In retrospect 2000 proved to be an excellent time to return to teaching Economics. On the one hand it was like meeting an old friend who has aged with dignity: the "Edexcel" (formerly University of London Examinations Syndicate) G.C.E. "A" Level for which the Year 13s were preparing was, in approach and assessment, very similar to the "A" Level one took in 1976. Despite the greater emphasis on data response and structured essays, it still required candidates to do a hefty multiple choice paper. But above all the syllabus still had a strong theoretical flavour to it which enabled candidates, and teachers, to revel in the internal consistency of models and the scope for logical exercises which this offered. This of course tends to be at the expense of finding links between theory and supporting evidence in the real world. It is this lack of relevance, a feeling that the method of assessment needed a drastic overhaul as did the approach to teaching the subject that have fuelled the change which have shaped Economics 2000.

Whatever the weaknesses of the "old" approach to the teaching of Economics at "A" Level, it is held in high esteem as an academic subject by universities in the United Kingdom. This is a claim which Business Studies, a much more popular ("sexier" in the words of an Edexcel representative) cannot make: it is simply not accepted as a valid subject for university admissions by the majority of top British universities.

Curriculum 2000 has meant major changes for all subjects at this level and not least for Economics. Gone is the "theory followed by application" rule. The basic concerns of the discipline have shifted. The aim is now to assist the pupil in understanding the power of Economics as a tool to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the market economy and to develop theoretical knowledge through the analysis of institutions and phenomena.

The starting point has moved. Formerly Economics "A" Level was taught on the implicit understanding that most candidates would go on to do the subject at University. (At Runnymede College this has in fact tended to be the case). Those responsible for the design of the new syllabus take as their starting point the fact that for 80% of pupils "A" Level is the end of the road as far as this subject is concerned.

With this in mind, it becomes obvious that the course should be directed at current controversies and understanding some of the most basic principles that policy makers adopt. It should enable pupils to understand the basic economic arguments underlying the political debate of the day. With the new Economics "A" Level pupils will learn about the determinants of unemployment and the rate of inflation and understand short-term fluctuations in economic activity.

The course is planned in such a way as to make it immediately relevant: a few weeks into Unit 1 they are immersed in the economies of the former Eastern Bloc and the "development gap" (which knits in neatly with material familiar to them from IGCSE History and Geography). Petrol prices began to rise on cue as the course began in September and globalisation and Kyoto and have tided us over the summer and seem set to bring in the new academic year in style. We are relying heavily on Mr Blair to call a referendum on the in time for the second term.

On paper the new syllabus seems a great improvement as, of course, does the whole of Curriculum 2000. On the whole the year went well: a new syllabus means a fresh look at the subject, new books and excellent resources on-line which makes keeping up with developments in the UK so easy.

As in every other subject in every school in our educational system the sting was waiting at the end of the year in the form of exams. They were not difficult but they were excessive. The Government has ordered a review of the system and the reviewing body will report before the beginning of the coming academic year.

Going from right to left we had Manuel, our stock market specialist who rather fittingly will be pursuing a degree course at the "Instituto de Estudios Bursátiles"; Hugo resident European affairs expert; Giles who remained determinedly anti despite our best endeavours although he never gave us a convincing and Pedro who gave us a riveting daily account of the goings-on at his neighbours', the Sintel camp.

Like Curriculum 2000, Year 12 were great on paper. Fourteen young men and women. Runnymedians of old in the main, with good academic records....in the main. Some new-comers who added interest to the group...in the main. We drew a short straw with the time-table: five one hour periods every day...at lunch-time, come rain or shine. Easier said than done although it does not look so bad looking back. Possibly because of the rigours of digestion they proved to be an argumentative lot, always ready for a discussion or even a fight. By and large a hard-working group of youngsters to whom my heart went out at exam time. Ten of them have decided to stay on for Economics A2. I am glad.