Nick Seaton: Our children deserve good schools... and exams we can all have faith in

Quite properly, the A* was introduced in response to complaints from university admissions officers that A-levels did not enable them to differentiate between the best and the very best applicants when awarding places. This, of course, is a vital requirement in the case of academically demanding, oversubscribed degree courses such as medicine.

Having been granted their wish, most universities, including Oxford, have so far refused to recognise the A*. They fear that the new grade will give an unfair advantage to youngsters from independent schools, where pupils are three times more likely to get A*s than their state-educated peers. This would work against demands from the Universities Minister, David Willetts who, earlier this week, told universities to improve social mobility by allocating more places to youngsters from underprivileged backgrounds who may have lower exam grades.

But are universities to educate high-fliers to the best possible standards? Or should they accept that one of their priorities is social engineering – to remedy the deficiencies of underperfoming schools? The number of places is limited by politicians, so they can't do both.

The new A* grade disappointed on other grounds too.

It was hoped an additional top grade would counter concerns about grade inflation. But the exam boards' manipulation of grade boundaries,

again, we must assume, to prevent private schools from winning too many prizes, meant that more than eight per cent were awarded A*s.

This was the same proportion as achieved an A grade in 1965, when A-levels did not cater for the wide range of abilities they do now. (This year, 27 per cent were graded A or A* and almost 98 per cent of all entries passed.)

The GCSE is also in trouble. Too easy and too many "soft" subjects are offered to help schools' league table positions rather than their pupils. It was recently reported that one exam board was awarding a science grade C for only 20 per cent of the marks. Another board was awarding science A grades for 47 per cent.

As Dr Martin Stephen, the High Master of St Paul's School in London, wrote last weekend: "Our examination system is a complete mess."

So should this be the end of the road for A-levels and GCSEs?

Both face competition so they must improve or die.

Instead of A-levels, some schools are now offering the International Baccalaureate (IB) which, in stark contrast with our exams, has been free from grade inflation. The IB, however, covers six subjects and requires passes in all of them. It may suit clever all-rounders, but its ability to cater for, or stretch, the specialist scientist or linguist must be doubted. A better alternative, perhaps, is the new Cambridge Pre-U exam which, like the A-level, offers individual subject choices according to candidates' needs.

What is encouraging is that ministers have identified some of the major problems and seem to be moving in the right direction.

They have already approved the International GCSE exam for use in state schools. IGCSEs are better preparation for A-levels, free from coursework, and highly regarded by independent schools. But why don't they also approve O-levels for use by UK candidates as well as those based overseas who still enjoy that choice?

Later this year, the whole system will be reviewed. What should we hope for?

First and foremost, any review must welcome competition and learn from it. Exams in academic subjects should be different from exams in vocational subjects and they cannot all be valued equally.

What are exams for?

It must be accepted that their primary purpose is objectively to measure knowledge and ability, and provide essential stepping stones to higher levels of study. In order to restore academic integrity in the traditional subjects, the best teachers and university dons should be invited in to ensure standards are improved.

For vocational subjects, ministers should invite leading experts from the world of work to ensure every exam measures the precise knowledge and skills they need.

For all their flaws, GCSEs and A-levels have a huge advantage over

their competitors: everyone knows what they are. If, however, they are to retain their dominant position, those who set and administer them must guarantee rigour and reliability. As well as being open about the whole process, the establishment must reject the keyword/tick-box mentality that predominates at present.

Improving social mobility and helping underprivileged youngsters are laudable aims. But instead of manipulating admissions to universities, wouldn't it be better to ensure that every youngster, regardless of family background, has the choice of a good school? And exams we can all have faith in?

Nick Seaton, from York, is chairman of the Campaign for Real Education.