REGARDING the confusion surrounding the recent 'A'-level examinations in the past, it was fairly common for certain examining bodies to move the goalposts concerning results.

A distribution graph was quickly drawn of the number of students obtaining marks in a particular subject and from this, it was decided that the exam was either too difficult, too easy or just right and the axes of the graph were adjusted accordingly.

This guaranteed that a 'fair' number of students achieved a 'fair' result.

What has happened in the present case we may never know, although it is almost certain that government will disclaim all responsibility for the fiasco.

At the secondary school I attended, the Lower Sixth Form could sit what was referred to as "Subsid" at the end of the academic year, whilst the Upper Sixth sat their 'A'-levels at the end of theirs.

I am sure that the marks obtained at Subsid were not tied into the final 'A' mark.

There should be only one examining body for both 'O' and 'A'-level examinations, and students would sit these national examinations. This would prevent teachers "playing the board field" and would give universities a level playing field for entrants.

The other thing that I recommend is the abolition of 'course work.' Its introduction was the main reason for the increasingly wonderful results at both 'O' and 'A' levels. If ever a system left itself open to abuse this one did.

R BRACEWELL (Mr), Ormerod Street, Worsthorne.