Skip to main content

Loss of AS levels in their current form would be bad for languages

 ... and all other subjects for that matter.

Back around 2000, when the last major reform of A-levels took place, there was a battle between those who wanted a broader post 16 curriculum and those who wished to maintain the "gold standard" of three A-levels. The second group feared that broadening the curriculum would entail a watering down of subject content and produce students less prepared for university courses.

The "gold standard" folk won the day, if not the argument. We ended up with a dog's breakfast of four. AS levels in lower sixth and three A2s in upper sixth (apart from a minority of students who take four A2s). This is still, by international standards, a remarkably narrow curriculum.

At least it meant that more students would be tempted to continue doing a language for a year after GCSE and, indeed, this is what happened, even if the numbers continuing to complete a full A-level courses continued to dwindle.

Michael Gove's reform of A-levels, making AS levels a stand-alone course pitched at the same difficulty level as A-level makes it likely that many schools will choose to drop AS levels altogether. My guess is that schools focus on helping students get three good A-level grades and that is what universities will want to see. Maybe a minority of schools and students will want to beef up their value-added scores and curriculum vitae with added AS grades.

Fewer students will continue with a language beyond GCSE and, in all probability  fewer will take full A-levels, especially given the current popularity of STEM subjects.

This reform is bad for languages and the reduced diet at AS level makes it likely that all subjects will  see a decline in take-up in the lower sixth year. Universities do not like it and Stephen Twigg has said Labour will reverse the reform.

Of course, what  nobody seems interested in is a genuine broadening of the post 16 curriculum. Pity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,