Higher education, Curriculum 2000 and the future reform of 14–19 qualifications in England

Abstract

This article, which is based on research funded by the Nuffield Foundation, examines the responses of higher education institutions (HEIs) to the recent reform of advanced level qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, known as Curriculum 2000. The research, undertaken in late 2002 and early 2003 following the ‘graduation’ of the first cohort of Curriculum 2000 learners, combined documentary analysis, use of national survey findings and interviews with a sample of university admissions tutors from new (post‐1992) and old (pre‐1992) universities in England. The research shows that HEIs were generally well‐informed about most aspects of the advanced level reforms and, at the level of public statements, welcomed the possibility of a broader advanced level curriculum. However, this relatively positive approach was not reproduced in terms of offer‐making to candidates: admissions tutors, particularly in the pre‐1992 universities, continued to make offers largely on the basis of predicted grades in three main A Levels. We argue that the reason for this cautious approach by the HEIs was not simply a result of their traditional support for subject specialisation, but also stemmed from systemic problems related to the Curriculum 2000 qualifications, their voluntarism and their less than universal up‐take by schools, colleges and learners. We conclude by looking briefly at the implications of these research findings for the future reform of 14–19 curriculum and qualifications in England.

Notes

1. At the time of writing this article the Tomlinson Working Group was still deliberating and it appeared that its proposals would be accepted by Government. In fact, the Working Group’s main proposal for a unified 14–19 diploma system designed eventually to replace all qualifications for 14–19 year olds, including A levels and GCSEs, was not accepted. Instead, the Government’s White Paper, 14–19 Education and skills, proposed the retention of both GCSEs and A levels and the development of ‘specialised diplomas’ at Levels 1, 2 and 3. The policy lessons at the end of this article nevertheless pertain.

2. The research reports from this project are available on (www.ioe.ac.uk/leid/nuffield) and the research has also been written up in Hodgson, A. & Spours, K. (2003) Beyond A Levels: Curriculum 2000 and the reform of 14–19 curriculum and qualifications (London, Kogan Page).

3. The term ‘pre‐1992’ university describes HEIs existing prior to the introduction of the ‘new universities’ under the FHE Act of 1992. These latter institutions are termed ‘post‐1992 universities’.

4. The UCAS Tariff is a voluntary score system for entry to higher education which gives numerical values to qualifications and thus provides comparisons between applicants with different types of achievement.

5. ‘Cashing in’ refers to the decision by learners and their institutions to accept the AS grades achieved at the end of the first year of study as credit towards the full A Level. Learners can defer a decision to accept their AS grade if they want to resit AS modules. In this latter case, no grade would be recorded on their UCAS university application form.