ABSTRACT

The post-16 curriculum as a whole is currently much debated and has been the subject of numerous reforms and reform proposals since the 1970s (Hodgson and Spours, 2003, pp. 5-26).2

Curriculum debate and reform has been shaped by a number of concerns, including:

• concerns about the narrowness, overspecialization and incoherence of a curriculum that allows students to study a relatively small number of specialized subjects on a ‘pick ’n’ mix’ basis;

• concerns about the vocational relevance, fitness for purpose, take-up and inclusiveness of education and training post-16 and, indeed, 14-19; and

• concerns about the effectiveness with which Advanced Level qualifications are performing their traditional functions of maintaining academic standards and preparing students for higher education.3