97 % pass rate for A-Levels ; how did that happen?

[m1m1rie]

I took my A-levels in 1989 and passed all three, and was in the minority amongst my peers. Most people failed at least one and only the really, really clever ones could achieve A-grades. Now, with so many passing and record numbers achieving A-grades how do we differentiate between those who are genuinely talented and those who are not? A girl I know has just passed 3 A-levels. She spends her days chatting on her mobile, obsessing about herself and often didn't bother going into college if she didn't feel like it. She even turned up late for one of her exams. As far as being 'clever' is concerned, she couldn't hold a conversation with you unless it was about celebrities or herself, and yet she has managed to pass all three A-levels. I am dumbstruck. I find it demeans those who do put effort into learning as they will all just be lumped in together now and treated with disdain by those who think that all kids are thick and only have A-levels because the exams are easier to pass now. Whatever is going on with the current system, it's not doing anyone any favours, it only serves to make Government stats look good.

MT rather like our family. That said, my mother would tell me on an almost daily basis, 'We need all sorts, It would be a bloody funny world if everyone was like you martian'

We do need all sorts, and all jobs, and what we lack most of all atm are crafts people.

ma's was, 'I don't care if you sweep the streets as long as you do it to the best of your ability'

(her ma cleaned toilets to get the money to feed her kids...rasied 4 kids through the depression on her own....I'm proud of her )

Nope I still don't buy your distinction between academic and vocational. Any subject can involve debate and analysis including plumbing. Especially plumbing.

'Now as I have admitted, I have used the services of a pet groomer, but I don't feel that the lady needed 3 years training, and seriously doubt that you could find enough background for a rigorous and vibrant degree course. '

But how many people do NEED 3 years training? Did I NEED 3 years of reading books? I don't think so. I'm quite sure that plumbers and mechanics and builders would benefit from 3 years training actually and probably much more theory too. And I'd be delighted to employ a plumber who could debate not Proust but plumbing as opposed to shaking his head and saying 'it'll cost you love'.

My point here is that you don't necessarily do a degree because you NEED to do it (except for the employment and earnigns issue).

And most people find that they have to go on and do further training or more HE after a degree anyway like a PGCE or law studies whatever they're called or on the job training.

My point here is that a degree and vocational training don't have to be either or. Most people would benefit from both and probably more of a mixture.

I envisage a 3 yr plumbing course covering science (esp physics, environmental science, bit of biol), business management, bit of communication (which everyone should do) and practical elements and there's plenty of debate and analysis to be had in every element of these.

Oh God, I should have known there'd be stories of those of you and your parents who defied all expectations by walking shoeless three miles down the country roadd to get a scholarship to the nearest grammar school when your ancestors all wanted you to go to the mill. Don't mean to be facetious just that of course there'll always be exceptions and of course people should be justifiably proud of achieving academic success agains the odds. But the fact is that middle class kids with supportive parents who are well-educated or have a positive attitude to education are statistically far more likely to achieve academic success and go on to university. In fact a lot of the rise in the no of people going to uni doesn't actually reflect a huge increase in the no. of workign class kids going there but more the no. of middle class mature students going there and probably a lot more kids of parents from ethnic minorities. And yes, there were the exceptional kids from working-class backgrounds who won a place at a grammar school and benefited from that but these were exceptions and the vast majority were herded into secondary moderns where they were written off at age 11 as 2nd best.

I also note that no one has responded to my point about Britain having one of the lowest rates of entry to HE of anywhere in Europe or America which is 50%. Do you think these countries are suffering as a result of encouraging more into HE? How?

are you saying you want plumbers to get degrees and not do on the job training (apprenticeships)?

If you don't ean to be facecious then don't. I am very proud of my family and I don't give a tinkers cuss if you think their lives comedic.

I didn't walk shoeless anywhere and wemt to a state comp.

I just don't feel the need to call everything a degree. I value alternative courses of study.

Look, I like beer and I like wine. I don't need to have them in identical bottles OK?

I'm not the one saying that vocational couses are valueless, OK? I don't look down my nose at people without degrees. I don't think that you have to have a degree to be an interesting person. I don't think you need a degree to read proust.

But we do need more plumbers and we are not getting them because the government and the educational system doesn't value vocational studies, usless they can be pored into degree quailification shape.

You can obviously think whatever you like and argue the case, but don't mock my family please, they were deacent people and deserved respect.

Calm down Martian. I'm not knocking your family and I don't find them funny. I haven't actually said anything about them I think you'll find. The point I was trying to make obviously rather badly was that there will always be kids from working class families who don't value education who are academically successful and go to university. I also said they should be justifiably proud. But they are exceptions.

I'm the one and apparently one of the only ones who is making a case for more people to go to university (from all backgrounds and not just middle-class educted ones) because I believe as many people as possible should have the advantages a university education brings (better employment prospects, much more income over a lifetime on average, a bloody good time over 3 years, learning to work and often live independently, having the time, space and encouragement to debate and think critically about art, science, plumbing whatever). To be honest I find the resistance to this odd and depressing partly because it's so bloody conservative ane because so many kids don't and won't stand a chance of success of escaping the poverty trap if they are not encouaged to get a university education.

Like I said before I teach kids who have been in care all their lives etc etc and have come out quite understandably with Ds and Es at A Level. They are still bright and they still deserve and are capable of a university education but some of you seem to be saying they shouldn't be allowed to go.

And also middle-class kids who lack organisation or maturity or go to pieces in exams who deserve and would benefit with a university education.

And bugger it also some kids who are bloody lazy and not desperately bright but they also would benefit from a university education. Why not?

I think that they key is tertiary education, in some form. For those who want it. Ironicaly since the extension of the numbers going to universiry, and the removal of the 'full grant' I am seeing increasing numbers of working class children saying they don't want to go to university and saddle themselves in debt. (I teach in a very working class comp). I feel that you would stand a better chance of getting these kids to university if they had a fully funded grant. Less 'bums on seats' degrees for the middle classes and more fully funded places for those who come from less well off families.

I benefited from a full grant. It is quite simply how I went to university. And how the rest of my family did.

yes there are no grants! some disadvantaged children would get a great deal out of an apprenticeship too, get to mix to different people, learn on the job and earn money at the same time.

Buy you know, because I'm sure you know the statistics, the main reason that cared for kids don't gho to university is that we comprehensivly fail them at secondary school. Well, us, and social services not making sure there are enough long term placements for tem in foster care that give them a stab at continety.

I'd rather see money go into that than funding degrees in pet grooming.

SEA, I quite agree, sadly there are even frewer aprentiships

Take your point about debt. But no Govt could or would fund 50% or even the 30% of the population through university. There were only full grants when it was a minority and largely these were middle-class students who could have been funded by mummy and daddy anyway. The only way to look at it is that students will repay the debt and earn more than they would if they hadn't gone to university and probably get more rewarding jobs over their life-times.

I work in a very deprived area of the country. Many of my students are from ethnic minorities and their attitude to HE is often rather different from others'. They often really value it esp science and look to their futures as doctors, pharmacists, sometimes lawyers and they v. often stay at home during their degree to save money.

Interestingly it is very often the kids who don't want the debt. The parents are very keen. Sometimes pushing kids whould would be better off doing a vocational course. And now we come full circle, again.

Yes, I've been listening with interest to the stuff about kids in care. But again it shouldn't be EITHER/OR. Yes, they need more support in foster care and in school but we ALSO need to encourage more people from all backgrounds into university. And same with pet grooming. You shouldn't have to make a choice between pet grooming or philosophy or bricklaying. Who are you or I to say which is more valuable? And don't forget that a degree regardless of what it's in is an important asset.

i don't really understand what you mean though bwcat, if someone leaves school and wants to be a brickie say, they should do a degree in it??

But Martian, I'm interested in what makes you think some kids would be 'better off' doing vocational courses. In what way better off? Not financially. And who is to make this judgment? If a kid wants to go to university then this is to be encouraged. If universities take students who haven't got A grades so what? 100 years ago there were those who said that working class kids didn't deserve to go to SCHOOL.

OK a case study. This is one case but I have seen loads.

A few years ago I taugh a smaking boy in the sixth form. He was a delightful young man, pleasent and highly personable, kind and funny. The kind of kid you pray nightly to have yours turn out like.

He was, without a doubt the nicest kids I have ever worked with. the problem was that he was doing A level biology and he was an entrily kinasthetic learner. The class was small, so I could tailor the lessons to suit him. We made plasticine models of the Krebs cycle, acted out the electron transport chain. But in the end he had to sit a written paper and he failed.

Had he done Vocational Science A level (which we now offer but didn't then) he could have got (I estimate, a B-C grade) He is stacking shelves in Asdas ATM, trying to get an aprentiship in the building trade. If he gets it he will be superb and he delights in the physicality of the work and will charm the pans off anyone he does buisness with.

THis young man would be happier, more sucessful and finacialy far better off than he is now had he been able to do a vocational A level.

Now here is the thing. He wanted to leave school at 16 and get an aprentisip. But they are tough to find and his parents thought he would have more options with an academic qualification. But they were wrong. It wasn't his 'thing'.

Nice boy, Asdas are lucky to have him. He could have had more options though, if he had the right oppertunities.

sorry, smashing!

My central argument is not to promote degrees in bricklaying Souteastastra, my main argument is that 50% of the population going to university would be a good thing. We need to get more working-class kids into HE for the benefit of everyone. I think there is also a case for all degree courses to have more of a mixture of the practical and theoretical. E.g. it would be quite useful for all students to know how to turn on a computer or write a letter, equally it would be useful for all students to learn how to think, debate and construct an argument. I do not like elitism. I do not think universities should be only for the gifted (or the A graders who may not be the same thing but are likely by and large to be middle-class). I think we need to recognize that a university education offers huge advantages in the short and long-term and if you deny students these opportunities we will all be poorer for it.

but the reason there is a lack of apprenticeships now is that kids don't want to work for nowt and businesses don't want to pay trainees and train them. They tried subsidising businesses to do it (remember YTS?) but that was widely abused. modern money-making being as it is i don't think apprenticeships will work on any great scale again. what we need is better facilities in colleges and more thought going into course design. a lot of the vocational quals around now are utter rubbish. mind you, I haven't seen a syllabus for a while. have they changed?

But we now offer vocational A Levels which are accepted onto university courses. So if he did one of these he could still go to university if that's what he wanted. If he never wanted to do A Levels then he probably shouldn't have been forced to do them. I don't think everyone should HAVE to do A Levels or go to university just that they should be encouraged to and given opportunities to. And the benefits of FE and HE should be explained.

Some of them SP, but not enough of them. The trouble is that the sylabus is often written without getting the input from industry, so they often don't see them as helpful.

We are now doing a BTec in contruction in school. It seems to be quite good, we do the science but the D/T people do the practical stuff. It is quite demanding as far as the physics goes, but the kids plug away because they see the point. If we'd have asked the same of them in Double Science GCSE they would have told us to bugger off!

and yes, again I agree with b&wc.

I saw a statistic somewhere that said essentially that comprehensive school students with Cs at A level did as well as private school kids with As. probable reason: the private school kids have already been streched as far as they can be, but the other kids still have some potential to fulfil. I thought it was interesting.

and to malory towers: there is actually some evidence that kids are getting cleverer in the sense of being able to take and pass tests (because there are other types of cleverness) - some studies have tested subsequent generations with exactly the same verbal reasoning tests and found better results each time. can´t remeber the reference though.