limiting state school and college students to 3 A levels

[GnomeDePlume]

Apologies if this has already been done to death.

I saw the following article in Saturday's Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9349428/State-school-pupils-restricted-to-three-A-levels-under-funding-change.html

My suspician is that it is a bit of disinformation being put out there so that whatever is actually done doesnt seem so bad (sorry is my cynicism showing?).

If that is the case, what is the 'something' which is really being considered? I guess that there will be changes once everyone has to stay in some sort of education/training. If nothing else will some sort of restriction be brought in to keep costs down?

Isnt having some breadth in the 16-18 education a good thing?

Gove is Kite flying again.

FFS
Let the changes already announced settle in before messing about even more

How many students actually do 4 full A Levels?

I haven't read the article but it's not the worst idea I've heard. Better to have 3 good a-levels than 4 or more mediocre ones. Currently some schools do seem to encourage pupils to take more, presumably with the aim of boosting their league table position by increasing average points per student.

Having said that, it seems unfair to have different rules for state /private schools and would.potentially disadvantage the most able state pupils who might be aiming for oxbridge etc.

The college my DD is attending in September encourages children to choose 4 A levels with the view of dropping one after the first year. This is to give the children the chance to get out of a subject if it turns out that it isn't quite what they thought it would be or if they are struggling but they will still end up with 3 A levels iyswim.

I agree that it is almost certainly kite flying but I would like to know what lies behind it.

The problem is that if it is a funding issue then it may mean that students are prevented from even starting 4 courses. Only being allowed to start 3 would be very restrictive and would prevent many students from carrying on with that 'extra' subject (eg an MFL, humanity) which gives the student that bit of extra breadth.

In theory, I think three solid A levels are better than four with worse marks.

Same goes for GCSEs. Cynical schools allowing/insisting some pupils it 12 or 13. Bloody ridiculous.

However, with reagrd to A levels, we would need to be careful, that pupils allowed to take four (and drop one) don't somehow have the edge. Seen, as haiving a broader base. For example if you had two applicants with the same grades in the same three subjects, would you be more interested in the one with, say, an additional language, to AS level?

Interesting point wordfactory, for someone heading towards a science degree they need to have maths A level plus 2 sciences. What space then for a MFL to allow that student to consider an exchange year?

The only students then able to consider the extra courses will be the ones who can afford to pay for them - unless of course that is all part of the cunning plan. Schools funded for 3 A levels, bank of mum and dad pays for anything on top.

That's kinda what I'm thinking.

If both candidates have three sciences, then the one with a good AS level in MFL or English might look more rounded and have the slight edge.

It's all part of a grand plan to make tax payer funded state education a bare minimum service - the least you can possibly provide and still have people coming out of the other end employable in low to middle level jobs. Part of a mentality that you should not rely on state education if you can afford anything better and it is your moral duty to spend your money on private school fees, not higher tax.

I mean, let's face it, it's not just welfare "scroungers" this government hates - it's anyone who actually takes up a service offered by the state. Using state services requires people to pay tax and tax is bad for business.

And if it wasn't kite flying, I assume the Lib part of the ConDem coalition will fight this one - like the o levels rubbish - but you never know...

Why should the Lib Dems do anything about it? Public inertia indicates to them that they won't gain any brownie points by doing so - and some of the public are so inert because they think the Lib Dems would be doing a bit more fighting if the changes were purely ideological, in order to make young people more employable and salvage the economy.

Am going to a sixth form information this evening and will be interested to hear what they have to say.

My impressn has been that places like Cambridge have a lot of students with four or more, so one would hope this isn't going to put in place a new barrier. Or that that is no longer the case?

It's all part of a grand plan to make tax payer funded state education a bare minimum service

This. Absolutely.

I think that some of the talk of limiting A-levels is to hide this storm.

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/apr/02/further-education-loans-gamble-adult-learners

The governent wants to remove all subsidy for adult education.

Ie. keep the lower classes in their place.

I would expect the Telegraph article to be just more scaremongering. I'm pretty cynical about some of the claims. What exactly does the bit about the average Cambridge entrant having the equivalent of 5 A grades even mean? The same number of points as 5 As overall from a combination of A*s and an EPQ or the AQABacc etc? That's not particularly hard for a Cambridge entrant to ratchet up even taking 3 main subjects plus General Studies - very different from the average candidate having five separate A grade A2s. Schools are worried about the funding changes fro Post 16 but the idea that state students will be restricted to three A2s is absurd.

rabbit do you think so?

I always get the impression with Gove that he is very old fashioned. Always looking back to yesteryear when things were better.

Re-introduce O levels, reduce A levels to 3 just like when he were a lad.

I get the sense that he hasn't even thought about what the impact will be. That decent independent schools would seize on the opportunity to give their pupils the edge.

Wants it to be as it was in his day? You mean when clever boys like him got scholarships, so that they could avoid state education altogether?

So Gove puts another obstacle in the way of the child from the bog standard comp.

That would prejudice people like my DS who is ambitious and wants to get into a good university to do physics. He is taking Maths/Sciences at A level but plans to do a Geography AS, not because he really wants to, but because he thinks it will look good if he has a humanity subject even if only to AS.
He was advised to do this when he went on a G&T day to Cambridge. Some of the students he met had 5 or 6 A levels. Presumably from posh private schools though, not like his bog standard comp.

If Gove is putting another obstacle in the way of the child from the bog standard comp, then he is equally putting it in front of the child at the bog standard super selective. The funding is the same.

However, the article simply appears to be voicing the fears of the schools about Post-16 funding, with the government saying very clearly that this is not how it will work, that the new funding arrangements will not be inimical to ambition.

I'm not a particular fan of the government but I don't see any evidence to accuse them of deliberating hatching a plan to thwart the university plans of clever state schooled pupils, or having a cavalier disregard of ambitious state pupils.

When I was in the 6th form in mid 80s you were only allowed to take 3 academic Alevels and to be honest they were enough. We were all entered for A level general studies which wasn't taught but you turned up and sat on the day of the exam some unis accepted it as a bona fide Alevel if you dropped grades in other subjects. Then some of us took either music or home economics Alevel as an extracurricular subject which wasn't as intense academically or workload wise so theory you could have ended up with 5 Alevels.

Mr Gove was a lad in the same year as me (he's actually younger than me!), A levels in 1985. Going back to 3 A levels ignores the significant changes which have taken place in Higher Ed in the intervening years including the number of courses offering international and/or industrial years as part of the mix plus the number of courses offering immediate entry to post grad courses.

Limiting students to 3 A levels and thats your lot will not prepare students well for these very different courses.

There has been talk of removing AS levels of which this may be a side thought. When I were a lass it was very common for students to take an extra O level as kind of comic relief. In later years the AS came in which took up some of that.

In the '80s, 3 or 4 academic A-levels were enough for privately educated children, too. In fact, I really don't think in my day there would have been time to fit in all the lessons required for studying more than 4 academic A-levels, anyway, so my mind boggles as to how it is now considered possible to teach children in sufficient depth to enable them to pass 5 or 6 A-levels and remotely enjoy the process. Surely a lot of the supposed rigour of A-levels has to have been lost to make that possible, turning them into a poor alternative to the international baccalaureate, where it at least has the honest intention of ensuring breadth where it doesn't necessarily guarantee depth?

If the statement actually means Gove is wanting a return to everyone specialising early, which the A-level system used to do, and that private schools will therefore also have to do this and stop producing 6 A* A-level students, or offer the IB as an alternative for people who haven't yet made up their minds (which may count against them in highly specialised degrees at university, but will provide a longer period of greater breadth of study for those who think this makes you a more rounded person), then the idea is less odious.

I think Gove would happily scrap all the changes that have taken place in Higher Ed in the intervening years, too - or downgrade them to courses and qualifications which fall below the gold standard.

At my school, out of the 40 of us only one girl took 4 A levels, the rest took 3.
That girl was last heard of leading a biomedical research team at a top UK University.

At my crammer (long story) EVERYBODY was doing 3 A levels - from every fee paying school you can name rapidly.