David Willetts responds to the A level results

On Tuesday we asked you how David Willetts, Shadow Education Secretary, should respond to today's A level results. He has sent us the following response:

"I read with great interest the comments posted on Conservative Home about our examination system. With the release of A level results today, I thought that I would respond with my own view.

These are excellent results and we congratulate students for what they have achieved. These are real exams which place real demands on students and their success is genuine and hard-won.

It is good that the number of A-level entries has increased, broadly in line with the number of 18 year olds. However, it is worrying that there is a further serious decline in the number of pupils doing science A-levels and the percentage of students taking maths is still well below the levels of 2000.

Students are working as hard as ever but the exam system needs to work harder to keep pace. It needs to do better at providing the information Universities and employers need to identify the students who are most suitable for them. That is why there is a case for an A* grade and for giving Universities access to numerical marks.

We need to break out of the stale debate about whether standards have declined. Students are undoubtedly as bright and hardworking as ever. What we owe them is a serious debate about how our exam system can best meet their needs and the needs of the nation.

Today is the day to celebrate the success of students, not to denigrate their achievements."

I think he wins the mug.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[Michael McGowan]

You can't on the one hand say that there is a "stale debate" about declining standards and then claim that you are interested in creating an exam system that best meets the needs of pupils and the nation. The two issues are different sides of the same coin. So spare us the patronising platitudes and the ritualised genuflections to the education establishment, David. Some of the rest of us have brains (and schoolage children) too.

[Mark Fulford]

First, David Willetts was well over 100 words, so no mug to him.

Second, why single out universities to get the actual marks? Where’s the logic in that? Don’t employers, and students themselves, deserve the same raw information? It would be far more sensible and informative to wipe out the A to E letter bands (and consequent borderline problems) and simply award percentages. I'm sure the nation could adapt!

[Stuart]

If footballers improved to the point of scoring fifty goals a game, would it make sense to make the goal smaller. If students are achieving better results under a system that has maintained a level standard, surely the exams need to be made harder? There is no need to introduce an "A*" grade.

[EML]

Students do get a full breakdown of their marks, at least I did when I took A-Levels four years ago. I got absolute marks for all the modules I took, which was somewhat annoying when I learnt that I missed out on a higher overall grade in two subjects by only a handful of marks; and I was able to identify the module/s that were to blame.

Universities don't get a breakdown when applications are made; indeed they don't, as far as I know, get any solid grades, only predictions from teachers. There has been talk of delaying applications so the universities are able to get solid evidence of ability, which seems to be a good idea. Have there been requests for a full breakdown to become available to universities, to allow them to let off a student for one or two marks lost here and there? I'm not convinced that this would be the best move.

Individuals are, of course, at liberty to divulge all details to potential employers, although it would take up a lot of room on a CV that would be better used talking about more interesting things like practical skills one would be able to contribute to the workplace.

[Denis Cooper]

"Students are undoubtedly as bright and hardworking as ever."

Actually I wouldn't question that generalisation, because I don't suppose that there's been any significant decline in average natural ability and at various stages it's seemed to me that if anything my children were expected to work harder and longer than I did when I went through the same stage.

However I doubt that the efforts of schoolchildren bear as much fruit now as they did forty years ago, and so do employers and universities. Being just as bright and working harder doesn't compensate for a poorer education system.

[EML]

On the more general subject of schooling, I think it is almost universally accepted that exams have been dumbed down to a certain extent. Numerous retakes are allowed, multiple choice questions are becoming commonplace, and the volume of coursework is outstripping the value attributed to sitting exams.

It does seem to be the case that the socialists have won. Students with more practical ability than academic are being rewarded more easily for sub-standard academic work, without being challenged much at all in the practical (vocational) department. In the meantime, those with the opposite affliction (i.e. more academic ability than practical) are not being stretched by the courses on offer (hence the ballooning number of top grades).

I don't pretend to be an expert, and I can only go on my own experiences, which are now four and more years old. When I was going through school there was very little outlet for the practical spark which exists in everybody to differing degrees. We had technology classes of various sorts, such as woodwork, electronics, and stitching, but that was about it. Most of us were expected to go through school doing any subject that got us the grades to go on to university. And I can understand why truancy rates are rising: a lot of youngsters want to get on with their lives, instead of being imprisoned in non-effective, anti-vocational comprehensives for any longer than is necessary.

Schooling has become too constricting, unified and one-dimensional, with no possiblity for any alternative other than putting in the long years for a bunch of GCSEs and A-Levels that don't teach or represent much practical ability, other than being good at passing exams.

[changetowin]

Really interesting statistic out of all this is:

A-Grades
England: 23.8%
Wales: 23.9%
NORTHERN IRELAND: 32.4%

Northern Ireland's education system is by far the best in the UK. It not only produces the best academic results, but also adds to social cohesion. Religious difficulties aside, Northern Ireland's class structure is remarkably integrated. Queens University is almost exclusively made up of state school pupils, because middle class parents in Northern Ireland do not feel the need to escape the state sector. Having the middle classes with a stake in the system benefits all.

Lessons:

1. Labour were short sighted to abolish grammar schools in the 1960s; social mobility and academic achievement has declined as a result

2. Efforts to abolish grammar schools in Northern Ireland (at the whim of a terrorist and against the will of the Northern Irish people) should be resisted

3. Since the return of grammar schools in England is probably impractical, efforts to recreate what is good about grammar schools should be stepped up in England and Wales. This means more school discipline, parental choice and setting and streaming.

It would be interesting to know what Mr Willetts, an admirable beneficiary of the grammar school system, thinks of this.

[Ted]

Examinations have two functions - to measure achievement and to help employers & further education in their selection process. When I took my A levels grading was based on proportion by distribution so measured how well I did against all others taking the examination that year so was biased towards selection. Today marks are against set standards so measure achievement.

As long as standards are maintained then it seems to me a bettter approach to measure achievement. Use of results to assist selection would seem to support adding more gradings. Universities should not anyway be using grades as the only measure to select students - it should not be a purely mechanical process.

There is a debate to be had about standards but also about subjects. Schools are now incentivised on pass levels so tendency would be to move from harder specialised subjects - mathematics, physics etc, - to softer generalised ones - combined sciences, social sciences. The latter are also more suited to course work and more subjective markings.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"That is why there is a case for an A* grade and for giving Universities access to numerical marks."

Having given up last Sunday to help our admissions team process A-Level results and calculate whether students had gained sufficient grades/points to study here (Cardiff University btw), I'm sure that the 'numerical marks' proposal mentioned above would be difficult to implement in practice due to the administrative burden involved.

[Deputy Editor]

I'm sure that the 'numerical marks' proposal mentioned above would be difficult to implement in practice due to the administrative burden involved.

How burdensome? I've long thought the individual grades encompassed too much - would it not be feasible to have something like A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3 etc ?

[Concerned parent]

From BBC website:

"NI pupils 'top of A-level class'

Thousands of students in Northern Ireland sat their A-levels
Northern Ireland A-level students are continuing to outperform their English and Welsh peers, results out on Thursday show.

The percentage of entries achieving A grades has risen by 1.2% to 32.4%, with results in MATHEMATICS, languages and SCIENCES particularly good."

So that explains why Labour want to abolish academic selection in NI!
What are you doing to stop this Mr Willets!?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Sam, I imagine a system like yours would be workable, but I interpreted David Willetts's reference to 'numerical marks' as meaning giving the universities the hard data relating to the numerical breakdown of a given candidate's grades.

I suppose there is a case to be made for making the admissions process an online process using electronic data transfer etc, but that's an argument for another day...

[Michael McGowan]

Precisely. The grammar school system in Northern Ireland has provided serious social mobility in one of the poorest parts of the UK, for children from both sides of the sectarian divide. But as we know, Labour doesn't want social mobility. It wants everyone to "enjoy" lowest-common-denominator equality of outcome and for as many people as possible to be supplicants for state benefits, so that it can control them. So it has sold the children of Northern Ireland down the river to appease its friend, Gerry Adams. Apart from David Lidington, the Tory Party has had nothing to say on the subject.

[Deputy Editor]

Yes, David Willetts was referring to a fully numerical system.

Interesting article in the Times about how letting pupils continually resit exams is bad life experience.

[kingbongo]

One of the things I have picked up from this year's A level results reporting is the continued narrow focus on academic subjects and a total misunderstanding from every poster on the reality of vocational education.

BTEC and equivalent qualifications have much to offer a majority of students who are not and have never been well suited to the skills required of traditional A levels. The upshot is we now have 'Applied' A levels which fall between two stools; not practical enough for the more vocationally minded and not intellectually challenging enough for the academic types.

My students this year have done extremely well on the whole and I am very proud of them. The system they work within is letting them down and as Conservatives we need to change that.

Tim, I would be happy to write a guest piece
from an educator's (and parent's) standpoint if you want.

[Denis Cooper]

There's no fundamental reason why there shouldn't be new grammar schools in England and Wales. There are comprehensives which consistently perform badly, which could be shut down and replaced with several new schools. Many of the comprehensives are too large, anyway, which as predicted in the sixties is often one of the problems. However ... the difficulty is not with setting up new grammar schools but with the kind of schools which the other, non-grammar, pupils would attend. This was always the weakness in the system: the grammar schools were excellent for their pupils, but the others were apparently or allegedly consigned to dustbins. That shouldn't be the case: every child should have the best opportunity to develop and build upon whatever talents he may possess. I would suggest that with children who are less talented the teacher-pupil ratio needs to be higher, and the teachers should be selected less on the depth of their academic knowledge, and more on their ability to teach and motivate and maintain discipline.

[Tanuki]

Surely the sensible and obvious way to address the problem is to introduce grade-banding.

Students receiving the top 10% of marks get an "A" grade.
The next 10% get a B
The next 10% get a C
And so on down the alphabet

This automatically removes any claims of year-on-year 'grade inflation' and makes it possible once again for universities/employers to identify the best students from the melee.

[Mark Fulford]

I got absolute marks for all the modules I took, which was somewhat annoying when I learnt that I missed out on a higher overall grade in two subjects by only a handful of marks; and I was able to identify the module/s that were to blame. -- EML

That is my point. Banding numeric results into grades unnecessarily removes information. Banding numeric results into grades unnecessarily removes information. 59% is no harder to understand than “Grade B”, but 59% provides twenty times more information and isn’t inherently unfair at grade thresholds.

[Paul Kennedy]

Like that idea Tanuki (16:07), I seem to recall that was the way it was when I took, (and failed, or should that be "had a deferred success" in modern parlance) mine in the mid 70's.

Of course the main difference nowadays, as I understand, is that they are modular courses so that knowledge and understanding is examined in smaller chunks.

[Paul Kennedy]

Like that idea Tanuki (16:07), I seem to recall that was the way it was when I took, (and failed, or should that be "had a deferred success" in modern parlance) mine in the mid 70's.

Of course the main difference nowadays, as I understand, is that they are modular courses so that knowledge and understanding is examined in smaller chunks.

[David Belchamber]

Changetowin @ 14.43: "Northern Ireland's education system is by far the best in the UK".
As other people have pointed out, the education system in NI is based largely on grammar schools which self-evidently produce better results and therefore serve both pupils (not "students") and the nation better, as the admirable Kate Hoey has very forcibly pointed out in the recent past. Grammar schools, again pointed out by others, promote social mobility (my own family has benefited greatly this way), so Nulab is naturally against them, because they foster excellence.
Conservatism is about conserving what is good in our way of life and reforming that which is not.
Let us have more grammar schools and return to grant maintained schools. I do agree very much with Denis Cooper who asked @ 15.56 what sort of schools would be provided for those not able to go to grammar schools.
That is what the real discussion should focus on.

[Teresa Rosell]

As a (single) parent of a 19 year old who today has achieved straight A s, I would like to agree with David's ultimate and penultimate paragraphs.

[Ted]

Tanuki

if A levels are only a University entrance exam then your proposal is fair but it is unfair as a measure of achievement and doesn't recognise effort. If top 10% get As every year what are you measuring but comparative performance in exams? Everyone can improve but marks don't change, educational achievement can fall but marks don't change.

My observation leads me to think that exams thirty to forty years ago were more difficult, fewer people got high grades (so two Bs were a pretty high qualification) but my generation didn't put as much effort in as the current one.

My school wasn't put on any results table so it was it's reputation rather than measures that bought in the pupils. It sold itself on its physics, chemistry & biology facilities and attracted good science teachers. Arts had similar investment but there was a definite "going for the easy option" if at 14 you specialised in the arts side rather than sciences. We were not hothoused into passing exams but had a broader less pressured education. Todays pupils are under the exam cosh for years rather than a few pressured weeks in May/June at 16 and 18. (I couldn't imagine my nephews bunking off to the beach before GCSEs with some crib sheets which is what I did before O levels - and still got 11 boasts I)

A better presentation and more detail on results would be a great improvement as would be getting rid of current target led educational system.

[matthew]

how is the debate about standards stale? With 24% getting As, how can top universities discriminate when As just means roughly the top 10% of the population. That's not enough of a distinction for Britain's top universities.

It's not stale against either when pupils have not got a proper grounding in maths or science. How are we to compete with the Americans in the sciences, when pupils spend the first year of university doing remedial maths.

I did Maths & Physics A Levels 6 years ago, and comparing the exams with those of the early 80s, they had removed huge chunks of material from the Physics syllabus, mostly that involving any kind of maths beyond a = b * c (e.g., all calculus for flows, etc.). I got 6 As at A Level, but I don't believe that makes me more intelligent than my father who got Cs in the 60s, because the A Levels are so vastly easier

Making things easier by allowing pupils to retake, and only remember 1/6 of the course at a time (thanks to modules) is one thing, but removing essential maths/science, and motivating schools to do 'easy' subjects such as psychology and media studies by focusing on league tables rather than the acquisition of knowledge, is far more damaging.

The system is designed to forever lower standards. Exam board have competed to offer easier exams, knowing that schools will choose the exam giving best grades (for which read easiest, but least useful for the pupil in later life).

They also put more step-by-step hand-holding questions in exams, and remove questions requiring any kind of difficult method, replacing them with different but easier topics. When I did A Level maths, they kept the hardest pure maths on the syllabus, but put it in Module 6. With 6 modules required, with 3 pure and 3 applied (4 * stats, 2 * discrete maths, or 4* mechanics), normal students would never get to the 6th pure module - they would do 3 pure + 3 stats, and to get to the hard stuff you had to do Further Maths, whereas previously the content was on the normal A Level syllabus.

The result of this is that there are 800 page maths books for university students that cover stuff that should (and was on the A Level). This is a waste of tame.

The degradation of standards is a massive fraud. According to the news, pass rates rose for the 24th consecutive year.

What nonsese. It is impossible for standards to rise for 24 years consecutively. It would be like 24 consecutive years of economic growth. It has only happened because of the changing of techniques to make things easier (modular exams, etc.), and by removing the difficult stuff from the syllabus - something which is severely damaging because the kids then spend a year at university (costing thousands of our money) learning what they should already know.

And what for? Do people need degrees to work the checkouts at M&S or answer the phones for Lloyds Bank? Is comparative Big Brother studies, or whatever the most popular degree is now of any value whatsoever?

[matthew]

how is the debate about standards stale? With 24% getting As, how can top universities discriminate when As just means roughly the top 10% of the population. That's not enough of a distinction for Britain's top universities.

It's not stale against either when pupils have not got a proper grounding in maths or science. How are we to compete with the Americans in the sciences, when pupils spend the first year of university doing remedial maths.

I did Maths & Physics A Levels 6 years ago, and comparing the exams with those of the early 80s, they had removed huge chunks of material from the Physics syllabus, mostly that involving any kind of maths beyond a = b * c (e.g., all calculus for flows, etc.). I got 6 As at A Level, but I don't believe that makes me more intelligent than my father who got Cs in the 60s, because the A Levels are so vastly easier

Making things easier by allowing pupils to retake, and only remember 1/6 of the course at a time (thanks to modules) is one thing, but removing essential maths/science, and motivating schools to do 'easy' subjects such as psychology and media studies by focusing on league tables rather than the acquisition of knowledge, is far more damaging.

The system is designed to forever lower standards. Exam board have competed to offer easier exams, knowing that schools will choose the exam giving best grades (for which read easiest, but least useful for the pupil in later life).

They also put more step-by-step hand-holding questions in exams, and remove questions requiring any kind of difficult method, replacing them with different but easier topics. When I did A Level maths, they kept the hardest pure maths on the syllabus, but put it in Module 6. With 6 modules required, with 3 pure and 3 applied (4 * stats, 2 * discrete maths, or 4* mechanics), normal students would never get to the 6th pure module - they would do 3 pure + 3 stats, and to get to the hard stuff you had to do Further Maths, whereas previously the content was on the normal A Level syllabus.

The result of this is that there are 800 page maths books for university students that cover stuff that should (and was on the A Level). This is a waste of tame.

The degradation of standards is a massive fraud. According to the news, pass rates rose for the 24th consecutive year.

What nonsese. It is impossible for standards to rise for 24 years consecutively. It would be like 24 consecutive years of economic growth. It has only happened because of the changing of techniques to make things easier (modular exams, etc.), and by removing the difficult stuff from the syllabus - something which is severely damaging because the kids then spend a year at university (costing thousands of our money) learning what they should already know.

And what for? Do people need degrees to work the checkouts at M&S or answer the phones for Lloyds Bank? Is comparative Big Brother studies, or whatever the most popular degree is now of any value whatsoever?

[deborah]

"Tim, I would be happy to write a guest piece from an educator's (and parent's) standpoint if you want."

Kingbongo - that would be good.

[Ian Mullins]

Conservative controlled Trafford Borough Council have consistently been the best performing local authority in terms of A Level results for a number of years. This year we have recorded a phenomenal increase in our A Level passes at A/B grade from 53% to 60%, against a national average in 2006 of 48%.

Trafford are proud of our selective education system, and if evidence is needed of its' success or otherwise, it is quite clear in the consistently outstanding results of BOTH our grammar school AND high school students.

.....I hasten to add this is set against a backdrop of being one of the most poorly funded LEA's in the country !

[Denis Cooper]

It's worth recalling how we've got into this mess, and googling for an accurate rendition of that famous statement by a Labour Education Secretary turned up this in the Education Guardian from January 2004:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/tuitionfees/story/0,,1126155,00.html

The relevant passage being:

"What goes around comes around. Especially in education theory and practice. Forty years ago, sitting at his desk, Crosland found nothing but flux as usual. The Attlee government, which had embraced grammar schools and an 11-plus exam to give working-class children with intelligence the gift of opportunity, was long gone, along with those core beliefs. Now the 11-plus was anathema. Now Crosland could sing a separate song to his spouse. "If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every fucking grammar school in England. And Wales. And Northern Ireland."

It seems extraordinary that anybody could believe that the destruction of the most academically successful schools would improve the education system.

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge adopted a rather similar approach in Cambodia, and that didn't work either.

[David Belchamber]

"As a (single) parent of a 19 year old who today has achieved straight A s, I would like to agree with David's ultimate and penultimate paragraphs".

Posted by: Teresa Rosell | August 17, 2006 at 17:16

Many congratulations to your daughter, Teresa; you should feel very proud of her and I hope that over the years she will appreciate just how valuable education is in life.
It is just a shame that left-wing educational theories over the last 30+ years have sold so many generations of young people short. We tories must act in the best interests of the nation, not for ideological reasons, to improve the system for future generations.

[Andy P]

As one of the few Tory teachers out there I do think a debate about standards in schools is necessary. I am afraid to say that the introduction of qulaifications such as GNVQs and such like has dumbed down yet further standards in our schools. While GNVQs are important, they are been used incorrectly to improve many schools postition in the league tables.

I use to have many of my pupils taken out of their GCSE lessons so that they could go off and do a GNVQ, beacuse it counts for more in the school league tables and is easier to achieve. A grade D at GCSE History is of no use to schools so long as that pupil can be moved out and placed into a GNVQ where he or she will contribute more to the schools league tables. So much for a pupil centred education or 'every child matters.' Thanks to government pressure they only matter if they contribute to the school league table.

The net result surely must be pupils moving to A Level courses with qualifications which are not really up to much and thus standards are comrpomised.

[Antony Calvert]

I agree with Willetts. I am a cllr in Wakefield and every time I put the accusation that exams are getting easier to students and teachers (and parents, in many cases) I get a very passionate response from them stating that this is rot. I happen to agree with them.

Exams maybe massively different; that is a certainty. However, they are different for a reason. With modern technology, computers and other advances it is totally unnecessary to be able to recite prime numbers up to 300 (or 307 if we are being picky!).

I happen to think that modern students are far more articulate than those of yesteryear. I would cite some examples here, but the Standards Board would be after me. Suffice to say a 16 year old who wrote an article for my local branch shown far better punctuation and grammatical skill than someone earning £48k (aged late 40's).

[Paul Kennedy]

"Suffice to say a 16 year old who wrote an article for my local branch shown far better punctuation and grammatical skill than someone earning £48k (aged late 40's)." 18:58

Don't word processing software packages have spelling and grammar checkers. ;)

[Richard]

"Exams maybe massively different; that is a certainty. However, they are different for a reason. With modern technology, computers and other advances it is totally unnecessary to be able to recite prime numbers up to 300 (or 307 if we are being picky!)."

Doesn't explain why in English exams students are no longer required to do something complex like analyse sentence structures. Chris Woodhead was giving examples of old English questions and, as someone who did GCSE's several years ago, I found them much more difficult. All I had to do was read a piece and give a general commentary on it - relatively easy.

[Michael McGowan]

Exams undoubtedly are different.....not least because their intellectual content and rigour has been diminished. Modern languages are a classic example. If we genuinely believe that the content of our exams has not been denuded, why is it that the Chinese, the Indians, and the Singaporeans have continued to use the old "O" Levels, now relabelled as International GCSEs? Are we suggesting that the emerging economies of the Far East are so intellectually backward and deprived of access to modern technology that they cannot cope with the standards required by UK GCSEs?

[Wat Tyler]

We all know there's appalling grade inflation in A Levels, and I'm sure David knows that just as well.

You're probably all up to speed, but inter alia, a major academic study last year reported on A level results from 1988 to 2004, correlating A Level grades acheived against an independent abililty measure. Its conclusion was that students of similar abilty scored one and a half to three grades higher in 2004 compared to 1988.

Also, up to the early 90s, the proportion of candidates passing A Levels was the same as the proportion passing the independently managed International Baccalaureat, at just over 80%. Today the IB is still between 80 and 85%, whereas A Levels are on 96.5%.

(for more details see http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2006/08/grade-inflation-roars-on.html )

Of for a muse of fire that would get our Westminster politicians saying what they really think...

[Joshua Payne]

I find today's news completely beyond the pale and rather beyond a joke, though totally expected and unsurprising. And I'm not a member of some sort of "blue rinse brigade", just a fairly ordinary 22 year-old and Conservative member.

Sure, teachers and students may be working very, very hard - as I did - but to be blunt this simply isn't the point. What matters is what is taught, assessed and how. In this respect there are major problems.

I've just filled in my student finance forms (for the second time) and I have to say that it feels about as bureaucratic and as messy as things can get. This is basically a function of the sheer numbers of people being put through the system. The problems are going largely unchallenged because to do so might mean upsetting some individuals or some groups. But Politics, of course, isn't about how to avoid upsetting people. The alternative to challenging this will be a drift into a late 1970's-style anarchic situation, and a system which is rendered completely unfit for purpose.

As has been pointed out to me face-to-face by Ken Clarke, the economic arguments for increasing participation in Higher Education are largely flawed -- hence what is the point? As he put it, this is because "there is a general problem with what is taught in schools". Back to the same problem.

The issues surrounding loan recovery on such a massive scale, coupled with 'ideas' such as cutting tuition fees to fill some courses and complete payment by the DoH for fast-track medical/dental students (which I think is an absolute disgrace) is basically communicating that 'rules' are unimportant. In the government's eyes, they are made to be bent and broken.

Over time this will have the effect of legitimising criminal activity.

[Andy P]

Most amused by those who seem to think exams are not getting easier, they clearly have little understanding of modern qualifications. The fact is that it is qualifications rather than exams that are getting easier. Modular exams which allow numerous re-sits, vocational course work based qualifications and of course the pressure on schools to 'deliver' exam results at all costs, all impact on the quality of the qualification. Some may even suggest that some pupils recieve a little too much help - I as a teacher could never go so far as to say that of course!

[Paul Kennedy]

At the end of the day, in a global economy, those countries who produce the most able scientists, engineers, creative professionals etc and therefore have world class wealth creating sectors, will be the ones that will survive and prosper. Global competitiveness will, to some extent, determine whether a country's education system is good or not, problem is, once you realise it isn't the damage has been done.

[Andrew Martin]

The debate about grade inflation and what kind of results to relese reflects a long-running debate within educationalists about "norm referenced" grading (where you fit grades onto a bell curve) and "criterion referenced" grading (where you give grades based on the skills demonstrated). Famously, A-levels switched from the former to the latter a few years ago.

Why not publish both? Continue to give a letter grade on the same basis as now, but also announce also a number in the range 0-100 representing your rank position relative to all the other candidates at this particular exam session. Those who need to rely on exam results can decide for themselves which measure is more relevant to their purposes.

[Mr Dumbed Down]

Pathetic to see Willetts jumping on the emotional blackmail bandwagon - "Today is the day to celebrate the success of students, not to denigrate their achievements."

Sorry kiddies - your super duper A+++++ passes aren't worth the paper they are printed on - and every admissions tutor and prospective employer in the land knows it.

Why are Tories like DW colluding in a huge lie? Today's exams are easier and marked more leniently - and we all know why:

1) Exam boards cannot survive commercially if they upset their 'customers' by failing their little charges. So they pass all but the most dire.

2) The Government wants a good news story on education - every year - and woe betide the authority that doesn't provide it on cue.

3) We live in a 'no blame, no failure' PC culture where, as Melanie Phillips so accurately put it, All Must Have Prizes.

The whole thing is a fiasco, an offence against reason and an insult to the intelligence. Perhaps it would be politically inexpedient for the Tories to point out the hard truth but, if that can't be done, then the least we might expect is a dignified silence.

[ToMTom]

Treat A-Levels as a High School Diploma and let universities set Entrance Exams and select whom they want.

If you debase Exams - pupils will just have to take more of them that's all.

[Oberon Houston]

With regards to his piece above, I must admit that its a bit politically sanitised and there is better debate below than above. However, I have long admired David Willetts, and think he is doing a great job in Shadow Education, so lets keep things in perspective, poor guy's getting flogged a bit.

A couple of things spring to mind regarding education, one is that careers advice services in schools could be much improved, secondly industry could get much more involved, universities should also be involved, with schools and employers to ensure our education sylabuses are intgrated.

Finally, university corses that tackle skills gaps should be insentivised my a waiver of the fees on sucessful completion.

All our policies should aim to promote the above, and we should make it a priority of our manifesto. Properly co-ordinated policy on this would be a huge vote winner.

[Oberon Houston]

I should have added (for gravitas you understand) that I am in charge of graduate engineering recruitment at my company, and deal closely with universities.

...and finally finally...

Shpelling and grammar in our kids today are rubbish.

The End.

[Michael Grade-Inflation]

It is a sick trick to play on kids - give them a third rate education - and then tell them they've done brilliantly.

Our children are not being stretched - they're being wasted. They are also being 'protected' from failure - a vital childhood experience.

So, so wrong. No wonder we've got problems as a society. Shame David Willetts lacks the intellectual courage to tell the truth about the situation.

[Steve]

The very concept of A* grades is proof enough of debased standards.

An A grade should be the ultimate grade, difficult to achieve and only possible after supreme effort.

Rather than allocating grades according to the top 10%, the next 10% and so on; surely much better to allocate fixed percentages to grades. ie) An A grade is a mark above 80%, B above 70% etc.

It would be much easier to ascertain if standards were rising or falling (assuming of course that those marking the exams maintained their own standards!) and would protect the value of the higher grades.

Ditto with Univerity degree classifications.

[NigelC]

By the way I thought David Willetts did brilliantly against Bill Rammell on PM; agreeing where appropriate and them moving the debate on, providing new ideas.