I listened to someone on the radio (a uni lecturer) discussing how modular systems failed students at A'Level because they promoted the 'learn it fast, forget it fast' idea.
Which amused me greatly because I have a good degree in science from a red-brick university, where we studied for the entire three years in modules and needed to retain very little info from year to year....
Interestingly, my Dad claims to be one of his English A'Level teacher's greatest successes - he did no work for two years, turned up at his exam and wrote a good enough essay (having learnt great chunks of text) and passed well. That was 40 odd years ago. So I don't think it has changed all that much, really!
I think we really need to figure out what we want A'Levels for. If they are simply a means to access university then by all means let uni lecturers write them. But if we want to do something more with them (show a level of academic ability beyond GCSE, for example, which will enable students who don't wish to enter uni to still have a way of demonstrating their capabilities) then perhaps we need to think a little more broadly and creatively.
Do we wish to teach for exams (fact based, chuck the answer out without thinking too hard because you've memorised it) or do we want to teach thinking for yourself, formulating arguments etc etc? (I'm not saying the current system does either, just posing the question really - I think people who bang on about declining standards often mistake learning facts by rote for education).
School league tables undoubtedly have to take some of the blame. Parents choose schools based (at least partly) on how many kids have gone to uni, and how many kids have passed well at A'Level - so schools will always push (I have at least 2 friends who went to uni and shouldn't have done - it wasn't the right thing for them, but because they were academically capable no-one stopped to ask them if it was the right choice, they just asked what subjects at what unis).
High pass rates? Well, I also know one person who was told by her school that she couldn't do the A'Levels she wanted in case she pulled down their averages - she was offered one (and only one) that she didn't want to do because they could guarantee she'd pass it. (She didn't want to go to uni, and hasn't been. She just wanted to do A'Levels and could have done them, just not to an 'A' standard). She moved to a college which didn't have such a close eye on their league table place.
Tinkering with A'Levels for me is just fiddling a bit round the edges. Someone needs to be prepared to open a whole can of worms and ask some difficult questions starting from the bottom up. What do we want for our kids? Not just the bright ones, not just the ones who struggle, but all of them?
How do we make sure that we don't artificially prop up those who can't really manage, while still enabling them to make choices that work for them? How do we encourage the top end without damning the bottom end and casting them adrift? How do we ensure that those who don't shine to start with can still develop to their full potential, if that potential is hidden for quite a long time? How do we make sure that kids have every opportunity to succeed, while at the same time being realistic about the fact that not every child has the chance to be in the top 1%?
I don't have answers. But I think the questions need to be asked and before we piddle around with A'Levels we need a much clearer idea of what we want them for, and who they will serve (children - which ones? Unis? Schools?).