Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-299)
WEDNESDAY 6 NOVEMBER 2002
MR NEIL
HOPKINS, MR
EDWARD GOULD
AND MR
TONY NEAL
280. Just assume that we do not get over this
hurdle of statistics and the issue of standards is not addressed
properly, how do you think universities are going to adapt at
present? How are they going to look for good work? Is it going
to be more interview based, though that would be nigh on impossible
bearing in mind the numbers? How are universities going to adapt?
(Mr Gould) I would have thought that alongside this
there are one or two other issues that can come along and presumably
Mike Tomlinson in part two may well address some of these points.
The post-qualification application, PQA, I believe could well
come in on the back of this because if everyone has their qualifications
by the time they are applying to universities I think that would
make the universities' job quite a lot simpler. It would be possible
for the Government, if it was so minded,—and I accept that
this would require cash—to alter, say, the university year
(but you would expect me to say that) to run from January, ie,
the calendar year, and then that period in the autumn when a boy
or a girl has left school can be used for the university application
season. I think that would help quite a bit. I also think that
you could solve some of the six-term year problem at the same
time because if you did that you could adjust the length of your
terms during the year to get back to a pattern whereby your first
term in the academic year was not so long and overloaded. There
are a number of issues in there which could come out which might
be beneficial to the total education system.
Ms Munn
281. I want to explore briefly the AS/A2 examination
itself. Tony Neal said that this shift should have made achieving
the A-level standard more accessible, and certainly the Principal
of Sheffield College, in updating me on general issues, said that
his experience was that it had been a very positive change for
the students there and that more students were achieving it. Do
you therefore support the change from the A-level in spite of
all the problems that there have been in implementation to an
AS/A2 level and, if so, why?
(Mr Hopkins) Very much so. Curriculum 2000 is a good
thing. It was introduced too quickly and we should have had some
piloting. There were confusions. There still are some confusions
but it is settling down now. If you like, the victims I suppose
of the pilot year were this year's students but the pilot in a
sense has been run now and if I were to send any message to this
Committee please do not throw out the baby with the bath water.
We do not want too many changes. We want to settle down and make
some sense of this scheme. There have been some tremendous benefits.
It has given accessibility via the AS to people who would not
have got to an advanced level before. It needs some fine-tuning,
yes, but it also needs a lot of attention paid to the AVCE, the
advanced vocational certificate of education which I think has
been put to one side by the Curriculum 2000; we have had too much
weight put on to the A-level debate. As far as the overall pattern
is concerned for Curriculum 2000 it is beginning to work. Let
us not change it.
(Mr Neal) I certainly agree in terms of supporting
the principles of the change and that the system of AS and A2
is better for students and better for everyone than the old system,
but I think it is more than fine-tuning because clarity on standards
is absolutely at the heart of putting this right. We still do
not have that clarity and there is an urgent need for that to
be defined because teachers are still in the dark about where
the A2 standard is going to be for this coming year.
(Mr Gould) I also support Curriculum 2000. I think
it would be helpful if the universities would make their views
clear on the breadth because as long as they keep doing everything
on three A-levels it is a disincentive in some places for breadth
to come in, which is perfectly possible with the AS level. Criticisms
like that are purely related to assessment. They are not related
to Curriculum 2000 which we welcome. I think it does provide a
range of opportunities for young people and again I agree: I do
not think it should be shaken up and rattled. I think the assessment
process needs to be correct and then we are off.
282. So the assertion that we have heard sometimes
that AS is a failure, it is a nightmare and we should move away,
is not supported?
(Mr Gould) I would totally disagree with the idea
that AS should go.
283. Given that there is a general acceptance,
certainly among the people we have got here and hopefully you
are representative of the kind of institutions that you come from,
and given that the idea was that we should be making it more possible
for more young people to achieve these standards, were you so
surprised then that there was a bit of an outcry that more students
were achieving?
(Mr Hopkins) This is an annual problem, is it not,
this debate over standards dropping and so forth? I would like
to draw the analogy of the four-minute mile. When Roger Bannister
ran a four-minute mile it was a wonderful achievement, the best
in the world. Now it is almost commonplace but people don't keep
going out and measuring the mile to see if it has got shorter,
which in effect is what is happening to A-levels. We have got
better at teaching, I have to say, and people learn how to teach
well. Students now work a lot harder than we used to and they
are achieving better. It does not mean that they are the best
in the world, the best four-minute milers.
(Mr Gould) I absolutely agree with that. This year
I think there should have been a huge celebration of more children
getting more success because they had reached the standard and,
although the standard was not defined, even if they had used the
standard that was there before, I still think that there would
have been a large number of people clearing the hurdle, running
inside the four minutes or climbing Everest, which would be my
analogy, and it should have been a huge success story which everyone
should have been pleased about.
(Mr Neal) I am getting tired sitting here and thinking
about four-minute miles. There is an issue also of public expectations,
is there not? I think that we could sensibly have expected more
students to achieve better with the new course structures and
perhaps thought should have been given earlier to the way the
public might react to that because it does appear that concern
about public expectations has been part of the problem.
(Mr Gould) To give you one illustration, with history,
with OCR it was clear once the Awarding Committee had done its
stuff with the standards as they perceived them, ie, quality of
work standards, not statistical standards, that there was going
to be a 99% pass rate. This caused a panic and I have the documentary
evidence for that.
Jonathan Shaw
284. In order to continue to do well, the three-minute
mile or climb Everest, it requires people to prepare, it requires
people to be match fit. Mr Gould, I wonder if you could respond
to the point made by Dr Ron McLone of OCR, of which you are critical,
when he told the Committee in relation to Curriculum 2000 that
"there was a demand, in some way, with Curriculum 2000, that,
as an organisation, you gave commitment to Curriculum 2000. And
there is a good deal of evidence, on what we have seen, that those
organisations that spent time with their students, worked out
how they were going to do it over the two years . . . have actually
done very well", and he cited the colleges in that respect.
He said that they had done well because they had planned well,
they had prepared, they had got fit for their climb or their three-minute
mile. How would you respond to that? Did you not prepare your
students in the way that Mr Hopkins did?
(Mr Gould) Certainly. I would answer yes to that question.
We would have accepted the results that came through if we had
not seen things which had been amended clearly at a very late
stage, plus the evidence we were getting through from examiners,
scrutineers, awarders. After all, a large number of those are
teachers too. Yes, we did go to training sessions, which is another
of the allegations that have been made, that we did not attend
those. I do not necessarily mean where I am but schools in the
organisation.
285. What made Dr McLone say that? What evidence
would you be aware of?
(Mr Gould) I do not know what evidence he is referring
to.
286. Mr Hopkins, what do you think?
(Mr Hopkins) Obviously I cannot comment on what happened
in schools. All I can tell you is that we worked very hard out
there, training every day, without even seeing the track if you
like, to take the analogy beyond its useful life. We did a huge
amount of training. We kept in constant dialogue with the boards.
One of the advantages of Hampshire is that we have 10 large sixth-form
colleges and we got together and we put on our own training, we
encouraged our staff to become examiners. Every one of those colleges
had an examiner in some subjects somewhere and we got together
and trained each other.
287. This is a triumph for the collective spirit
of further education colleges?
(Mr Hopkins) You will not be surprised to hear that
I am quite keen on the idea of sixth form colleges as being a
successful idea..
(Mr Neal) All the training took place and all the
teachers were involved in that. The teachers moved heaven and
earth to make the system work, but throughout that period the
contradictory messages were coming back about standards. There
was a lack of exemplar material, so it actually was quite difficult
for teachers to have a clear understanding of what the standards
were that were being aimed for, of what the assessments were going
to look like. That was a genuine difficulty throughout AS and
A2.
288. But what about the colleges?
(Mr Neal) For everyone.
(Mr Hopkins) I have to say that there was a shortage
of exemplar material; it is absolutely true.
289. But you managed it.
(Mr Hopkins) We managed.
Why did not the others?
(Mr Hopkins) Because I suppose we trained extremely
hard, if you like. We are big enough. We got together, we worked
together and collaborated. We made sure that we had examiners
in the boards from each of the colleges and we found things out.
It was not spoon fed to us, I have to say.
Chairman
291. Apart from Neil Hopkins with all his training,
are you not in a sense blaming everyone else but yourselves? Are
you saying you were match fit and all the rest but when things
go wrong we all know that if you change a major examination it
is going to be painful and there is going to be disruption. As
I say, the Committee have been in New Zealand and I am sure, whether
the Committee went to Tanzania or any other country where they
have had a major change in the examination system, we would see
those difficulties. I cannot think of any system where you do
not have a certain amount of disruption, and everyone has to work
together in order to get through that transition. Dr McLone in
a sense was saying that part of the blame really rests with those
of you who run the schools, your organisations. Neil Hopkins is
saying that he is not guilty because it is all right as far as
he is concerned, he is very happy. Mr Gould and Mr Neal are saying,
"We were totally fit for this and ready, so it must be someone
else's fault"? In terms of blame whose fault was it mainly?
(Mr Gould) I personally would say that I do not go
in for the blame culture. I have not been for the blame culture
since I first articulated the concerns we have. I have concerns
with the examining bodies. I fully accept that when you bring
in a new system there are likely to be growing pains with it.
I am happy to accept that and I have no problem with that at all.
The same thing happened to some extent with GCSE at first when
I was certainly around and was as well ahead then as I was prepared
now. But you did not have the differences that took place late
in the award stage. You did not have these differences between
what came out of awarding meetings and what finally emerged. That
is where there needs to be some clarification.
(Mr Neal) Straightforwardly, not seeking to blame
anyone, but very concerned that things that went wrong last year
do not go wrong again for the benefit of present and future students.
It is as simple as that.
Jeff Ennis
292. How much has student confidence in the
new exam system been dented in the light of this year's events?
(Mr Neal) We are trying to reassure students because
it is important that their confidence is kept as high as possible.
There are certainly concerns clearly expressed both from students
and from parents, not only at what has happened but where they
stand in relation to the following year and a very high priority
needs to be the reassurance of students in particular but also
of parents.
(Mr Gould) I quite agree with that. It is dreadful,
and I believe and trust and hope that the report coming out of
the Tomlinson Inquiry Stage 2 will do a great deal overtly to
restore confidence in what is going to happen from January onwards.
(Mr Hopkins) I agree with all that. The only thing
I would have a slight disagreement with is that I think the parents'
confidence has been knocked more than the students'. We have managed
to reassure the students. It is the public and the parents and
what they read in the press that has knocked their confidence.
293. Going on from a point that Mr Gould made
in his earlier evidence, has teacher confidence been dented more
than student confidence in the light of events this year?
(Mr Gould) I would say there is an element of confusion
in some areas, not all. I think that is there and I hope there
will be some clarification that will become obvious to help people
through and I know that all the boards are aiming to have more
training sessions and hopefully that will be constructive and
not turn into apathy.
(Mr Hopkins) I am not sure it has got worse this year.
We already have some degree of lack of confidence in the exam
boards. I am no friend of the exam boards. I do not want you to
think it is all sweetness and light. You will find the three chief
executives all know my name; they do not necessarily like me.
I have had quite a lot of correspondence with them. We have difficulties
with the exam boards. As I say, I do not think it is an extraordinary
thing this year. It is to do with the quality of marking and the
quality of their own procedures, their own quality assurance procedures.
(Mr Neal) Teachers are walking a fine line between
their own uncertainties and trying not to communicate those uncertainties
to students.
Valerie Davey
294. It would appear that you use all three
boards, all of you. How do you decide which board to use?
(Mr Hopkins) We tend to allow the head of department
to make their own choice or at least to make their own proposal
and bring it to senior management as to the basis of that choice.
It not only relates to the content of the syllabus or specification
but perhaps the assessment method and what suits the department
style of teaching.
295. Edward Gould, you seem to be flying the
flag for Edexcel. I am not sure that last year many people would
have flown the flag for Edexcel. What has changed?
(Mr Gould) Edexcel seem to have got their house in
order over the last year. There is some evidence to support that.
296. Would that influence your staff as to which
exam they choose in future?
(Mr Gould) No. I think which board we would use in
any particular subject is exactly based on the answer from my
right.
Valerie Davey: Are they the same reasons
that your staff are using them or is it that they prefer a particular
syllabus as opposed to a syllabus being more refined or more adaptable
or more sophisticated?
Chairman: Or easier?
Valerie Davey
297. Or easier, indeed.
(Mr Hopkins) I do not think it is a matter of easier.
I think it tends to be what the Department gets comfortable with,
to be honest. I have had frustrations with my English department
because we have had major problems with AQA English Literature
over the last two years with over 100 upgrades each year and re-marks
which puts our Tomlinson problems in the pale, but they will not
move away from AQA because they like the specification, they like
the way they choose the books, they like the way it is assessed.
The fact that it is not assessed properly does not seem to worry
them.
298. In other words it is the convenience of
the teachers rather than the betterment of the students?
(Mr Hopkins) I think "convenience" is slightly
the wrong word. It is that they have genuine belief that that
is the right specification for them.
(Mr Neal) There is a strange antithesis there, is
there not, between the convenience of the teachers and what is
good for the students and I am not sure that that is an antithesis.
Very often the two things go together because the teachers are
working with and alongside the students. The reasons for choosing
a particular syllabus and a particular board I would go along
with exactly and that issue is not a new issue this year.
299. Are you happy with there being three or
would you prefer for there to be more or indeed only one?
(Mr Hopkins) The idea of some competition is good
because one of the problems for us is that there is not a clear
complaints procedure any more. There are various systems and we
have mentioned QCA a number of times. I am not sure that the average
teacher is clear about its role as a regulatory body. If we have
difficulties with exam boards, frankly the one big stick we have
is that we will take our business somewhere else, so having some
competition is a good thing. About three boards makes sense to
me. I do not think the number is particularly critical.
(Mr Gould) I hope the number of boards will remain
the same and the whole thing will settle down and we will all
go with it.
|
