A-levels that go to 11

The Government is gearing up to have another go at reforming education. Data out this week suggest they may have a reason to do so: the number of people aged 15-24 who are neither working nor studying has ballooned since Labour came to power. If you're not gainfully occupied at that age, there's not much chance of you doing anything useful with the rest of your life.

One particular concern for the Government is the continued under-representation of the poor in the top Universities. And the proposed remedy? The Government has announced the introduction of a new "A-star" grade to A-level results. I suggest that this grade should be known as a "Tufnel", after the Spinal Tap guitarist whose prized amplifier "goes to 11".

Does the Government's track record in the field of education allow any reason for hope that this time they'll get it right? Let's answer that by posing an imaginary A-level question to Tony Blair and all the folks who've handled the education portfolio over the years:

"You are the Minister of Education. You introduce measures to force students to borrow money to finance the cost of their higher education. You allow the best universities to increase tuition costs toward market levels. You devalue the examination system so that universities cannot trust it to identify the best candidates. What exactly do you expect to happen?"

The issue of who should pay for higher education is a tricky one. You can argue that graduates will earn more than non-graduates over the course of their careers, and can therefore safely be asked to pay back the cost of their education once they start work. Against that, however, you can argue that an increase in overall education levels benefits all of society, not just the graduates, so society should bear some or all of the cost.

In my day the UK addressed this problem in a highly counter-intuitive way, with local authorities paying for higher education for people from their areas, subject to a very small means test. This worked out fine for me, but has always struck me as bizarre: if getting a higher education guarantees anything, it's that you will move away from the place you grew up. The London Borough of Waltham Forest paid for my education, but I've never paid a penny of tax there in the 35 years since I graduated.

Amazingly, vestiges of this approach still exist, but more and more of the burden is being pushed onto the students (or their families). This may not be a problem if you're the scion of some middle class family; but I have no hesitation in saying that if these rules had been in place when I was growing up, I would very likely never have gone to Cambridge. Much better to minimise my risks by going to somewhere less challenging (and less expensive).

Then there are the A-levels, even before the "Tufnel" grade comes into effect. I was a pretty bright kid and I got three A-levels, which was the norm back in the late 60s. That took two years of hard work, plus three exams of up to three hours each for each subject. All of the exams involved essay writing: there were no multiple choice questions. No allowance was made for coursework and you could not appeal if you didn't like the results. To enhance my chances of getting the university place I wanted, I also took two optional "special" papers in my two main subjects, and also had to pass an exam known as "Use of English". On one memorable day in 1967 I had three A-level exams -- 9 am to noon, 1:30 to 4:30 and 5 until 6:30. In terms of my future, you can argue that was the most important day of my life. I was 17.

I will state categorically that no normal person could have got good grades in more than three or at most four A-levels in those days -- and no university expected you to try. The universities knew that the A-levels would identify those who were most likely to succeed at undergraduate level, while the Use of English exam ensured there was no need for remedial reading courses for first-year students.

Now we hear that Cambridge is so disillusioned with A-levels that it is considering sponsoring a "pre-U" exam that will allow it to identify the candidates it wants. Ask yourself: who is going to be able to provide the specialised teaching to allow students to succeed at the pre-U: public schools, or your local comprehensive? (Oops, multiple choice question -- I must be dumbing down). If the Government doesn't want the number of poor students at the best universities to dwindle even further, it needs to restore faith in the public exam system. If it wants to take on a consultant to help out, it shouldn't hire Nigel Tufnel.