MARKET FORCES

Some of the strongest criticisms brought to the attention of the working group hinged upon (presumably unintended) consequences of the simplistic application of `market forces' to education. We would all like to see standards raised, to drive out bad practices and to foster good ones. However, the use of unnecessarily crude measures of success often militates against what is ostensibly desired. For example, league tables encourage schools to move their examination entries to what are seen as `less demanding' examination boards --- and the working group was supplied with compelling evidence that this is happening. Moreover, demands on students and overall standards are slipping as the boards themselves compete to retain market shares. Modular A-levels may have much to offer, but schools should not feel compelled to switch to them simply because they allow a near 100% pass rate, (since the students who fail to achieve that goal can be discounted).

Similar unfortunate effects of market forces are seen in higher education. In the first place, because of prospective science and engineering students' worries about mathematics, there is pressure on those departments to reduce the mathematical content of their courses. There are also pressures to retain students for the funds they generate, even if they fail mathematics courses which form part of their degree. Finally, there is pressure to award more first and upper second class honours degrees, since this could be taken as a measure of the effectiveness of an institution rather than of its generosity. All these pressures drive down standards.

The losers include the more selective departments whose traditions of excellence are undermined, and the high-attainers (on whose future so much of the country's prosperity depends) who fail to be challenged and whose achievements are not adequately recognised.

We urge the government to take serious note of these comments and, after full and open discussion, to act before irreparable damage is done.