New research on the future of post-16 education and training, published jointly by London and Warwick universities, is being considered by the Labour party before a policy paper is published in the new year.

The study proposes the eventual abolition of both A-levels and general national vocational qualifications in favour of a unified modular curriculum leading to a single national award.

Meanwhile a new paper from the moderate Tory Reform Group calls for the replacement of A-levels with a “twin-track” qualification offering both academic and vocational routes. The group acknowledges that changing the A-level system is “anathema to many Tories”, but insists “there will be no substantive or useful change . . . until A-levels have been abolished.”

The lobby group’s view clashes with the stance taken by ministers, who are understood to have blocked any reform leading to the demise of A-levels from Sir Ron Dearing’s review of 16-to-19 qualifications (TES, November 10).

However, the totem-toppling approach is in line with an emerging consensus in education, business and politics on the need for change. Labour says it wants a unified qualifications framework, but has yet to outline firm proposals.

The London University Institute of Education and Warwick University study, Learning for the Future, argues for a three-stage move to-wards a unified system. Staying with phase one - the present three-track post-16 system of A-levels, advanced GNVQs and work-based training - will not produce enough improved performance to meet the national education and training targets, say the researchers.

Within each track, the match of learning and assessment methods to future needs varies widely, and there is no core of general education beyond the age of 16.

A move to phase two - a common framework within which each of three tracks would lead to a single national award - would encourage greater breadth of study and more flexible approaches to learning, according to the report.

That model is closest to the frameworks being examined by the Dearing review. But the project team says that it would not guarantee balanced programmes although it would give students the option of mixing units.

A long-term strategy would have to progress to a third stage, where the tracks and their associated qualifications would be replaced with a unified system based on pathways. Students would choose core and specialist subject modules, possibly mixing units from the traditionally separate academic and vocational areas.

The proposals are close to the model recommended to Sir Ron Dearing by the Association for Colleges, the Secondary Heads Association and the Sixth Form Colleges Association. The organisations ultimately want to see the curriculum broken down into units, from which students can pick and mix. However, some leading academics want A-levels to be preserved.

Learning for the Future endorses the 1993 finding by the Further Education Funding Council inspectorate that A-levels are seen by teachers as single subjects in isolation and that the curriculum as a whole, including core skills and links between subjects, ends up being neglected.

The brevity of the three-A-level timetable - typically around 15 hours a week compared with the 30-plus usual for a post-16 student in France or Germany - is another issue of concern, according to the project co-director of the project Dr Michael Young, of the London Institute. Broadening the curriculum would mean making use of some of those neglected hours - and finding money for staff.

On the sticky issue of specialisation versus breadth, the researchers argue for a wider definition of specialisation than the subject-based view dominating A-levels, emphasising connecting and applying different forms of subject knowledge.

“Breadth is only a sacrifice if you have a very narrow view of rigour and intellectual demands,” said Dr Young. “A broad-based curriculum is not an easy option - it is very demanding. You are maintaining rigour, but defining it differently.”

The three-phase development proposed in Learning for the Future is not designed to come about overnight - the authors envisage a five- or 10-year process, triggered by the Dearing recommendations.

Even as the Government shows signs of a last attempt to cling to the A-level “gold standard”, the London-Warwick team believe change is inevitable. “There is a lot of consensus,” says Dr Young. “The debate should be de-politicised. ”