Government response
The Government welcomes the Select Committee's serious
analysis of the origins of the problems which arose with A levels
last year. Its detailed response is set out below.
The Select Committee's conclusions and recommendations
are in bold text. The Government's response is in plain text.
Some of the recommendations and responses have been grouped.
1. On the evidence presented to us, we conclude
that the events of last summer were not caused by the manipulation
of the examination system but by confusion arising from the introduction
of the A2 exam without adequate trials.
The Government welcomes the Committee's conclusion
that the events of last year were not caused by manipulation of
the system. Mike Tomlinson's independent inquiry of last year
reached the same conclusion. It nonetheless takes seriously the
implication that more should be done to ensure that such problems
do not arise in future with A levels or other qualifications.
Our proposals published in January for reform to the 14-19 curriculum
and qualifications emphasised the need for an appropriate timescale
for implementation.
We are determined to do all we can to ensure that
last year's problems are not repeated and that those students
taking A levels, or coming up to A levels, can be confident that
their work will be properly graded. Since Mr Tomlinson published
his initial recommendations, on 27 September, QCA and others have
been taking the recommendations forward as a matter of urgency.
QCA have now produced simple and clear descriptions for AS and
A-Level standards. In consultation with teachers and examiners,
performance descriptions and exemplar materials have been produced
by QCA for A-Level examinations using AS and A2 scripts from Summer
2002. The Code of Practice has been amended significantly, as
recommended by Mr Tomlinson. In particular changes have been made
to the Code so that in the setting of grade boundaries, the professional
judgement of examiners will take precedence over technical and
statistical evidence.
Piloting of A2 was not proposed. This lesson will
also be learned.
2. We welcome the transitional role of external
assessor of the examination system and are confident that this
will assist in upholding the integrity of the A level qualification
system
The Government welcomes the Committee's support of
Mr Tomlinson's appointment as an independent observer on the 2003
awarding process. Mr Tomlinson's report on the January 2003 examinations
said that the awarding process had gone well. Mr Tomlinson will
report again publicly to the QCA board on the summer awarding
process. This should provide additional confidence to schools,
colleges and students in the summer examinations. Beyond 2003
QCA, with Teacher Association representatives, will audit the
grading process. QCA are also establishing an independent group
of experts to report on the maintenance of standards in selected
groups of subjects from year to year.
3. We reject a knee-jerk change to the curriculum.
The time and money invested in implementing Curriculum 2000 must
not be wasted.
We emphasise the importance of supporting the
current A level system. A period of stability is required, and
further discussions about the future of the system should be undertaken
with caution in order not to undermine the value of the current
qualification.
Our first priority is to ensure the smooth running
of A levels this year and beyond. Both the Committee and Mr Tomlinson
found widespread support for the principles behind Curriculum
2000. All students, teachers and parents starting or contemplating
their AS and A2 examinations must be confident that their work
will be properly set, marked, graded and valued. We are working
with QCA and others to give assurance to students and the wider
community that the existing system is stable and effectively managed.
4. We urge the Government to encourage the acceptance
of the new AS and A2 levels by our universities.
AS and A2 will continue to be among the main awards
available for students to demonstrate their suitability for admission
to Higher Education for some years to come. We have supported
the Universities and Colleges' Admission Service to publish "Changes
to Post-16 Qualifications: a briefing for Higher Education on
changes to the post-16 curriculum in England, Northern Ireland
and Wales", which sets out the value of the new awards fully.
Departmental officials have visited admissions officers and tutors
to explain the awards and encourage their take up in offers. We
are also planning to hold seminars for university admissions officers
and tutors this Autumn in order to encourage them to make the
most effective use of the awards currently on offer.
5. Our evidence has shown that the QCA was not
solely responsible for the issues arising this year. The DfES
presented a timetable to implement Curriculum 2000 which was not
properly thought through and placed considerable pressure on all
those in the examination system from the QCA to students themselves.
On the subject of implementation of Curriculum 2000
the Government acted on advice from QCA following an extensive
consultation. The A level reforms have their origins in the Dearing
Review of Qualifications for 16-19 year olds published in March
1996. Before introducing the reforms we published the consultation
document Qualifying for Success in October 1997. In the light
of the response to that document QCA advised that it would not
be practical to implement many of the proposals before September
2000. We accepted this advice. The possibility of delaying implementation
of the reforms beyond September 2000 did not enter in the discussions.
The AS was piloted before its introduction as QCA
recognised that it was a new qualification and that a new standard
would need to be established. The possibility of piloting the
A2 exam was not contemplated at the time. We accept that this
would have been desirable.
We recognise absolutely that there are lessons to
be learnt for the future about the way in which we implement major
reforms of this sort. Detailed planning and extensive trialling
is essential so that we can be confident that all systems are
in place and that teachers and examiners are fully trained in
new requirements before they are introduced. In particular, there
needs to be clarity among teachers and examiners about the standards
against which an individual's performance will be assessed.
We have accepted the implications of this in relation
to changes already in hand. For example, the revisions to the
Vocational Certificate of Education (VCE) recommended by David
Hargreaves in his first report into Curriculum 2000, and commented
on by Mike Tomlinson in his first report into A Level standards,
will only be brought in after a period of trialling. The changes
will not take effect before September 2005 at the earliest.
Mike Tomlinson's Working Group on 14-19 reform is
also considering this issue as part of its work on longer term
reform and is very much aware of previous problems. We can assure
the Committee that any future reform will be fully developed,
piloted and tested with all the necessary supporting guidance
and exemplar material available before implementation.
6. It is significant that none of the evidence
we received argued that the answer to problems of consistency
is to have a single awarding body; on the contrary, the diversity
provided by the three boards was welcomed. All three will continue
to have an important role to play, not least because it is by
no means certain that there are other bodies keen to enter this
market.
The accreditation of an awarding body is a matter
for QCA. The Government notes the Committee's conclusion. We have
not proposed change in this area.
7. We recommend that the QCA's regulatory function
be given more independence in a similar way to OFSTED, and that
it should be directly accountable to Parliament. Independent advice
should be seen as an asset, not as a problem. The DfES should
make greater use of the wealth of expertise within QCA; if it
had accepted guidance and allowed the A2 examinations to have
been piloted, this report would almost certainly not have been
necessary.
The Government agrees that the independence of QCA
in its role of regulator must be clear and beyond question. We
are open to the debate about greater statutory independence. However,
any debate needs to take account of the disruption that would
arise from institutional change and which would be a distraction
from the immediate priority of managing the delivery and standards
of A levels.
As recommended by Mr Tomlinson we have now agreed
a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the QCA which describes
the relationship between the Department and QCA. The MoU sets
out the core responsibilities of the DfES and the QCA in relation
to the QCA's remit. It covers the formal conduct of business between
Ministers and QCA as well as the day to day arrangements between
QCA and the DfES officials. We will continue to keep the relationship
under review. The MoU is available on the QCA website, and a copy
has been placed in the Library.
8. We recommend that the DfES and QCA take a more
proactive role in making the examination system more transparent
to parents, schools and colleges.
The Government agrees that more needs to be done
to make the examination system more transparent. We have been
actively pursuing this with QCA in the run up to this summer's
examinations. As part of the A level communication programme QCA
have:
- Included a guide for teachers in the Times Educational
Supplement in April; a colour reprint was distributed at various
teacher conferences;
- Published a free A Level Guide for students available
from any branch of WH Smith - 100,000 extra copies have been ordered
by schools;
- Launched a campaign to emphasise students' achievements,
entitled A Level of Pride, featuring advertisements in the national
press.
In addition QCA also held a targeted briefing for
MPs in the House of Commons on 13 May.
Department for Education and Skills
14 July 2003
| 
