Memorandum submitted by OCR (QCA 19)
This brief paper identifies key issues that
OCR believes need to be addressed in order to improve public confidence
in and understanding of the assessment arrangements for the "Curriculum
2000" qualifications.
1. THE STRUCTURE
OF "CURRICULUM
2000" QUALIFICATIONS
— The assessment issues that provoked
debate this summer are a direct consequence of the structure of
the new A Level qualifications. The first part of the assessment—the
AS—focuses on the first year of A Level teaching and is
set at a level of demand appropriate after one year of sixth-form
study. This means the standard is lower than that of the old A
Level. The second part of the assessment—the A2—focuses
on the second year of study, and includes the so-called "synoptic
assessment" that is designed to ensure that students have
gained an understanding of the courses of study as a whole. The
A2 is set at a correspondingly higher level of demand than A Level
to balance the lower standard of the AS. The overall A Level standard
is achieved by the combination of the two different levels.
— The AS is a "stand-alone"
qualification in its own right: it is designed to provide recognition
for achievement if students choose not to pursue a subject into
the second year of sixth form. It has proved to be very popular
with students and teachers alike for that reason. An issue to
be addressed is whether the A2 ought also to be "stand alone";
were it to be so, the difficulty of combining two new and different
standards to maintain the overall legacy A Level standard would
be overcome. The issue then would be whether A2 assessment (as
currently designed) would provide sufficient basis to be equated
in content and skills with the old A Level.
— When the new qualifications were
being designed, there was a major debate on the weighting to be
given to the AS and the A2. The original proposal was for an AS
weighted at 40%, with a more demanding A2 carrying 60%. The final
decision was for a 50:50 weighting. This decision had a major
impact on the determination of the assessment standards.
— In the longer term, consideration
also needs to be given to a qualification structure that better
matches the teaching time available in schools and colleges, and
at the same time reduces the assessment burden on students. It
could be argued, for example, that a four unit arrangement might
provide advantages for teachers and examiners.
2. STANDARDS
— There is an urgent need to produce
and disseminate an agreed definition of the standard required
of students on AS and A2 assessments and, crucially, the relationship
between the two and the old A Level.
— There is an equally urgent need to
establish clear guidance on the balance to be struck in the awarding
process between professional judgement and the use of statistical
evidence.
— There is a fundamental tension inherent
in the awarding process between the current Code of Practice (CoP)
requirement to maintain year-on-year standards at qualification
level whilst making examiner judgements on the basis of script
evidence at unit level.
— This is primarily the cause of concern
widely expressed (both publicly and within awarding bodies) that
the demands required in the form of unit grade boundaries at A2
are significantly higher than in the past, although the overall
A Level results are equally significantly better than in the legacy
A Level.
— Guidance is required for teachers
to ensure that there are no misunderstandings of the two separate
activities of marking and grading. Many of the concerns expressed
this year stem from the incorrect assumption that by marking their
students' coursework, teachers are determining the grades to which
the students are thereafter entitled. There is little understanding
that the normal awarding process which sets grade boundaries for
that year applies to all types of assessment, including coursework.
3. PROCESS
— The new AS/A2 structure has imposed
greater pressure on the time available to carry out the marking
and grading process.
— The "fixed point" to which
the A Level system is required to work is the university admissions
process. The current admissions system relies on teachers predicted
grades and conditional offers. The result is that many students
every year (for whatever reason) do not obtain their predicted
grades. With a mass HE entry process, moving towards a post qualification
admissions system would, we believe, save staff time and resources
in HE and would, critically, enable all students to seek suitable
HE places when in full possession of accurate information about
their achievements.
— All examination boards have experienced
increasing difficulties in attracting and retaining suitably qualified
examiners. Headteachers and Principals of many schools and colleges
are increasingly reluctant to release staff for examining purposes.
The age profile of the examining force is worrying in that attracting
younger teachers in particular has become more difficult. The
examination boards on their own cannot address this situation;
concerted action involving both QCA and the DfES are required:
recognition that involvement in public examining is a worthwhile
form of professional development that carries with it benefits
(financial as well as professional) are needed to reverse the
current trend.
4. REGULATION
— The quinquennial review indicated
the need for QCA to be a robust defender of the public examinations
system. In order to fulfil that role, it needs to be, and be seen
to be, independent of Government. It is difficult not to conclude
that its closeness to the DfES (and its predecessors) has had
a direct impact on the design and implementation of the "Curriculum
2000" qualifications. Again, it has been unable to counteract
allegations of direct pressure on issues that have critical impact
on assessment design and process, which led to the current position.
— Since its creation in 1997, QCA has
been too heavily involved in the detailed design of assessment
systems without, in our view, the expert understanding of the
implications of the requirements it imposed. In the context of
the new A Levels, two examples illustrate the point: the way in
which the subject criteria imposed undue complexities on the way
in which many subjects had to be assessed (English Literature
being a case in point), and second, the way in which synoptic
assessment was introduced (late in the development), defined and
incorporated into subject criteria.
— The QCA accreditation process for
individual qualifications has been too lengthy and subject to
far too many delays and to inconsistencies between subject teams
and staff. Time-lines need to be set out before new initiatives
begin and adhered to.
— QCA needs to focus far more of its
attention on conducting an effective programme of monitoring that
addresses the key issue of consistency of standards applied by
awarding bodies. At present, it focuses too much on simply adherence
to processes.
— Implementation of change without
trialling or piloting inevitably means foreseeable problems not
being worked through. Hastily conceived changes compound instability
for schools, examiners and awarding bodies (eg The Hargreaves
Review, in Summer 2001 to AS and A2 assessment, which followed
demands to ease the timetable and the assessment burden after
the first AS examinations.
— Lack of appreciation of the impact
of regulatory requirements on operating systems has proved costly
and confusing to awarding bodies as well as schools and colleges.
5. IMPLEMENTING
CHANGE
— A clear statement of the time-scales
involved in the preparation and implementation of curriculum changes
need to be agreed between all parties and widely disseminated.
This needs to cover the period for development of new criteria
(by QCA) specifications by awarding bodies, the period needed
for effective trialling, when In-Service Training (INSET) should
be provided for teachers and lecturers and when exemplar materials
and other support will be made available to schools and colleges.
— The concept of "Curriculum 2000"
has been generally regarded as a welcome and successful development
of post-16 education; OCR concurs with this view. However, the
communication and implementation process was too rushed both for
schools and colleges as well as awarding bodies. It allowed insufficient
time for the preparation needed to ensure clear understanding
and effective teaching and assessment of the new courses.
6. ATTACHED SCHEMATIC
— We enclose a schematic which illustrates
the difference between the standard at legacy A-level and the
standard of Curriculum 2000.
October 2002
|
