Q
210Mr.
Walker: Mr. Watson, you come from what is,
gosh, quite an amazing organisation with 170 years of heritage. Am I
right? Greg
Watson: One hundred and fifty
years.
Q
211Mr.
Walker: I am ageing it. It has Oxford, Cambridge and all
those big names in it. How do you feel about suddenly being regulated
by this new kid on the block? Has your nose been put out of joint
slightly? You are putting on a brave face, but I am not sure that you
are entirely happy with it. Are
you? Greg
Watson: We have advocated for a long time the need
for a more visible and stronger regulator in that sector, hand on
heart. I have said that the value of what we do rests so much on our
public reputation, public trust and a sense of integrity in the system,
but there is clearly a persistent challenge out there, partly about
levels of political involvement, which I think is unjustified but
understand where the perception comes from.
There is also
a perception that change is too frequent, too ill-understood and that
it too often puts standards at risk without us knowing the risk we are
taking. I suffer the consequences of that gradual erosion of trust as
much as anyone, not just in the summer, but in the perpetual and
corrosive debate that runs in the media much of the time. I am looking
forward to the day when there is an independent voice that will stand
alongside me and, when I have got it right, will say so to build pubic
confidence in what I do and that is willing, when I do not get it
right, to take that into the public domain so that we can see
it.
Q
212Mr.
Hayes: That is because you think that there are some
people in your sector and marketplace who are not as—how can I
put it?—revered as you might be. Is not that the truth? Do not
you want this because you want to maintain standards at a level that
not everyone currently
meets? Greg
Watson: No, the thing I want to address is the public
perception that we are somehow giving away a standard so that we can
demonstrate in a way that gets public confidence that we are
maintaining standards. I believe that we are maintaining standards and
think that we go to extraordinary lengths to understand changes. For
example, as the A-level is changing structure we are going to
unprecedented lengths to understand the consequences of that change and
some of the risk to which we and the people who take our qualifications
might be exposed. That is why I want it there.
I will be
honest and say that, with regard to vocational qualifications, which
OCR is also involved in, I have concerns that varying degrees of rigour
are applied to some qualifications by some bodies and think that it
would be helpful to have a regulator who gave that more visibility.
There are different sorts of risks. We have talked a lot about what
might be thought of as higher profile qualifications, such as GCSEs and
A-levels. In the area of vocational qualifications, where there are
more different qualifications, where there often assessment
arrangements that are dependent on a tutor in a college or a trainer in
a training company making judgments about their own students, there are
a range of additional challenges to making sure that those
qualifications hold water. There is work to be done in that area,
particularly with the current state of the economy and the drive to
put the right skills back into the economy, some of those qualifications
will become more important than ever. It has been an area that has been
under-regulated to date. I should like to see a stronger regulator in
that
area. Mike
Creswell: I think the straight answer to your
question is that, yes, there are unquestionably commercial issues in
competition between awarding bodies. One of the things that I think a
strong and independent regulator will provide is an answer to the
accusation that standards are dumbed down for commercial reasons. That
is one of the reasons why we welcome a regulator. The other reason is
because in the end the system that we operate is only there to provide
good, valuable qualifications for learners so that they can go on and
progress and live happy and fulfilled lives. That will not happen
without some very clear public accountability and some very clear
public assurance that those qualifications are worth the paper they are
printed on. For that reason, put together with the commercial
competition point, it is an extremely good development to have an
independent regulator for
qualifications.
The
Chairman: We have three more questions to deal with in
nine minutes.
Q
213Mrs.
Miller: I want to pick up on some points that Kathleen
made earlier. Ofqual is already in existence, albeit not in the same
form as it will be in the future. I find it quite surprising that you
had not already looked at some of the concerns that have been expressed
by independent academics about the rigour of current examinations, for
which the Government are responsible. Surely that should have been an
enormous priority for your organisation? A number of people and
organisations, whether it is Peter Timms, the Royal Society of
Chemistry or the British Council, have put together independent and
coherent arguments that there are problems there. When will you look at
this and when will you give us some answers on the issues that are
being raised? That is a really important role of the regulator. The
other point that I wanted you to clarify is this. Accountability is
critical in this area. To whom are you as an organisation accountable?
To put it bluntly, who can sack
you? Kathleen
Tattersall: At the very outset of Ofqual’s
coming into existence we indicated that we would conduct studies into
the reliability of the system. We are involving people like Peter Timms
and others in a research group that we have looking at issues of that
kind. Clearly that group will be well placed to look at other concerns
which are expressed. Yes, I have seen the Royal Society of
Chemistry’s concerns about that area of
science.
Q
214Mrs.
Miller: So why do another report? Why not just listen to
what they
say? Kathleen
Tattersall: We do listen, but there are several
voices out there about standards. We must not react to one or other
without the clear evidence of doing so. When you asked me about looking
at grade inflation, I should have said that several studies that have
been conducted over the years involving international experts looking
at our system have concluded that there is grade inflation. We need to
bring in that sort of expertise. We will do that. I am sorry if we
appear to be slow off the mark, but there are some studies, such as the
reliabilities study, which are well down the mark.
On the
accountability issue, we are, as we established earlier, going to be
accountable to Parliament. We will present the report to Parliament and
it will make clear what work we have done, how we have gone about it,
what criteria there are to judge whether we have been successful and
whether we are doing the job that we were set up to do in a very
rigorous way. I suppose that if it came to a sacking, that would be a
loss of public confidence. I think that any chair who is in a position
where there is a loss of public confidence really has to consider his
or her position before it gets to the sacking point. But if it were to
get the sacking point, the question is whether, as indicated here, it
would be the Secretary of State for other points of reference, or
whether Parliament itself would deal with the matter. I would think
that you would want to include that in the Bill. However, sacking ought
not to be necessary. If the chief regulator—that is the title
that the post carries—has lost the confidence of the public and
of Parliament, that should lead the individual to question their
position.
Q
215Mrs.
Miller: You said that that needs to be dealt with further
in the
Bill. Kathleen
Tattersall: I am sure that you, as the Committee,
would wish to consider whether the Bill gives sufficient answer to the
kind of question you have
raised.
Q
216Annette
Brooke: I want to ask a question of Andrew, please. If the
new agency were to give full approval to IGCSEs, would it be plain
sailing ahead for independent schools and some of the grammar schools
that wish to use those
exams? Andrew
Hall: Our role in giving approval to things is very
much centred around the criteria that form the basis of the
qualification. Along with the awarding bodies and other organisations
such as Ofqual, we have to make sure that we develop appropriate
criteria that provide qualifications that the nation and learners need.
If those criteria are investigated and the needs are met, it would. If
they did not meet the needs, it would not. That would be very much a
matter for Ofqual and us to
determine.
Q
217Annette
Brooke: May I ask a quick follow-up? Is there another
body—I believe that it is the Joint Advisory Committee for
Qualifications Approval—that would have an influence on the
position of IGCSEs and other qualifications that are not fully
recognised in this
country? Andrew
Hall: JACQA is very much a funding-type organisation.
It determines and advises the Government on which qualifications should
be
funded.
Q
218Annette
Brooke: In other words, the Government would have the
final word, whatever you
decided. Andrew
Hall: No, because there is the matter of
qualifications that are offered and qualifications that are funded. You
then get to the heart of how qualifications are funded in the public
and private education sectors. They are unrelated
points.
Q
219Jim
Knight: I am pleased to be able to ask these witnesses one
question—there are so many. I would like to pick up on fining,
because that is where the Secretary
of State says that he has an open mind. I listened to the responses from
the two charity people, but not all awarding bodies are charities,
particularly now that we have the likes of McDonalds, Flybe
and so on as awarding bodies. You spoke about the importance of
regulating vocational bodies. Do you think that in the context of
commercial organisations as awarding bodies, there may be some merit in
giving Kathleen what she wants—the ability to
fine? Mike
Creswell: My concern is with general qualifications,
the qualifications that the great majority of our 16 and 18-year-olds
do. In that setting, I think that the point I made earlier trumps the
need to control other people in other parts of the
sector. Greg
Watson: I would go back to my principle that the
greatest damage can be done to any qualification is to undermine public
confidence in it, and that is as true for a commercial organisation
trying to market a qualification to earn revenues as it is for my
organisation, which uses a qualification to enhance its reputation. The
damage that Ofqual can do, if that is what it seeks to do through
powers of intervention, in saying that a qualification is not fit for
purpose, that it will be de-listed or that it has a big black mark
hanging over it until somebody answers some serious questions, would
have exactly the effect that you are looking for even on a commercial
organisation. By doing it in that way, you risk all the wrong effects
on charitable organisations that Mike alluded to
earlier.
Jim
Knight: Kathleen, I might as well give you the final run
at
this. Kathleen
Tattersall: I hear what my colleagues say, but I
think that having fines in the armoury of the regulator is an important
safeguard. Down the line, one may wish they had that power, instead of
going from a fairly moderate sanction of direction and possibly capping
fees or whatever, and leaping to taking away the accreditation of an
awarding body, which is the ultimate
sanction. The
power to fine is, in a sense, a safeguard. It gives the regulator the
possibility to do so and could be a deterrent. I totally agree with
what has been said: at the end of the day, the awarding bodies’
reputations are on the line if they are criticised by the regulator.
Nevertheless, it is something that ought to be in our range of
sanctions—whether it is used often or
not. Chair,
I wonder if I could take the opportunity to come back on the question
that Annette
asked?
The
Chairman: I do not think that you can because we have
reached seven o’clock, but if you want to submit any
supplementary memorandums to all Members of the Committee, you are
welcome to do
so. Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Ms
Butler.) 7
pm Adjourned
till Thursday 5 March at Nine
o’clock.
| 
