The RSC is the largest organisation in Europe for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a worldwide network of members and an international publishing business, our activities span education, conferences, science policy and the promotion of chemistry to the public.

  The RSC welcomes much of the Government's response, particularly in the areas of improving the supply of qualified chemistry teachers. The RSC is convinced that a teacher with appropriate subject knowledge in their specialism is a major factor in enthusing pupils to further study.

  There are two areas where further comments must be made:

  1.  The Government's response to Para 6.2, in particular the second paragraph:

"Student perceptions and attitudes to subjects undoubtedly affect their choices post-16. The Government acknowledges that some students do perceive science and mathematics as being difficult A-level subjects, although it does not agree that some A-levels are easier than others. All A-levels have strict standards which have been set by the awarding bodies and are monitored by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. This standard is set as `advanced' regardless of the nature of the subject."

  This response ignores a vast amount of evidence, some of it emanating from Government commissioned reports, such as that by Lord Dearing on 16-19 education in 1996. In this report, and in the work of the University of Durham Curriculum, Evaluation and Management (CEM) Centre, [3]widely used by many schools and colleges under the acronym ALIS (Advanced Level Information System), a study of matched subject pair analyses shows that performance in some A-level subjects is lower than others when other factors, such as prior performance, are taken into account.

  The introduction of new A-levels in 2008 gives an opportunity for these inequalities to be ironed out. This does not necessarily mean altering the "gold standard" of subjects such as mathematics, physics and chemistry, nor altering the content or assessment models of other subjects. The RSC recommends that awarding of marks using the unified mark score (UMS) system for modules during the assessment of the new A-levels be subject to review by QCA and that Awarding Bodies be required to change their UMS scores if matched pair analyses show these to be inequitable across subjects.

  2.  The Government's responses to paras 6.6 and 6.7 with respect to piloting and the introduction of new qualifications. The response baldly states "It is too late in the development process to pilot the Key Stage 3 programme of study and the A-level changes".

  This is purely as a consequence of the Government not seeing curriculum change as a coherent and long term process. In science in particular the radical changes at Key Stage 4 have meant that greater changes are necessitated both at key Stage 3 and A-level to produce coherence. At Key Stage 3, unlike at Key Stage 4 and A-level there are no subject criteria nor awarding body specifications to clarify what teachers teach and what students learn and are assessed on. This exacerbates the concerns of teachers as how best to reflect the new, much more general programme of study. A major concern is that teachers will respond by teaching to the test, to the detriment of pupils' enjoyment and enthusiasm.

  The RSC recommends that DFES and QCA urgently addresses these issues and makes its recommendations widely known to the teaching profession.

March 2007