Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320-326)
WEDNESDAY 6 NOVEMBER 2002
MR NEIL
HOPKINS, MR
EDWARD GOULD
AND MR
TONY NEAL
Mr Baron
320. Could I turn to this business about standards
versus statistics? Trying to look forward and not back now, we
are all aware that we are moving to a target driven culture at
the moment, but targets driven from the centre can distort the
priorities of professionals at the coal face. How are we going
to put standards in place to redress the balance? What is going
to be the mechanism? How are we going to ensure uniformity?
(Mr Hopkins) We are all looking at each other because
we do not know how to answer that question. It requires people
who are able to step back and look at the standards and try and
define a clear standard. It is obvious from our conversation that
no-one is quite clear what even an A-level standard is, never
mind AS and A2. They need to be defined and it is very difficult
to do.
321. You are at the coal face. It is affecting
you and others very greatly. How would you like to see the standard?
I do not mind if I get three different answers but I am just intrigued.
(Mr Neal) Can I respond to that in this way. Perhaps
the issue you are talking about, one of the issues at any rate,
is the issue of clarifying the purpose of the assessment because
currently the assessment is being used for two purposes which
are to some extent contradictory. It is being used for its main
purpose, which is and should be to assess the standard reached
by the pupils. It is also being used as an accountability mechanism
against the sorts of targets that you have talked about. Our answer
to that would be that these assessments should serve their main
purpose and the accountability mechanisms should be otherwise.
Our specific proposal would be to look at the model which was
set up by the Assessment Performance Unit in terms of statistically
testing across the students throughout the country standards that
are being achieved and uncouple that from the examination process.
Jonathan Shaw
322. Looking forward, Mr Gould, your organisation
has said that the QCA should be fully independent from the Department.
You have said it should be accountable either to Parliament or
to the Privy Council but not a Select Committee in the way that
Ofsted is accountable to Parliament through this Select Committee.
(Mr Gould) If that is the way it is then I have nothing
against the Select Committee. I am not about to say that with
odds of 10 to one against. It is not a good background.
323. What we are keen to do is make some recommendations
in our report that we do find a better structure for QCA because
there has been some criticism, and indeed there are some positive
noises coming from the new chief Executive, about whether it should
be independent or not. I wonder if Mr Hopkins or Mr Neal have
views on that.
(Mr Hopkins) I think it would be helpful to us, as
you say, at the coal face if we were clear what QCA's role is.
It seems to me it performs different roles at different times.
It is in effect an exam board on occasions with Key Stage tests;
on other occasions it is a regulatory body. If we have a complaint
about an exam board it is not even clear to whom we take that
complaint. Does it have that role or not? Clarity of the role
would be helpful and an independent regulatory body would be the
role I would imagine for it.
(Mr Neal) We do believe that it should be independent
and reporting to Parliament. We believe that its role should be
setting standards and regulating assessments to those standards.
We have suggested a panel of scrutineers to monitor that. QCA
certainly should not be setting the tests itself is the issue
there as opposed to in relation to national curriculum tests,
which it does set, and the examination board should be independent
of QCA.
324. That was looking forward. Just one looking
back question. It goes back to the Chairman's opening remarks.
At the time of Mark Tomlinson being required to begin his investigation
the Secretary of State contacted the various examination boards
in order to find out whether they would be sufficiently prepared
to undertake any re-marking and there was criticism of the Secretary
of State in that regard. From your perspective, considering pupils,
the students, the children, do you think that the Secretary of
State acted appropriately?
(Mr Gould) As I understood it at the time, and I did
not have any personal contact with her so it was all reported
second-hand, I thought her question was reasonable except that
we were into re-grading. Mike Tomlinson stage one was into re-grading,
not into re-marking so, provided that her question was on the
re-grading, which I thought it was from what I understood to be
the case, then I think her question was perfectly reasonable.
(Mr Neal) I have no view beyond that of a layman's
view in relation to that. Yes, I would agree that it seemed to
be reasonable.
(Mr Hopkins) I have no comment to make. I do not think
I know enough about it, to be honest.
Chairman
325. I asked you about turmoil. There always
have been changes. As I said, we have just been in New Zealand
where they are introducing a new examination system with parallels
and some difficulties. What about the fashion and flavour for
moving to a different examination system altogether? Of course
what people like to call the chattering classes, and there are
a lot of them in the education sector, immediately would say they
want the International Baccalaureate to replace the new system
of A-levels. How beguiling is that perspective for you, Mr Hopkins?
(Mr Hopkins) I would be very much against it. I have
nothing against the International Baccalaureate as a qualification,
or indeed the European Baccalaureate or the French Baccalaureate
or all the other baccalaureates. However, I just do not think
it is worth throwing out the baby with the bath water. We have
a perfectly good system. What people sometimes forget, I think,
when they talk about the Baccalaureate is that it involves more
examinations and assessment than the AS and A2. If everybody in
this country followed the IB who is going to mark it? The same
three exam boards.
(Mr Gould) I am not in favour of moving headlong into
the IB. I am in favour of developing an English Baccalaureate,
particularly along the Ken Boston model with which we are involved,
because I think it actually brings together an education process
from 14-19 for all children, including apprenticeships, A-levels,
the whole range, and it provides a flexibility in doing that.
The A-level is fine but a lot of children in this country do not
take A-level whatsoever and I am concerned that there is vocational
training (which may not affect A-level students) which I believe
is very important for the education of children as a whole. That
whole area, which has not been looked at all this morning, I believe
to be important. If you are asking me whether I would favour an
English Baccalureate in about 10 years' time, for heaven's sake
do not rock the boat with where we are at the moment. Let us keep
it and let us keep working towards a more uniform system which
will be inclusive for all children within England.
(Mr Neal) It is a pity that the 14-19 Green Paper
said practically nothing about assessment other than its role
in the accountability process and there certainly are some long
term issues relating to the assessment of pupils right through
from 14 to 19 and beyond which need to be addressed in the longer
term. In the shorter term there are many benefits that can be
derived from the AS and A2 process and because of what happened
last year we have not yet derived all those benefits and that
is the reality.
Mr Baron
326. From the answers you have given one of
the things that has come out is the fact that you believe there
are too many targets being set and that you are being swamped
by statistics. To what extent would you roll that barrier back?
Do you have any ideas as to how far you would reduce targets in
order to try and redress this balance?
(Mr Gould) We are here talking about assessment as
I understand it and that is where we are. There need to be national
targets and that is a matter for DfES. I think what we ought to
roll back the statistical barrier which I think has advanced too
far. I would be for coming up with expanded grade descriptions
for grades A, C and E; grade descriptors are well known. We have
this year got some exemplar material from the exams that have
been taken this summer and I believe if some work is done on those
archive scripts and with the use of a grade C descriptor, which
I accept would be a new thing, then it should be possible to move
away from statistics to making the judgments about standards,
that is, quality of work. If children jump that hurdle then we
should reward and congratulate them.
(Mr Neal) We certainly do believe that there are too
many targets, but perhaps the more fundamental questions are who
are those targets for and how is the reaching of those targets
measured? It is the confusion between that process and the assessment
process that is causing many of our difficulties.
(Mr Hopkins) I am not sure that I concur that there
are too many targets. They do not impinge on me as an individual
institution, but there is too much assessment and anything that
can be done to reduce the assessment burden is welcome. We need
to spend more time teaching and less time testing.
Chairman: Can I thank all three of you
for an excellent session. We would love to have gone on a little
longer and touch on a few more subjects. We have learned a lot.
It has been a very useful exchange and perhaps we should repeat
it on a regular basis. Thank you very much for your attendance.
|
