Hopefully the public at large realise that this is just statistics, although I fear they don’t. Rattling off comparisons with GCSEs’ twenty five year history is nonsense. Things have so often been muddled, confused and changed that making year on year comparisons is meaningless. It’s interesting that the proportion of differing grades is cited but how those grades are arrived at is not. What percentage did students have to achieve to gain those grades? With inflated results and relentless, year-on-year ‘improvement’ people began to grasp the impossibility of what was occurring. Politicians realised that with even a passing glance it was obvious to everybody that this could only reflect a deterioration in the quality of the qualifications set. Lo and behold fewer students are getting top grades to deflect from the real issue – GCSEs need to be swept away in favour of more challenging examinations with all students sitting the same examinations for all subjects.
Shouldn’t funding decisions be dependent on what is being taught and the quality of the teaching however I agree with David Igoe. Why should sixth form colleges be treated differently to institutions providing equivalent qualifications?
The report states, ‘… that sixth-form colleges tend to attract students with lower GCSE grades and higher levels of deprivation than either academies or school sixth forms.’ I fail to see why that is relevant. Are they successful institutions providing quality courses? Surely that is the only reason to level this playing field?