THE predictable increase in A-level passes and high marks is again the subject of controversy. Are standards really improving, or are A-levels easier then they were?

The issue is made the more difficult to resolve, since those who support the status quo have a depressing tendency to ascribe motives of malice or self-interest to those of us who believe there is cause for concern.

Typically we are accused of criticising pupils and teachers who have worked hard to achieve their best results, which is not the case, so that what we have is not the search for truth, but emotional blackmail. Politicians are particular prone to this attitude, since education is a major public issue and young people grow up to be voters.

I believe there has been a serious dumbing down in the recent past. And I take this view for two broad reasons.

First, we now have a huge educational bureaucracy, which grows and grows. There is the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) whose costs rose from £10 million in 1988 to nearly £60 million today, with a staff of 466. Then there is the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) whose Corporate Plan says that its "programme budget" for 2002-03 will be £425 million, running costs will be £9 million, and staff will number "about 180". We also have the new Learning and Skills Council which consists of a national body and 47 local councils, and before it began to operate it had already made some 800 senior appointments. And, or course, we have the Ofsted inspectorate whose annual budget in 2002-03 will be £197 million.

This formidable bureaucracy structure has, in general, one basic function: to persuade both the state and society that the education service is in good hands, all is well, and standards are steadily improving. Yet when I entered the teaching profession in 1961 none of these organisations existed; we had HMI whose function was to inspect individual schools and produce reports for the governors. And standards of public examinations were undoubtedly higher than they are now.

As for pass rates and higher grades awarded, we have now reached the stage where, if things go on as they are, we can predict that there will be more candidates passing than there are candidates entered in the not-too-distant future. There are a number of possible ways of explaining this.

It may be that too many examiners are confusing egalitarian, politically-correct theorising with the pursuit and measuring of excellence, as described in Melanie Phillips' "All Must Have Prizes". It may be that there has been a sudden and unexplained increase in candidates' intellectual capacity, a development no half-way competent psychologist would accept as likely; or perhaps in teachers' ability to get pupils through examinations. Or, and this seems far more likely, standards have fallen since the abolition of the old dual system of GCE and CSE, and examinations are easier.

As I say, I shall be excoriated by those with an axe to grind for daring to challenge the status quo, but this is a serious issue which demands a public airing.

RAY HONEYFORD,

Wragby Close, Bury.