Select Committee on Education and Skills Minutes of Evidence


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




 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 14 April 2003