We know the score with science

18th January 2013 at 00:00

I read with interest that Science Community Representing Education (Score) is arguing that the government should continue to fund 16-19 education on a per-qualification basis ("Funding overhaul could force schools to drop science A levels", 11 January). Current funding reforms will return us to the historical norm and restore per-student funding post-16, in line with the rest of schooling. Score believes that this will reduce schools' willingness to offer science A levels.

The empirical evidence, however, does not support Score's argument. On the contrary, it indicates that per-qualification funding has been bad for the uptake of science as well as for the quality of post-16 education more generally.

A qualification-based system provides schools with strong incentives - but not to offer the "best-funded" qualification. Instead, it encourages them to offer the most "profitable" courses. As I and others have found, this system has a pernicious effect on quality.

Alison Wolf, Sir Roy Griffiths professor of public sector management at King's College London and author of the Wolf review.

Subscribe to get access to the content on this page.

If you are already a Tes/ Tes Scotland subscriber please log in with your username or email address to get full access to our back issues, CPD library and membership plus page.

Not a subscriber? Find out more about our subscription offers.
Subscribe now
Existing subscriber?
Enter subscription number


The guide by your side – ensuring you are always up to date with the latest in education.

Get Tes magazine online and delivered to your door. Stay up to date with the latest research, teacher innovation and insight, plus classroom tips and techniques with a Tes magazine subscription.
With a Tes magazine subscription you get exclusive access to our CPD library. Including our New Teachers’ special for NQTS, Ed Tech, How to Get a Job, Trip Planner, Ed Biz Special and all Tes back issues.

Subscribe now