CHARLES CLARKE bears a passing resemblence to (a slightly inflated) Sir Peter Ustinov. The Education Secretary should keep the words of that man in mind when responding to the Tomlinson volume on the future of the examination system this morning. For Sir Peter once recalled a school report of his which read: “This boy shows great originality, which must be crushed at all cost.” The Tomlinson tome will be, in its way, a work of considerable originality. It is absolutely essential, however, that it does not become the blueprint for education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
To state this is not to slight Mike Tomlinson personally. He is a decent and distinguished man who has sought to do the best by young people. Hisambition, though, makes Alexander the Great appear an incrementalist. His formula is so complicated that it could inspire a postgraduate degree in Tomlinson studies. Yet aspects of the final document that he will present today remain disturbingly ambiguous.
Much as Stephen Hawking has spent some 30 years searching for a Grand Unified Theory of physics which would explain everything about the Universe, Mr Tomlinson and his team have aspired to find one single answer that could solve questions about education on these isles that have been with us for more than a century. Professor Hawking has been obliged to concede recently that his quest may prove impossible to realise. Mr Tomlison, by contrast, insists that his Holy Grail could be secured through a four-stage diploma taken between the ages of 14 and 19.
This Grand Unified Theory of education would involve one new examination (the “entry” level of the diploma to be undertaken at 14) and subsume GCSEs, the AS level and what is technically the A2 but still invariably described as the A level. These would become the “foundation”, “intermediate” and “advanced” stages of the diploma.
Mr Tomlinson hopes, simultaneously, to tackle two outstanding deficiencies of modern secondary education. One is that those whose skills are not academic often become uninterested in or disengaged from schooling. As a result, they perform so poorly in their GCSEs that little of worth is obtained from their years of compulsory toil and they leave at the earliest opportunity. The other is that A levels in their present state do not stretch and stimulate the brightest students enough, nor do the results awarded distinguish between them adequately.
The interim Tomlinson draft, expected to be fleshed out today, is at its strongest when asking why so many teenagers (especially boys) lose interest in education. The English have never succeeded in creating challenging vocational courses for those of a practical bent that command the respect of parents, pupils or employers. Mr Tomlinson is right in proposing to invent new vocational exams which would involve serious exposure to business and industry and have the flavour of apprenticeships about them.
He is also correct to note that GCSE mathematics and English, as they are now devised, are close to hopeless as functional examinations. It is perfectly possible, as the CBI protests in this newspaper today, to pass these tests and yet be incapable of performing basic arithmetic or constructing sentences in comprehensible English.
The Tomlinson formula could improve matters for those alienated from education. There should be two streams of courses available between 14 and 16 with the option of combining elements from both if that suited the individual student. A formal exam at 14, even if it would be passed effortlessly by the most able candidates, would have virtue if it led to a choice between robust academic and vocational GCSEs afterwards.
Where the proposed diploma becomes unstuck is after the age of 16. There are three profound criticisms that can be made of the A level since it was “reformed” in the early months of this Government. The first is that students can discard all of maths, English, the sciences and modern languages in favour of what might charitably be described as more fashionable disciplines. The second is that the increased use of bite-size modular exams detracts from what should be the full culinary experience of knowledge. The third is that such a large proportion of those sitting the A level obtain the top grade that it is impossible for universities (or anyone else for that matter) to identify the exceptional from the intelligent.
On the evidence available, Mr Tomlison has only vague and timid notions as to how to address these issues. He would allow brighter students to reach the “advanced” section of his diploma earlier than the age of 18, in the hope that this would excite them (although what they would do next is a mystery). He has some imprecise ideas about letting them sit additional papers or questions so that they could demonstrate their ability to shine beyond the A-level standard. He is toying with splitting the existing A grade into three, possibly four, sub-sections.
None of this is satisfactory. What is needed here is not a rather uncertain final part of an increasingly amorphous diploma but a firm stride towards the International Baccalaureate (IB). It is ludicrous that maths, English, science and languages can be abandoned at the age of 16. The modular style of exams is akin to rendering education into a series of processed cheese slices rather than a whole Stilton. The points format of the IB makes it far easier to establish the differences between students whom the A level currently lumps together under a vast A-grade umbrella.
The essential failing of the Tomlinson model, therefore, is that it tries to do too much for too many very diverse types of children. Mr Clarke should thank him for his efforts but reserve the right to pick and choose among his recommendations. He should resist the idea of a one-size-fits-all multiple-stage diploma. There is no Grand Unified Theory that deals with every failing in education for this or any other nation. It would be better to admit that different problems demand distinct solutions.
Join the Debate at comment@thetimes.co.uk
