Examination of Witness (Questions 460-479)
WEDNESDAY 4 DECEMBER 2002
MR MIKE
TOMLINSON
460. So do you think we should have less exams
or even more exams that are moderated internally in schools? (Mr
Tomlinson) In my report I have suggested strongly that there
needs to be a serious look taken at the burden of examinations
from GCSE through to A-level. This is not a personal view but
a result of a lot of discussions with students, their parents,
teachers and the like over recent weeks, and there is other evidence
that has been presented in the press and to me by letter and the
like. I think there is an issue to be looked at there and I recommend
it is, but as part of the 14-19. What I do not want to see is
a piecemeal approach to this; I want to see a co-ordinated approach
looking across the 14-19 field such that whatever happens is a
rational approach to the issue. So yes, I do think it needs to
be reduced. Whether or not that reduction is to move the responsibility
from external examination to internal assessment on the school
I think bears much upon the point made by Mr Simmonds. There is
a burden on teachers then that that would bring about, and also
there are some serious questions to be resolved about coursework
in order to give everyone the assurance that it truly represents
the work of the student, and only the student.
461. When I was a struggling young university
lecturer I think external examining was thought of as outdoor
relief for struggling young lecturers. You were a bit reticent
about pay— (Mr Tomlinson) I am not reticent—I
think they should be paid appropriately for the task that they
do.
Mr Turner
462. In paragraph 9 of your recommendations
you are taking into account the view expressed by Dr Boston that
officials of DfES have too many bilateral relationships with examination
boards and that those relationships should be conducted through
the QCA. (Mr Tomlinson) I am clear that there were
contacts between officials and the DfES and the examining boards,
yes. I am equally clear in some instances those contacts were
quite proper and legitimate, and I would not wish to see them
cease. For example, they might want to seek information about
the policy which is after all set by the DfES and any advice ought
to come from the Department on that. What I am wanting to see
is a very, very clear and transparent set of responsibilities
which people understand, who is doing what to whom, when and how,
rather than at the moment those boundaries being somewhat vague.
I think the argument that some have put forward that we should
change the status of QCA seems to me a tendency to rush to say,
to solve a problem you change the status of something. However,
the important thing is the behaviour of people inside those organisations,
changing the name will not necessarily itself change behaviour.
What I am trying to do here is say that behaviour needs to be
changed in such a way that everyone understands what is happening
and how it is happening. If a remit letter is sent to the Secretary
of State from the QCA to do whatever, if it is the view of the
Secretary of State that he or she wishes to involve another party
in that then that should be part of the remit. If that party is
DfES officials it should say so—that is what I am getting
at—then everyone knows and there can be no conspiracy theories.
463. You said in some instances these contacts
were quite proper and legitimate, does that mean in some instances
they were not, or in some instances you have no evidence? (Mr
Tomlinson) I have no evidence, no.
464. You only know of some instances where they
were? (Mr Tomlinson) I did see an awful lot of written
exchanges, all of which seem to be quite legitimate, I was told
there were a lot of telephone calls, but I cannot say what was
said during those. I am not by nature a member of the "Conspiracy
Theory Club".
465. On paragraph 82 you say, "It is self-evident
that ministers should be responsible for key decisions which shape
the qualification system". Why? (Mr Tomlinson)
As the elected Parliament they are determining the policy.
466. That is circular. (Mr Tomlinson)
If the Government decide to introduce a new system called Curriculum
2000 that is a policy decision.
467. You are still within the circle. (Mr
Tomlinson) I do not think I am. I am saying policy, I am not
saying they should actually be closely involved in all stages
following that.
468. Presumably at one stage—you may know
the date which ministers took responsibility for the qualifications
system—there was a date before that when qualifications
were not the responsibility of ministers, certainly not A-Level
and O-Level qualifications, they were the responsibility of the
Examination Board. Why is it self-evident ministers should have
this responsibility? (Mr Tomlinson) I cannot think
back. I have to say I have been at the table of all secretaries
of state since Keith Joseph and I cannot remember a time when
a secretary of state did not feel that they had some responsibility
for policy—he introduced GCSE.
469. He said that the only power he had was
to decide whether to sign or not sign an examination certificate.
Surely before that ministers did not feel responsible? What I
am asking you is, why is it self-evident? The fact that it always
happened does not mean it is self-evident. Why is it self-evident? (Mr
Tomlinson) Simply because at the moment in law the Secretary
of State has that power.
470. We made the law we have to try and make
it right. (Mr Tomlinson) We are getting into territory—
Chairman
471. We do not want an argument. Questions and
answers please. (Mr Tomlinson) I am simply saying at
the present time it is clear that the Secretary of State is determining
policy on qualifications and I can see why that happens, given
the responsibility they currently have. If you are arguing that
Parliament wants to change them that is up to Parliament, not
me.
472. Our original meeting with Sir William Stubbs
back in May gave us some cause for concern because it did seem
there was a relationship between the QCA and Government, it was
not quite well defined. I remember at that stage asking Sir William
why he did not go in as an independent regulator, high profile,
bang on the table and say he was unhappy with the situation and
to say to the Secretary of State very clearly "I am unhappy".
Taking a high profile approach, being more proactive rather than
looking like the relationship was extremely close. After all the
secondment a senior official from the Department was his Acting
Chief Executive. It all seemed too cosy to for us. The QCA did
not seem as independent and as rugged as it should be. Does your
report really grasp that? You do not recommend that they have
the same relationship with Parliament as Ofsted has? (Mr
Tomlinson) I do not recommend that. As I have already said
I think changing the legal status of the body would not necessarily
of itself change the behaviours and relationships. What you want
are changes in those relationships. That is what I have said should
happen. I also said, quite clearly, that the QCA must be a rigorous
regulator and must be fully involved throughout the awarding process,
fully involved throughout, which at the moment is not the case.
I also recommend that some activity of the QCA should no longer
be part of the remit because they run the risk of contaminating
that role as regulator. I am very much in favour of being rigorous.
473. Mr Tomlinson, if you remember your days
in Ofsted, is it not the fact that it did give you that mark of
independence that you were responsible to Parliament through this
Committee, did it not give you that status as security of having
that independent challenge, accountability was not just pleasing
your paymaster in the Department? (Mr Tomlinson) It
did give me a certain amount of comfort, yes. It also, of itself
was not, in my view, sufficient. What was necessary as well was,
and I go back to the behaviour of all concerned, was to recognise
that fact and behave accordingly. It was a matter of being diligent
at all times. Hence, for example, I did always request and, indeed,
I always got, a full remit from the Secretary of State for any
particular activity they wanted Ofsted to undertake—not
how it should be done, I always resisted that—in particular
the involvement of other parties, if other parties were to work
with Ofsted. It is that clarity we want.
Jonathan Shaw
474. Mr Tomlinson, you said that AS and A2 systems
should be uncoupled. There have been calls from some quarters
for ASs to be scrapped completely, what is your view on that? (Mr
Tomlinson) I would not argue for ASs to be scrapped. The views
of students, and taking account of my own experience, is that
there are students who want to gain credit for what they have
studied in their first year of sixth form because they are not
going to continue it in their second year of sixth form. ASs do
have a very important, strong role. In the past students have
left after one or two year's of study with nothing to show for
what they have achieved. I think the ASs have a very important
part to play, it has an important part to play in enhancing the
breadth by giving due recognition to those subjects. I would not
advocate the loss of ASs. It could also form an important part
of any future development in our assessment system.
475. Do you think we need GCSEs and AS Levels? (Mr
Tomlinson) I think that question has to be looked at, part
of the 14 to 19. I think as there is a difference between a public
examination at 16 and a question of having some assessment of
the progress made by the student at that point in time in order
to help and inform decisions about where they go from there. Those
are two different things that might be achieved by two different
means. There will be students who will legitimately want to have
a public qualification at the age of 16 simply because they were
not going to continue with studying. I go back to my own days
as a sixth former when whatever you studied at A-Level your O-Level
disappeared with it, in other words it no longer counted. For
matriculation purposes you had to have the necessary O-Level plus
your A-Level. It was an interesting system and that is how it
applied to what was a joint matriculation board.
476. Do you think that the AS Level standing
alone is going to provide the necessary incentive for young people
to stay on post 16? This Committee, and a lot of people, are really
concerned about the number of youngsters staying on beyond 16.
Is it going to have the weight and credibility for youngsters
to stay on? (Mr Tomlinson) I do not think youngsters
stay on at sixth form because of the possibility of having an
AS.
477. No, they stay on to get an A-Level and
go on to university. (Mr Tomlinson) It is still less
than 50% that take the route of getting an A-Level and going on
to higher education. Remember A-Level is not just the traditional,
it is also the vocational A-Level as well. One of the challenges
that has had to be met by A-Levels is to meet a population which
is very much different from the population for which the original
A-Levels were designed.
478. You said somewhere in region of five years
in your report for them to be uncoupled and you talk about there
being a due process. You say, "The necessary design, development
and testing for schools and colleges to familiarise themselves
with any changing. . ." Do you include piloting? (Mr
Tomlinson) Yes.
479. You do include piloting? (Mr Tomlinson)
Somewhere else I do refer to piloting. The five years is not plucked
out of the air, AS and A2 were three years, GCSE was four. I do
not think I need to say any more in quoting those two. I think
there needs to be a proper time scale. It was also informed by
my view that we need initially to have the AS and A2 firmly established
on their standards as well before we can move forward.
| 
