CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
78. The perceived crisis in the A level system
in summer 2002 was born out of the real concerns of students,
parents and schools and colleges over some exam results and lurid
stories in the newspapers, on television and on the Today
programme about the 'fixing' of grades. 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.
79. We welcome the reports produced by Mr Tomlinson
and his inquiry team. He produced a useful analysis of the events
of the summer operating on a restricted time frame. 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.
80. We welcome the principles underlying Curriculum
2000 and congratulate those who worked hard to implement it in
their schools and colleges. The school and college representatives
who gave evidence to us all supported the new curriculum and argued
that the hard evidence of what papers looked like and how questions
were marked would help to ensure that the exams would operate
smoothly in 2003 and beyond. We reject a knee-jerk change to
the curriculum. The time and money invested in implementing Curriculum
2000 must not be wasted.
81. There has been a lively debate about the
future of the A Levels. Whilst our evidence focused on this year's
events and therefore does not extend to the long term implications
of curriculum change, 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 this current qualification.
82. We urge the Government to encourage the
acceptance of the new AS and A2 levels by our universities. By
adopting Curriculum 2000, the Government has shown its support
for a broader curriculum at A level. For students to benefit from
this policy, universities must also support the diversification
of study at A level and adapt their admissions procedure to reflect
this. This could be a key factor in progress towards the
achievement of the Government's target of 50% of 18 to 30 year
olds participating in higher education by 2010, as our evidence
has shown that the AS exam helped more students to achieve the
A level standard.
83. Our evidence has shown that the awarding
bodies, AQA, Edexcel and OCR, each made considerable efforts to
maintain the standard of the A level system and succeeded to do
this in the majority of cases. We also recognise that the QCA
had made some considerable efforts to ensure that the results
of 2002 were not compromised. The QCA should have provided
clearer guidance to the schools, colleges and awarding bodies.
However, the guidance most requested by schools, colleges and
awarding bodies was that of exemplar material. Had the A2 examinations
been piloted, the information required to provide guidance would
have been available to the awarding bodies. 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
the students themselves.
84. It was significant
that only one examination board, OCR, took decisions which were
considered by the Tomlinson inquiry to be inappropriate and when
reviewed OCR took the opportunity to change them. We formed
the opinion that OCR felt pressurised by the QCA to suppress grade
inflation. Neither did they accept that AS and A2 were of equal
value. However we are satisfied that the guidelines imposed on
the examination boards, following the Tomlinson report, will enable
future grading decisions to take place in a more transparent environment.
We expect the exam boards to grade this year's A levels with professionalism
and consistency.
85. 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.
86. We are concerned
that the new A2 was introduced without proper piloting. We believe
the QCA felt pressured into introducing these examinations quickly
and without what they would have considered adequate trials. These
events question the independence of the QCA as a watchdog designed
to advise the Government on qualification and curriculum issues.
Since its establishment, QCA has gained a number of functions
in addition to its regulatory role.
87. 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 the
QCA; if it had accepted guidance and allowed the A2 examinations
to have been piloted, this report would almost certainly not have
been necessary. For this to happen
other functions such as settings SATs, would need to be redistributed.
88. The exaggerated, almost hysterical, way
in which the A level debate was reported was extremely unhelpful
and was considerably more damaging to the system than the problems
with grading, which ultimately resulted in some minor changes
to the allocation of a minority of grade boundaries. Many of our
witnesses highlighted the lack of general public understanding
of the A level process. We recommend the DfES and QCA take
a more proactive role in making the examination system more transparent
to parents, schools and colleges. We hope that when the A level
results are published in August this year that any issues that
do arise will be reported in a balanced and measured way.
| 
