Submission by the Headmasters' and Headmistresses'
Conference (HMC) to the Tomlinson inquiry (QCA 23)
INTRODUCTION
1. The Headmasters' and Headmistresses'
Conference (HMC) welcomes the opportunity to submit its views
to Stage Two of the Tomlinson Inquiry on A-level standards.
2. The first stage of the Inquiry was, of
necessity, on a very short time scale. Although the second stage
has until November to reach its conclusions, the issues are complex
and inter-related. We would have wished for more time to gather
evidence and consult HMC members, but we recognise the urgency
of this exercise, which is needed in order to restore not only
the confidence of the public in A-level standards, but also the
confidence of A-level teachers and examiners.
3. The terms of reference of this second
stage of the Inquiry are:
To investigate the arrangements at QCA and the
awarding bodies for setting, maintaining and judging A-level standards,
which are challenging, and ensuring their consistency over time;
and to make recommendations by November to the Secretary of State
and the Chief Executive of QCA for action with the aim of securing
the credibility and integrity of these examinations.
4. The HMC evidence is therefore set out
below in three sections:
— Advanced level standards.
— Roles and relationships of QCA, the
awarding bodies and the DfES.
— General comments about assessment
and examinations from 13-19.
SECTION ONE:
ADVANCED LEVEL
STANDARDS
5. This section identifies the problems
which help to explain why this summer's A-level examination awards
were doomed to go wrong. If then seeks to identify ways forward.
6. The problems were as follows:
(a) Confusion over the word "standards"
The word "standards" does not even
appear in the glossary of the QCA Code of Practice. In common
parlance, a "standard" is something, which is defined
(or set), against which the performance of individuals (or groups)
can be measured or judged. In employment contexts "occupational
standards" are set by employers and in a pure, competence
model, employees either reach the standard (and pass) or don't
reach it (and fail). In educational contexts performance is often
graded, either in relation to more specific criteria (criterion-referencing)
or relative to the performance of others (norm-referencing).
Since the mid 80s, with changes to the A-level
grading system and the introduction of GCSE, there has been a
strong perception that examinations are mainly criterion-referenced.
From this perspective, if more students reach a pre-set standard,
more should pass and achieve higher grades. The numbers of people
now able to run the four-minute mile or reach the summit of Everest
are often cited as real life examples of such a phenomenon. On
the other hand, accusations of "grade inflation" reflect
a public perception that more people are passing A-levels, not
because they are performing any better in relation to a fixed
standard, but because the standard itself has been lowered.
(b) Confusion over the concept of "maintaining
standards over time"
The requirement in the QCA Code of Practice
"to maintain standards over time" compounds an already
confused interpretation of the word standards. It is clear from
evidence presented to stage 1 of the Tomlinson Inquiry that many
people involved in this year's awards—including awarding
body senior personnel and chief examiners—interpreted this
requirement as an expectation that pass rates (and possibly high
grades) would not differ markedly in 2002, from those of the old
"legacy" A-levels in 2001.
The post-awards meetings "manipulations"
that took place at many of OCR's Grade Evaluation meetings altered
the balance between the three key variables in any award: performance
(ie quality of work as judged against set standards), pass marks
(including grade boundaries) and pass rates. The latter were maintained
broadly in line with the 2001 profile of results by increasing
pass marks irrespective of the quality of candidates' work. In
this scenario, it was statistics not standards that were being
maintained over time. It would appear that QCA and the awarding
bodies paid little attention to the report of the three international
experts (Professor Eva Baker, Dr Barrie McGraw and Lord Southerland
of Houndwood) commissioned by QCA to look at (amongst other things)
standards over time. They state:
There is no scientific way to determine in retrospect
whether standards have been maintained. Therefore, attention should
be placed on ensuring accuracy, validity and fairness of the system
from now on. (January 2002)
(c) Confusion over the relationship between
"old" and "new" A levels
Previous studies of "standards over time"
have always looked at three related variables in any examination:
— the level of demand of the content;
(as set out in the syllabus/specification);
— the level of demand of the question
papers (together with their mark schemes);
— the level of response (ie the quality
of work or candidate performance in relation to the two aspects
above).
By analysing syllabuses, question papers and
archive scripts broad comparisons can be made about different
balances between each of these three variables at different points
in time. Most studies conclude that "standards" (the
sum total of these three variables) have changed over the years.
Whether they are higher or lower is often a value judgement.
Although Curriculum 2000 saw the introduction
of two new exams (AS and A2), the original design for the new
A-levels (the sum total of AS an A2) was intended to maintain
the same overall level of demand in each of the above variables.
No new content was to be added; no old content was to be lost.
AS and A2 questions were to be drawn from the "easier"
and "harder" ends of the A-level spectrum (not from
outside it). Performance was to have been of the standard expected
after one year's study (for the AS) and at the end of the course
(for the A2). In short, all three elements (syllabus content,
questions and expected levels of performance) were to be redistributed
and repackaged between AS and A2.
It was therefore surprising to read in the TES
on 20 September that OCR's "model" for AS and A2 standards
was that AS was graded one grade below the legacy A-level (AS
= AL-1) and A2 one grade above (A2 = AL + 1). If this was, indeed,
the model being applied, irrespective of the fact that it contradicts
the Dearing model, three questions need answering:
— Was this model decided by QCA (the
proper standard setting body)?
— Was it applied consistently by all
three awarding bodies? (as it would have to have been to ensure
consistency, as required by the Code of Practice).
— How and when was it communicated
to examiners and teachers?
To date no satisfactory answer has been forthcoming
to these three questions.
(d) Failure to define the new AS and A2
standards and how they would be aggregated to form the overall
A-level standard
The OCR example given above does, at least,
represent an attempt at defining each of these two new standards
in relation to the old legacy A level. The problem is that it
appears to have been invented retrospectively (after the exams
were set) and unilaterally (without the agreement of the other
boards or QCA). Throughout 1998 and 1999 HMC and GSA continued
to register serious concerns with QCA that the standards of these
two exams had not been defined satisfactorily. While the AS exam
had at least benefited from a limited pilot, this was not true
of the A2. Indeed, it could be argued that the root cause of this
year's difficulties was QCA's failure to define and communicate
these new standards. Instead, we saw an inversion of roles whereby
OCR appeared to set the AS and A2 standards and QCA (through "perceived
pressure" on awarding body personnel) tried to influence
the grade boundaries. A related complication of this dereliction
of duties was that the standards applied in June of 2002 appear,
in many cases, to have been different from those applied in January
2002. Intra-year comparability may well have been sacrificed for
inter-year symmetry of outcomes in terms of pass rates and grade
distributions. Similar fears have been expressed with regard to
the standards applied to the 2001 AS and 2002 AS examinations.
It is clear from these examples that the failure to set the standards
properly in the first place will have wide-ranging and long lasting
consequences.
(e) Failure to anticipate "real"
improvements in candidates' performance consequent upon a new
system
With the introduction of any new exam (eg O
and A-levels in 1951, GCSE in 1988) there is always a danger of
discontinuity in "standards" (as defined in paragraph
6 (a-c) above) with the past. In some cases this is intentional
(eg with GCSE, the focus on helping candidates show what they
"know, understand and can do" was designed to "raise
standards" in the sense of improving performance—particularly
at the lower end of the grade range). With the introduction of
Curriculum 2000, five factors made such a discontinuity both inevitable
and entirely predictable: its modular structure (with several
assessment opportunities), the availability of resits, more detailed
and specific syllabuses/specifications and assessment objectives,
harder work by sixth formers over the course as a whole, and the
element of "self-selection" from AS to A2 as students
dropped their weakest subject(s). The A2 cohort was, in this scenario,
likely to be stronger than the former legacy AL cohort. They were
also the first cohort to have benefited from the National Curriculum
from age five. These "artefacts" of the new system,
combined with more focused teaching to the test (an inevitable
consequence of the publication of exam results and league tables)
were guaranteed to inflate the numbers passing the new A level.
It would have been a sad indictment of government policy had these
students not been better equipped to sit, pass and excel in the
new A level examination. The failure of DfES, QCA and the awarding
bodies, collectively, to prepare for this in terms of managing
the media and public perceptions is, with hindsight, extraordinary.
In passing, it is worth noting that the "Rose Inquiry"
some two years' ago was set up after allegations of QCA's "level
fixing" to ensure more pupils reached higher levels, in line
with government targets. That Inquiry led to the introduction
of independent scrutineers from the teacher associations as observers
at level setting meetings, an idea which Stage Two of the Tomlinson
Inquiry has adopted and to which we return in section two of this
submission.
(f) Over-reliance on statistical evidence
and the marginalisation of professional judgement
Awarding in recent years has always involved
a blend of these two inputs. In 2002, the mistaken desire to maintain
pass rates in line with legacy A-levels (in spite of the view
of many awarding committees that "standards", in the
true sense of the word, were being maintained) led to the domination
of statistics over professional judgement. The backwash effect
of this on teachers' (and examiners') confidence in making future
judgements about standards has yet to be calculated. Certainly
many experienced teachers who thought they had a secure sense
of "standards in the head", supported by exemplification
material provided by the boards, which was further corroborated
by positive feedback from the boards' own moderators, have been
left confused and demoralised. Subsequent explanations from the
boards that assigning coursework to broad "bands" was
not the same as giving such work "marks" which, in turn,
was different from awarding "grades" have only compounded
the confusion.
(g) Over-complexity and over-engineering
of the system of marking, grading and awarding
There can be little justification for a system
which has become so complex and over-engineered that only the
awarding body technocrats are capable of understanding it. The
example, above, of judgements about coursework illuminates the
problem well. Elsewhere in the education system teachers have
been encouraged to make "best fit" judgements in relation
to pupils' overall level in National Curriculum subjects. They
do not "level" each piece of work but have grown accustomed
to making overall judgements based on level descriptors and exemplification
of pupils' work assessed. Public examinations, in particular where
coursework is concerned, need to regain some of the transparency
and simplicity of this process. The distinction made in a letter
to HMC's General Secretary by OCR's Chief Executive between "professional
assessors" (employed by the boards) and "professional
teachers" is artificial and unhelpful. Many examiners, if
not most, are also teachers. If we are ever to move to a situation
in which the SHA proposals for "chartered examiners"
is to function effectively, then a simplification of the system
is urgently required. This is also necessary if public confidence
and understanding are to be enhanced.
7. The remainder of this section seeks to
identify short term solutions to some of the problems identified
above. Proposals for more radical changes (eg to the structure
of AS and A2, to the balance of internal and external assessment)
are set out in section 3 at the end of this submission. Proposals
for the short term are set out in the form of recommendations,
with the key points identified in bold print. They are based on
submissions from HMC's senior officers and members of its Academic
Policy Sub-Committee, informed by discussions of stage 2 of the
Tomlinson Inquiry at HMC's Annual General Meeting on 3 October
2002. The proposals for the medium to long term in section (iii)
draw on the same sources.
8. In order to secure the credibility and
integrity of the new AS and A-level examinations over the next
12 months, we recommend that:
(i) Agreed national definitions of the words
"standards" (in relation to public examinations) and
"standards over time" should be communicated as a matter
of urgency by QCA (as the standard-setting body) to awarding bodies,
schools and colleges, and the public at large.
This should make clear the difference between
standards as a "yardstick", and standards as "student
performance"; similarly the distinction between "setting
a standard" and "the proportion of students meeting
that standard" should be clearly articulated and disseminated.
(ii) Differences between the old, legacy
A-levels and the new A-level structure (as set out in para 6e)
should be more widely publicised, with a focus on managing public
expectations that pass rates are likely to rise.
The Government has done this with the National
Curriculum and national literacy and numeracy strategies. Indeed,
the onus is on the DfES and others to explain why more pupils
are not reaching national targets, rather than trying to hold
down pass rates artificially. A new climate and culture of "celebrating
success" needs to be fostered in relation to public examinations.
(iii) Teachers', examiners' and moderators'
confidence in their professional judgements (especially in respect
of coursework) needs bolstering through an intensive programme
of support from the awarding bodies.
This will require a frank and honest retraction
of some recent statements that teachers did not understand what
was required and a re-establishment of the expectation that coursework
judgements and marks in relation to published "band"
descriptors correlate with broad expectations of the grade that
might be expected for a piece of coursework.
(iv) The primacy of professional judgement
over statistical data in the awards process needs reasserting.
QCA's current review of the Code of Practice
should result in fundamental changes to the Code with respect
to the balance and interplay of these two key determinants in
the awarding process. References to various forms of comparability
and the maintenance of standards over time need a radical rethink
and rewrite. Those sections and paragraphs which refer to comparability
(between units, boards, over time etc) will need special attention.
We believe that notions of "fitness for purpose" in
the assessment regime of individual subjects and qualifications
should replace spurious concepts of "comparability"
as currently enshrined in the Code.
(v) The system of marking and grading should
be made less complex and more transparent.
The introduction of the Uniform Mark Scale (UMS)
has helped teachers, students and parents monitor progress and
attainment, both during and at the end of the AS and AL course.
The 0-100 scale is, on the surface at least, easy for end-users
to understand and should be retained. Every effort should be made
to reduce complexity at the various levels, which operate beneath
the surface of the UMS. Coursework banding and marks have already
been referred to. Another example is mathematics, where the process
of scaling can result in identical UMS scores for candidates whose
raw marks discriminate much more finely. In some other subjects
(eg AQA A2 Psychology coursework where 87% was needed for grade
A and 60% for grade E this summer) the setting of raw mark grade
boundaries defied any reasonable "common-sense" view
of standards or fairness.
(vi) The immediate priority is to define
and communicate the standards of AS and A2 and how, together,
they form the new A level standard.
This is the most difficult challenge in the short
term. Section Three contains a number of proposals for the medium
to long term, but it is doubtful whether any of them could be
implemented in the timescale available. In our view the best option
in the short term is to criterion reference AS and A2 standards.
This proposal would rely on the standards newly established through
the AS pilot and the 2001 summer award being carried forward and
applied to the January and June 2003 AS exams in all subjects.
(Those June 2002 AS awards, which were felt to have been severely
graded should have been reviewed and, where appropriate, regraded
as part of the Tomlinson review). The A2 standards, however, would
be referenced against the grade descriptions (Grades A, C and
E) provided in the specifications for all subjects, with greater
use of archive scripts. The A/B and E/U boundaries would continue
to be determined judgementally, and the intervening grades mathematically,
as at present. Use of the grade C description, although not currently
a judgemental point, would serve as a useful additional check
on the accuracy of the overall grade setting. There would be no
statistical adjustment to results to deliver outcomes based on
AS being a grade easier and A2 a grade harder than the legacy
AL. Use might, however, be made of MidYIS and ALIS data (or similar,
including prior GCSE scores) to monitor the extent to which standards
appear to be varying relative to the baseline input measure. The
standards of the old legacy A level (still extant in most teachers'
and examiners' heads and exemplified in archive scripts) would
also provide a reference point. Over the next two to three years,
some of the steps proposed in section three could be taken (eg
uncoupling AS from A2) to further simplify the standard setting
process and ensure greater consistency.
SECTION TWO:
ROLES AND
RELATIONSHIPS OF
QCA, THE AWARDING
BODIES AND
DFES
9. Our recommendations are as follows:
(i) QCA should be fully independent of DfES
and accountable either to Parliament (not a Select Committee)
or the Privy Council.
If the Government can accept that the Bank of
England can act as an independent body to regulate interest rates
and our economy, so, too, should QCA be allowed to act independently.
It is totally inappropriate for any government, which sets national
targets to be in a position (directly or indirectly) to influence
the outcomes of a system in which they have a vested interest.
(ii) QCA's functions should be restricted
to setting national standards and regulating the system that assesses
achievement against such standards.
QCA's first duty is to set, define and communicate
national standards. These include early learning goals, the National
Curriculum, GCSE and AL criteria and vocational/occupational standards.
It should do this in close consultation with all key stakeholders.
Its Board would need to comprise members drawn from each key "standards"
sector: early years providers, schools and colleges, universities
and employers. It would need a truly independent Chairman, technically
appointed (like HMCI) by the Queen. Three standards sub-committees
would advise the main board: academic standards (with key HE representation,
including the Russell Group universities), vocational/occupational
standards (FE and employers, including captains of industry) and
formation standards (covering the 3-14 curriculum). A fourth sub-committee
(regulations) would oversee QCA's regulatory and quality assurance
roles. QCA would have no role in assessment, setting national
tests or the setting, marking and awarding of public examinations
(other than monitoring awarding body processes and procedures).
(iii) QCA should be supported in its regulatory
role (at least for the next three years and arguably as a permanent
arrangement) by a distinguished panel of independent scrutineers.
This would be an extension of the arrangements
which apply to QCA's National Curriculum level setting meetings
and which the Tomlinson Inquiry has introduced for the grade review
exercise currently taking place. The scrutineers (who should be
drawn from outside the Headteacher and teacher associations and
the educational establishment at large, as a signal of their total
independence) would attend all Grade Evaluation Meetings (ie those
meetings which take place after the normal awarding meetings).
Their role would be to ensure that the awarding body Accountable
Officers act within their powers (see v below) and that common
standards are applied across awarding bodies. Where they have
concerns they would alert QCA. If QCA failed to act appropriately
they would have direct recourse to the Secretary of State who
would be expected to call an independent public inquiry. This,
of course, would be a last resort.
(iv) The Awarding Bodies should be independent
of QCA (and DfES) although the powers of their Accountable Officers
would be circumscribed and their operations open to independent
scrutiny (as suggested above).
Although QCA would continue to regulate and monitor
the work of the awarding bodies (in accordance with a revised
Code of Practice), the attendance of QCA officers at awarding
meetings would be as non-participating observers. Should QCA officers
have concerns, the panel of independent scrutineers would be alerted.
All meetings between QCA senior officers (including Chairman and
Chief Executive) and awarding body personnel (including Accountable
Officers) would be minuted. Discussion of the likely outcomes
of each summer's exam results would be on the strict basis of
the sharing of information. A member of the panel of independent
scrutineers would attend such meetings.
(v) Awarding Body Accountable Officers should
only be permitted to move grade boundaries recommended by the
Chairman of Examiners/ Principal/Chief Examiners by a maximum
of (say) two marks.
Where there is a potential justification for
any greater adjustments, this would have to be authorised by QCA
after consultation with the panel of independent scrutineers.
(vi) Final raw mark grade boundaries should
be routinely published by all awarding bodies for each unit of
assessment, at the time that results are published.
At present this does not happen for all awarding
bodies. If it did, it would aid transparency and consistency between
them. It should be part of the process of educating the public
at large to understand the system.
(vii) All awards meetings should, in future,
include representation from the other board(s) to help ensure
consistency of approach and the application of common standards.
Ideally this should involve the Chief Examiner
and/or Subject Officer of the other board(s).
(viii) All awarding body personnel (including
teachers employed as examiners on a part-time basis) should have
a "let out" clause in their confidentiality agreements.
This would allow them to contact the independent
scrutineers if they had evidence of breaches of the Code of Practice
or other conduct likely to undermine the consistency of awards
or public confidence.
(ix) The number of Awarding Bodies should
be kept under review.
Most members of HMC support the continued existence
of more than one awarding body. Concerns about a monopoly situation
and the ability of the system to cope with a sudden move to a
single awarding body are at the heart of this. There appears,
however, to be growing support for a model, which envisages "more
than one but fewer than three" awarding bodies! Suggestions,
such as the possible sharing of subjects between awarding bodies,
merit further exploration. In the short term, however, the need
for stability and continuity outweighs the case for a further
reduction, even though consistency of standards might be helped
by such a move. Once confidence has been re-established in the
system, we would wish to see awarding bodies spending more time
and effort on supporting teachers (possibly on a regional basis)
and developing innovative approaches to assessment and examining,
including online tests where appropriate.
This should be restricted to the promulgation
of national curriculum and assessment frameworks (but not detailed
prescriptions), to setting National Targets, to reporting on the
achievement of these targets, and to supporting schools and colleges
in their efforts to meet such targets through the provision of
adequate resources.
SECTION THREE:
GENERAL COMMENTS
ABOUT ASSESSMENT
AND EXAMINATIONS
10. HMC fully supports and endorses the
recommendations made in the policy paper "Examinations and
Assessment", produced by the Secondary Heads Association.
We also welcome proposals for the creation of a new "Chartered
Examiner" status, though we recognise that further work needs
to be done on the practical implications and implementation of
such a proposal.
11. So far, this submission has focused
strictly on the immediate remit of stage two of the Tomlinson
Inquiry. This section goes beyond that remit to make tentative
proposals for the medium to long term. We recognise that the short
term changes needed to restore consistency and confidence cannot
fully respond to our deeper concerns. We hope, however, that any
short term changes will pave the way for more radical, longer
term reform.
12. Our proposals are guided by the following
key principles for reforming public examinations in England.
Key principles
| 1. | Assessment/examinations should support, not distort, the curriculum.
|
2. | Assessment/examinations from ages 13-19 should, like the curriculum, be considered as a whole rather than as two separate phases (3-16; 16-19) in isolation from each other.
|
3. | The current overall burden of assessment/examinations from 13-19 should be reduced.
|
4. | A clearer distinction should be made between high and low stakes assessment, with a greater use of internal assessment for the latter. Assessment, in general, should be on a "fitness for purpose" basis.
|
| 5. | Assessment/examinations should be inclusive and do justice to the achievements of pupils of all abilities, including those at the bottom and the top of the ability range.
|
6. | The system should be as simple and intelligible as is consistent with the minimum quality assurance necessary to command public and professional confidence.
|
| |
13. The following proposals, for consideration and exploration
in the medium to longer term, attempt to translate the above principles
into practice. They also build upon, and extend, the short-term
proposals made in section 2.
Specific proposals
(i) AS and A2 should be uncoupled
This would turn them into discrete qualifications (like Scottish
Highers and Advanced Highers) and make standard setting simpler.
It would avoid the need to aggregate two different standards into
a third overall standard. AS would be the standard appropriate
to students at the end of the first year of A level study (as
intended by Dearing). A2 would be equivalent to the old legacy
A level standard, involving a synoptic element drawing on the
more demanding content and questions appropriate at the end of
the A level course with expectations of performance also pitched
at that level. To counter fears of "content skipping"
or "dumbing down", there could be a requirement to have
taken and passed AS (which would be ungraded) before an A2 grade
could be awarded.
(ii) AS and A2 content should be restructured
In terms of content, AS and A2 could be restructured into
five modules: AS (two units), A2 (three units). This would better
match many schools' model of curriculum delivery and would signal
a 40:60 weighting (even if AS and A2 are not aggregated for assessment
purposes). The old FE distinction between "modules of delivery"
and "units of assessment" should be resurrected. A modular
structure for curriculum purposes would allow students to continue
to receive formative and diagnostic feedback as they progress
in their AS and A2 studies (eg after the first term). For assessment
purposes, however, serious consideration should be given to treating
AS and A2 as single units of assessment (see below).
(iii) AS and A2 assessment should be "linear"
(ie a single assessment opportunity for each in June of each year).
This would dramatically reduce the overall assessment burden
by taking out the January sitting and turning "resits"
into "retakes". The number of exam papers that would
need to be set would be cut by over half; costs and disruption
to schools would also be substantially reduced. It would, moreover,
ease the pressure on the boards and reduce the examiner recruitment
crisis. At the same time, however, consideration should be given
to ensuring that the length of the A2 exam is of sufficient duration
to enable candidates to demonstrate their intellectual ability
and level of achievement over the course as a whole.
(iv) Internal assessment (with light touch external moderation)
should replace external exams at AS (and also at GCSE in subjects
other than English, maths, science and, possibly, a modern foreign
language)
This would further reduce the burden of external assessment.
It would, however, increase the responsibility of teachers to
make "in the round" judgements about students' achievements
at GCSE and AS level. There would need to be adequate support
and training to prepare for this. However, if the non-externally
examined GCSE and AS subjects were to be simple "pass/fail"
assessments, this should not be too difficult. For candidates
not intending to progress beyond AS level, a degree of externality
could be brought to bear either through enhanced external moderation
or through an externally set and marked test/exam. Either way,
this should still be on a simple pass/fail basis. As an alternative,
a bank of short online test items (similar to the theory test
administered by DVLC for new drivers) might be considered to test
students' knowledge and understanding of the subject.
(v) A2 specifications should be "extended" to
include additional, more challenging material either for external
assessment or as the basis for a single, serious piece of extended
individual research.
This would make the development of AEAs redundant. It would
address the problem that the top of the A level grade range no
longer adequately discriminates between able candidates. It would
also restore to A level one of its original purposes: to help
provide a reliable basis for fair and meritocratic selection for
entry to Higher Education. This additional, optional, material
would help to redress accusations of "dumbing down"
which might accompany the uncoupling of AS and A2. Finally, the
"individual research" option could render separate,
subject-specific coursework assignments redundant (see vi below).
(vi) Coursework should be radically reduced (at GCSE,
AS and A level)
Subjects with a strong practical element (eg D & T, drama,
art, music, modern languages oral etc) will continue to require
an assessment of such components This need not necessarily be
a coursework assignment. Some subjects have experimented with
a written or oral exam on the work undertaken during the course,
rather than assessing the coursework as a product in its own right.
Further consideration should be given to such alternatives.
The objective, however, is clear. Coursework, as currently
operated, is fragmented, time consuming and open to abuse. Repeated
across several subjects, many of the skills it develops are generic
and could be better fostered (and assessed) through a single,
serious piece of work in just one subject, of the student's choice.
In the context of other qualifications (existing or under development,
eg the IB, English or Welsh Bacs), coursework of this sort could
play an important integrating and "connective" role
in drawing together discrete elements of a student's overall programme
of study. While such developments are clearly for the longer term,
changes to current arrangements should pave the way for (rather
than close off) such opportunities. At this stage, we are calling
for a root and branch review of current coursework arrangements.
(vii) All AS and AL specifications should be reviewed
with the intention of making them less fragmentary and atomistic.
This would greatly support the simplification of the overall
assessment process and moves to encourage a greater alignment
of teachers' "best fit" judgements against grades in
a more holistic way. Linked to (v) above it could also help to
stimulate and challenge the most able learners.
CONCLUSION
14. There are, of course, a number of possible variants
on the above proposals. We recognise, in particular, that for
many teachers and learners outside our schools (and a good number
within them), the modular structure of AS and A2 and the availability
of resits, have been a positive feature of Curriculum 2000.
At the same time, many of these same schools have experienced
the additional disruption, costs and erosion of teaching and learning
time (not to mention extra-curricular activities) that have accompanied
these new flexibilities. While we have set out our preferred model
for the redesign of AS and A2, we recognise that a "compromise
model" is possible. This might involve, for example, a modular
AS and a linear A2 or, conceivably a linear AS with a modular
A2 (with a January as well as a June sitting in the upper sixth
but not in Year 12).
15. The important thing is that these various models
are fully discussed and explored, with the profession and other
key stakeholders (notably Higher Education and employers) before
any are adopted.
16. We are also optimistic that other positive aspects
may emerge from the pain and suffering of the last few weeks.
If the eventual introduction of a properly worked out system of
Post Qualifications Admissions (PQA) and the long overdue demise
of national performance/league tables follow in the wake of the
Tomlinson Inquiry, HMC (along with its partner organisations)
will have much to celebrate.
October 2002
|
