as the attempt is made to produce a scheme which will operate in more or less the same way for every pupil. For example, if it were decreed that all sixth form pupils were to study five subjects over two years. each at a level below that of the present Advanced Level standard, my guess is that some universities at least — in addition to Oxford and Cambridge — would introduce their own entrance examinations unless prevented from doing so by further government action; or universities would press for a four year degree course, which could not be financed; or, first degree standards would fall.
If, however, given the agreement of the social engineers, we could introduce a curriculum and examination system with flexibility, which would not require every sixth form pupil to follow the same pattern, we might be able to produce the best system for the pupils. But this would require agreement that pupils differ in academic ability and in their wishes and in their ambitions; and agreement that the best system is one which allows each pupil to achiel5e his best performance within the limits of his ability. Interestingly enough, there already exists — in past and present practice — such a system needing very little adaptation.
Before the war the examinations taken at the secondary school level were the School Certificate (replaced by GCE Ordinary Level) and the Higher School Certificate (replaced by the GCE Advanced Level). In many cases this system was not fair and no one would wish to revive it. At School Certificate level a pupil might pass in five, six, seven, or more subjects but if, for example, those subjects did not include a modern language, the pupil got no certificate at all; and similarly at Higher School Certificate level if he failed one of his three or four subjects then he had nothing to show for his twa years in the Sixth Form. But could we not at least consider returning to the system of principal and subsidiary subjects or, as Michael Hart calls them, major and minor subjects?
Under the Higher Certificate system a pupil studied either three principal subjects or two principals and two subsidiaries, and he studied all these subjects for two years. Timetabling was not necessarily complicated: in many cases the subsidiary subject was half of the principal subject; and pupils were . taught together but withdrew from those lessons dealing with parts of the syllabus not being studied. In my own case one of my subsidiaries was Latin and I was taught alongside those doing it as a principal subject for the set books and the translation from Latin, but did not attend the lessons in prose composition. A new system based on the old Higher Certificate pattern could be one in which all subjects could be studied at either principal or subsidiary level, but one in which a very high degree of flexibility could be allowed. If five subjects is the desirable number for all pupils, then there could be those offering five subsidiaries, others one principal and four subsidiaries, or two principals and three subsidiaries, or three principals and two subsidiaries. Some examining boards already have syllabuses which make use of such a pattern. One example is the subject called Economics and Public Affairs which can be done under the Cambridge Board. This can be done as an Advanced Level subject with two papers; but a candidate may do only one of the papers and if successful be awarded a pass in what at present is known as Alternative 0 level. The same board has an Alternative 0 level in the History and Philosophy of Science. Other examples can be found. If we are to adopt the principal and subsidiary pattern one could envisage .i pupil concentrating on science who would choose Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry as principal subjects, who would in addition choose (some might say be required) to do a modern language (or two) at subsidiary level, the syllabus concentrating on the reading and speaking of the language. The boy or girl doing English, History and French as principals could choose (or be required) to continue with some Mathematics or some Science, or indeed another language; and so on — there are obviously a very large number of different combinations. Quite clearly, developing syllabuses for subsidiary subjects would not always be simple (it would not always be right to regard them as half the principal syllabuses); but in some subjects it could be simple and this would mean that those pupils doing only subsidiary subjects would not have to be taught completely separately from those doing principals. One would (and I think could) hope that employers and certain professional organisations would accept as entrance qualifications, let us say, a minimum of three subsidiary subjects successfully studied (I would argue that at present many employers are asking for a higher qualification than is necessary but do •this because they want something rather higher than Ordinary Level).
The examinations of the pattern I am suggesting would be taken at the end of two years in the sixth form. I would personally like to see schools freed from the necessity of examinations for pupils aged sixteen; but arrangements would have to be made for those pupils who were determined to leave school at that age; in which case I cannot see why the present Certificate of Secondary Education could not be used. The removal of the present Ordinary Level examinations would make employers who wished for paper qualifications frdm sixteen year oldsnot only accept CSE qualifications but also realise that such qualifications are perfectly acceptable. One assumes that the universities, at least for the present honours courses, would continue to ask for a minimum of two principal subjects; I cannot see, however, why — granted the places — admission to certain other courses at colleges and universities could not be based on four or five passes at subsidiary level. Perhaps it is all too much re hope for. Of course, as Michael Hart says, there would be ficult questions," but I maintain that there would be fewer difficulties in implementing the flexible scheme I have suggested than in bringing in Q and F, or N and F, or whatever the next scheme will be; and indeed it could reduce the number of examine' tions rather than increase the number, as the other schemes might well do. All we need is the will to agree to provide a curriculum which could suit the needs of all pupils. But perhaps vve lack the will.
Leslie Johnston is headmaster of
Previous page
