Can the new A level law curriculum meet the demands of higher education?

In his paper Birju Kotecha (St John Rigby College) presented early reflections on whether changes in the A level law curriculum can meet aspirations to develop students better prepared for studying law as an undergraduate.

Birju’s slides are embedded below.

• What can we legitimately expect from A levels?
• Are we in fact expecting too much?
• To what extent should the burden be on other stakeholders in the process?

Birju, a current teacher of A level law, gave a personal reflection on the challenges inhibiting the skills development of students, offering suggestions from his experience. The paper explored the efficacy of the 2008 A level law curriculum in achieving its aspirations, looking at the raison d’etre for the changes before assessing the typical student skills profile upon commencing university.

The paper examined the framing of assessment objectives and the means by which they are currently assessed, covering areas such as student progression, managing aspirations, effective pedagogy and skills based teaching, with a briefer look at other institutional challenges in post 16 education and at both curricular (macro) and classroom (micro) strategies aimed at pursuing the skills needed on entering a law degree.

The question to consider is whether the latest rationale for change, in particular the development of critical skills, is achievable by the new features of the curriculum. Further, whether (if at all) the curriculum accommodates the challenges that limit teachers in their pursuit to develop the critical skills of A level students preparing for university. Are the changes in fact more rooted in form than substance? Whilst the language, format and content of the curriculum have been adapted, this can not in itself lead to the outcomes that were the justification for the changes – the new curriculum will still be set back by traditional modes of assessment and a lack of emphasis on critical thinking and the learning skills that characterise the demands of higher education. Teaching professionals need greater training in creating genuine compelling learning experiences, uniting both intellectual critical exploration and the acquisition of professional skills.

What is needed is a clearer focus and understanding of what A levels are currently expected to achieve, in tangible terms, based on practical skills and competencies that are continually self evaluated and developed through effective dialogue between the various stakeholders. Assessments thus should also be more holistic, with greater teacher assessments of measurable skills. Each A level should thus potentially have an accompanying grade assessing the student’s current aptitude and effective progress in meeting skills based criteria that could be carried through to their undergraduate study.

The old and new A level curricula (table informed by the Tomlinson Inquiry into A level standards (December 2002) and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority)

Mick Sumpter (University of Northampton) reports:

I suspect that many – if not all – of those present at this session were from the higher education sector with limited recent experience of A level law, making Birju’s paper particularly enlightening.
 
A discussion of the rationale for the changes to the curriculum lead to the general conclusion that it may not deliver the desired outcomes and is more rooted in form than in substance. One interesting suggestion was that universities might play a more prominent role in shaping – and perhaps even approving – the A level syllabus.

About Birju

Birju Kotecha is currently a teacher of A level law at St John Rigby College in Wigan and an MA student at the University of Manchester. He holds an LLB and a PGCE qualification and previously taught A level law and general studies in Milton Keynes.

Birju’s other academic interests include human rights, global citizenship, civil society and international development.

Last Modified: 9 July 2010