Stephen Vasciannie
IN RECENT years, there has been substantial debate in Britain concerning the alleged 'dumbing down' of examinations, and especially examinations at the advanced or "A" level.
Sometimes, the complaints are essentially about the curriculum. So, for example, an earlier generation still makes a strong case for the return of Latin at the secondary level, even though this possibility is highly - even exceedingly - unlikely. Another generation, of more recent vintage, still looks askance at the computer.
For some members of this generation, the computer is at best a mixed blessing. On the positive side, the computer facilitates immediate access to worlds of learning, and methods of enquiry, previously beyond the reach of the average student. But, on the negative side, the computer is perceived as an addictive device, with access to undesirable gateways.
These considerations, though important, have not formed the core of the debate concerning the dumbing down of the advanced level. Rather, the debate has tended to focus on empirical evidence. Over the years, an increasing percentage of students in the United Kingdom have been able to gain "A" grades at the advanced level. This has prompted scepticism: is there really evidence that the quality of British students has improved over the last decade or so?
This scepticism has been reinforced by at least three considerations. In the first place, the marking scheme used by examining boards for the advanced level has changed, and the increased level of performance appears largely to have coincided with this change.
The change, in broad terms, has been from marking each paper for content, style and so forth without regard to how other students have performed to marking on a relative scale. On the relative scale it is presumed that a certain percentage of all students (say, 20 per cent) deserve to get "A" grades: thus, roughly speaking, as long as you fall in the top 20 per cent of the overall group, you will get an "A".
This method does not really indicate how good a given student may be; it just says that the student is in a particular range with respect to the population of students taking the examination.
GOVERNMENT
Another point of scepticism arises from the fact that some British government officials are, not surprisingly, pleased to rely on the apparent improvement in overall performance at the advanced level as evidence of political success. It is appropriate for the Government to trumpet academic achievement (and, indeed, there should be more of that); however, when the arguments about improvement are built on a questionable foundation, the political horn-blowing tends to enhance doubts about the quality of the perceived improvement.
Thirdly, there is scepticism among some university officials who actually have to make admissions decisions about the new and improved students. If as many as 20 per cent of all students obtain "A" grades, how will the university officials actually know which students are at the right level for university. After all, an "A" grade is an "A" grade, and in traditional approaches, an "A" normally weighs heavily in favour of admission at the top universities.
In view of this, some universities have argued that the actual mark received by students for each course should be made available. That way, the "A" student with 90 per cent will be given greater credit than the one with 70 per cent. This request in itself demonstrates scepticism as to the current value of an "A" grade at the advanced level.
PRESSURE
Against this general background, the examinations boards have been under pressure. Even from a distance, it seems quite clear that they have been guilty of dumbing down the advanced level. Nor is the problem with respect to "A" grades, for the approach covers all scripts handed in by students, so that a certain percentage will be presumed to deserve "B" grades and so on; as a result, in one recent year the pass mark for advanced level mathematics was somewhere in the region of 25 percent.
The examination boards have also been found to have made various errors in the administration of particular examinations, errors made public in an increasingly vigilant media environment.
They have also been prepared to abandon the idea that the advanced level examination should be taken after two years of study. Students can now take one half of the examination after the first year of work, and may re-sit modules in the advanced level to improve their grades.
The opportunity to re-sit modules to improve performance is helpful. It contributes, however, to the perception the advanced level is no longer the rigorous examination that it once was.
Stephen Vasciannie is a professor at the University of the West Indies and a consultant in the Attorney-General's office.
