Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1280
- 1299)
WEDNESDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2004
MR MIKE
TOMLINSON
Q1280 Mr Turner: I understand the
point you are making there, but first you have to identify the
common core. Let me reiterate to make sure I have got it right.
We have got to identify how it can be taught and how learnt?
Mr Tomlinson: Yes.
Q1281 Mr Turner: Then the assessment
process has to change whether it has been successfully taught?
Mr Tomlinson: Yes.
Q1282 Mr Turner: Is it your opinion
that the fault lies with the assessment process in allowing people
to come out with a particular certificate and people do not understand
what that certificate means?
Mr Tomlinson: That is part of
the reason. I think there is also, for some young people—
mathematics is a good example, in that we are an interesting society
which tends to regard a lack of capacity in mathematics as almost
a badge of courage; we almost regard it as a good thing. Many
other countries regard it as a very bad thing if that is the case.
The other thing that we have found as well is that for some young
people the motivation to deal with this mathematical content can
be increased through their other learning. In other words, if
they are along a vocational pathway and the mathematics they need
to be successful are brought into that, they will learn the mathematics
because there is a purpose behind it. That is part of the how
you teach, when you teach, how you organise the learning as well,
but I do think as far as GCSE is concerned, by the nature of the
mathematics syllabus which is brought, by the nature of the assessment
instruments, it is impossible to give you that assurance that
they have that core well and truly mastered and are capable of
applying that knowledge. Therefore it does lie in part in that
area.
Q1283 Mr Turner: Essentially we have
had a sort of—I am trying to think of a non-derogatory way
of saying this, but I cannot think of one—nationalised state
controlled examination system since Keith Joseph introduced GCSEs.
Mr Tomlinson: Is it not just since
introducing GCSEs, it is since the National Curriculum and its
content was introduced as well. You will remember that GCSE was
merely used as an instrument for assessing the Key Stage 4 content
that was designated—
Q1284 Mr Turner: I thought GCSEs
came before?
Mr Tomlinson: GCSEs came before,
but GCSEs were used as the— You remember the 1988 Act actually
put in place GCSEs as a means of measuring attainment at Key Stage
4.
Q1285 Mr Turner: Meanwhile, any employer,
any university, has been free to administer whatever test they
want to on those whom they seek to employ, and many of them do?
Mr Tomlinson: Yes, indeed.
Q1286 Jonathan Shaw: So what makes
you think the Government can get it right when it clearly has
not got it right over the last 20 years, and when employers are
free to administer other tests if they wish but for some reason
choose to use an inadequate proxy?
Mr Tomlinson: I am not assuming
that the Government can get it right. What I am assuming in our
report is that the content of this functional mathematics, for
want of an example, would be determined by a combination of employers
with a considerable input into what it was that was wanted and
those in the schools and colleges that teach mathematics and other
bodies who are interested in the way in which mathematics is used.
What I also believe that this would give is for the first time
a real single national description of what that mathematics was
and a national currency to it as well, which would be an assurance
too, because at the moment you have, in effect, GCSEs coming from
a variety of boards with not necessarily the same content being
available.
Q1287 Mr Turner: Are you saying that
those groups that you have just described as being engaged in
this process were not engaged in the earlier process?
Mr Tomlinson: Absolutely. The
group that drew together the National Curriculum in mathematics
did not include any significant input from their employers.
Q1288 Mr Turner: They did not take
any account of any—
Mr Tomlinson: No, I said they
did not directly involve to any great extent employers, and this
is why in our discussion with employers they feel very much that
the great opportunity here is direct, very direct input and involvement
in that process, yes. What do you do about vocational? They were
common, for example, because they have not asked for some of the
things that they have got.
Q1289 Mr Turner: My concern, bluntly,
is that the employer's contribution will be diluted by that from
the other special interests which are involved in drawing up the
assessment process and the descriptions?
Mr Tomlinson: Yes. I think that
is a risk that, if they proceed, we have to manage, and that is
why in the report the group has proposed that there would be some
other body that could be pointed to, almost to act in a monitoring
role, to ensure that the sorts of things you say do not happen,
unless you have a better mechanism.
Q1290 Mr Turner: Yes, I have, as
it happens, but it is not for me to provide my mechanism, it is
for you to answer about yours?
Mr Tomlinson: We are in this together.
We have to solve it together.
Chairman: Andrew, give Mr Tomlinson a
chance to answer before you ask another question or interrupt
him.
Q1291 Mr Turner: We have a whole
series of bodies and mechanisms at the moment for all sorts of
people to get involved, but you seem very confident that yours
is better. I am not quite clear why yours is better.
Mr Tomlinson: I do not think I
am claiming that it is better. I am very clear that we will not
get this right if we do not actively involve all the parties.
That is why the report is quite clear, absolutely explicit, about
this core not being defined simply by putting together groups
of mathematicians, if I can use that term; it has got to involve
a whole set of other bodies: for example, that core group containing
the whole important area of financial literacy. We will need other
people to be involved in helping us to determine what that content
is, and they have got to be brought together. That is what we
are saying. They have got to be involved.
Q1292 Mr Turner: You are assuming
that there has to be, again to use the derogatory term, a "nationalised
system". Are you so confident of that that you believe, as
was provided for under the 1986 Education Act, ministers should
be able to say to schools that they should not teach for a qualification
which is outwith your proposals?
Mr Tomlinson: I think at present,
as you say, ministers determine which qualifications are acceptable
or not.
Q1293 Mr Turner: You believe that
this qualification should replace others; it is so good that ministers
will be justified in replacing others at the end to cancel at
some point in the middle of this 10-year period?
Mr Tomlinson: No, what I would
say is that if you are going to offer a young person a qualification
in mathematics at level one or level two, you should not be able
to do that unless that qualification includes that core and a
way of assuring the receiver and the young person concerned that
they have actually been able to master what is in that core. That
is all that we are asking of it, but it is a lot. Many young people
will go much further with their mathematics and add theoretical
mathematics to differing degrees it to because it is a subject
they love and they want to pursue it. This is not the be-all-and-end-all
of maths, but it is the rock, the absolute rock. If you do not
get this right then you are not equipping young people either
for progression in terms of their learning, nor are you equipping
them as effective citizens.
Q1294 Mr Turner: Finally, do you
think you successfully engaged between your interim report, or,
for that matter, for your interim report, but certainly between
your interim report and your final report, with the whole range
of those who have an interest in the outcome of this process?
Mr Tomlinson: Yes, I do. I think
that this particular exercise has involved more people from more
different sectors in a constructive and positive way than possibly
anything prior to that. I am not saying that in person; that is
what has been said to me by many such bodies. Certainly employers,
individually and collectively, have said that they felt more involved
in this process, in the thinking about it and the shaping of it,
than they have in anything else before. Apart from having two
employers as members of the Working Group itself, we had sub-groups
that were specifically made up of employers, including small and
medium and the chambers of commerce; we also had a separate group
of AT personnel from Vice Chancellors through to heads of department;
we held specific seminars and conferences for employers. On one
of them we had 120 senior executives from companies putting in
their views, and so on. So, yes, we have sought very, very determinedly
to get as many views as possible.
Q1295 Mr Turner: The reason I am
concerned is because you are talking about people at the top,
and employers in my constituency, who in many cases employ fewer
than five people, cannot find time to attend conferences like
these and parents frequently do not know about conferences, and
teachers cannot find time to attend conference like this and wade
through the material that you have put out. Yet you only had 338
written responses to the consultation.
Mr Tomlinson: Written responses,
yes, but an awful lot of oral feedback from various parties, including
parents and students as well. We have had groups of young people
from 14 to 25 set up for us. They have not been listed, every
one of them. We would end up with thousands.
Q1296 Mr Turner: Would you really,
because frankly one of the problems with consultation is it does
not consult those who need to be consulted, it consults those
who want to be consulted or, in many cases, those whom the consulters
want to be consulted.
Mr Tomlinson: I would still say
that we have tried our utmost to involve as many people by various
means as possible. I and members of the group and others have
spent a lot of time visiting individual schools, colleges, employers,
etcetera, voluntary bodies, to talk to them about what they would
want. I think we have done as much as we can. You can always do
more. I am not pretending that we have actually cracked it all.
We have also, of course, issued very brief summaries of the document
for employers, for parents, for higher education and the like,
and held a whole raft of road-shows, local ones, and at times
that people could get to them, but if you say to me you can find
people who were not consulted, absolutely right. I am certain
of it. I do not doubt it for a minute.
Q1297 Helen Jones: Mr Tomlinson,
the history of English education has been the history of bits
being added, subtracted almost at will without any proper investigation
into whether what we were doing was evidenced-based or not. What
do you say to the view that this is what is happening here but,
because the content of GCSE and A-level will remain intact, you
have added on the core skills and projects, and so on, but there
is a missed opportunity to look at what young people actually
need to learn for all of them as a minimum to function in the
twenty-first century?
Mr Tomlinson: I would not accept
that criticism in full at all. Over the period of the Working
Group's life we have taken a lot of evidence, both written and
oral. As I said, we have had a lot of consultation with young
people themselves about what they feel would be important to them,
and that is young people from 14 to 25. So it is those who are
now in employment and reflecting back as well as those in the
education system looking at what is happening to them now. It
is because of that that we have defined the core as essential,
because to us that contains the bedrock that enables any young
person to develop as an individual, and to be able to be an effective
citizen, and also to be able to progress in employment and learning.
So we have sought to do that as far as we are able. We have taken
a lot of evidence and a lot of the research evidence that is around
as well, and that includes evidence from overseas. We took a lot
of advice, and some of the illustrations include some of the examples
taken from European countries. So we have sought to do that. I,
therefore, believe, like you, that if we had wanted just to do
yet another piecemeal job, which is what has characterised almost
the last 15 to 20 years in this areas—
Q1298 Helen Jones: Longer than that.
Mr Tomlinson: Longer than that,
I agree.—then it would have been relatively easy to do.
That is why we have in one sense started right from the baseline
of the curriculum. What do we need to have there? How can we best
organise it in order to ensure young people are as well equipped
as possible.
Q1299 Helen Jones: I think the core
that you have outlined there is very welcome, but did you look
at other things that you thought perhaps ought to be in the core?
An obvious one is not simply ICT skills but learning to differentiate
between the vast amount of information that is available now.
For instance, in science we have a society where very few people
are scientifically literate enough to assess risk, and we have
seen that with all the various scares that we have had. Did you
look at things like that and reject them from the core and did
you feel constrained by having to keep the examination system
we have, or did you feel those things simply did not need to be
there?
Mr Tomlinson: We did not feel
constrained by the examination system at all, no. Science, of
course, remains there at 14-16. It may not be part of our core,
but it is part of the national curriculum, so everyone will continue
to study science.
| 
