The
Chairman: At this stage I shall suspend our proceedings
for an hour. Members should return at 7.58
pm. 6.58
pm Sitting
suspended. 7.58
pm On
resuming—
Clause
125Objectives
Mr.
Laws: I beg to move amendment 60, in
clause 125, page 71, line 18, at
end insert— ‘(f) the
educational standards and performance
objective.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendments 334, in clause 125, page 71,
line 18, at end
insert— ‘(f) the timeliness
objective.’. Amendment
36, in
clause 125, page 71, line 23, at
end insert— ‘(c) maintain
standards.’. Amendment
41, in
clause 125, page 71, line 23, at
end insert— ‘(c) set out a
range of comparators with qualifications in other countries specified
by
regulation.’. Amendment
139, in
clause 125, page 71, line 26, after
‘achievement’, insert ‘and
knowledge’. Amendment
37, in
clause 125, page 71, line 28, at
end insert— ‘(c) maintain
standards.’. Amendment
42, in
clause 125, page 71, line 28, at
end insert— ‘(c) sets out a
range of comparators with qualifications in other countries specified
by
regulation.’. Amendment
38, in
clause 125, page 71, line 28, at
end insert— ‘(3A) For the
purposes of subsections (2)(c) and (3)(c), Ofqual shall publish
annually its methodology for determining whether standards have been
maintained over periods of (a) 20 years, (b) ten years and (c) five
years.’. Amendment
62, in
clause 125, page 71, line 28, at
end insert— ‘(c) allow for
an objective assessment of how educational standards have changed over
time.’. Amendment
63, in
clause 125, page 71, line 28, at
end insert— ‘(3A) In order
to deliver the assessments standards objectives, Ofqual shall
undertake, within 18 months of its establishment, a full review of
changes in assessment standards since
1988.’.
Amendment 64,
in
clause 125, page 71, line 30, at
end insert ‘and in the
independence, objectivity and credibility of
Ofqual.’. Amendment
219, in
clause 125, page 71, line 30, at
end insert ‘over
time’. Amendment
65, in
clause 125, page 71, line 30, at
end insert ‘and in
pursuit of this objective Ofqual shall carry out each year sample
testing of cohorts at Key Stage 2, 3 and 4 in English and Maths on a
basis that will facilitate credible evaluation of changes in levels of
achievement in these subjects over
time.’. Amendment
427, in
clause 125, page 71, line 34, leave
out
‘and’. Amendment
428, in
clause 125, page 71, line 36, at
end insert ‘, and (d) the range of
criteria and indicators which underpin any attainment and achievement
tables published by
Ofqual.’. Amendment
557, in
clause 125, page 71, line 37, leave
out ‘regulated qualifications are provided’ and insert
‘the market for regulated qualifications
operates’. Amendment
32, in
clause 125, page 71, line 37, after
‘provided’, insert ‘on a timely basis
and’. Amendment
335, in
clause 125, page 72, line 2, at
end insert— ‘(7) The
timeliness objective is to ensure that Ofqual carries out its functions
in a timely manner that facilitates the delivery of qualifications on
time.’. Amendment
61, in
clause 125, page 72, line 2, at
end add— ‘(7) The
educational standards and performance objective is to monitor
educational standards and performance as a whole in England, to report
on how standards and performance are changing over time, and to make
comparisons between educational standards and performance in England
and in other OECD
countries. (8) In order to
deliver the educational standards objective, Ofqual shall carry out
sample testing on an annual basis in selected subjects, and shall
report annually on changes in educational standards and performance in
England and between England and other OECD
countries.’. Amendment
31, in
clause 125, page 72, line 2, at
end add— ‘(7) Ofqual shall
conduct annually a poll of a statistically significant sample of
secondary school students to determine the proportion of students who
believe that students work harder than ever to gain specified
qualifications.’. Amendment
39, in
clause 125, page 72, line 2, at
end insert— ‘(7) Ofqual
shall conduct annually a poll of a statistically significant sample of
secondary school teachers to determine the proportion of teachers who
believe that students work harder than ever to gain specified
qualifications.’. Amendment
43, in
clause 125, page 72, line 2, at
end add— ‘(7) For the
purpose of assessing the effectiveness of Ofqual in carrying out its
duties in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c), Ofqual shall establish
specific and measurable success criteria for these
objectives.’. Amendment
81, in
clause 125, page 72, line 2, at
end add— ‘(7) In delivering
its efficiency duty, Ofqual shall publish annually the criteria that
will be used to make judgements about the efficiency of regulated
qualifications.’.
Amendment 35,
in
clause 162, page 88, line 37, at
end insert ‘and the
outcome of the specific and measurable success criteria established in
section
125(7)’.
Mr.
Laws: For those who are keen to make rapid progress, that
list of amendments suggests that clause 125 is another part
of the Bill with which we have serious concerns that we want to raise
this evening. Indeed, it is arguably even more important in its impact
on Ofqual’s role as well as its governance and independence than
schedule 9 and clause 124. Clause 125 addresses the crucial objectives
that it must meet as a regulator, and subsection (1) sets out those
objectives, which
are: “(a)
the qualifications standards
objective, (b)
the assessments standards
objective, (c)
the public confidence
objective, (d)
the awareness objective,
and (e) the
efficiency objective.”
With all
those objectives, one would have thought that the Government would have
covered the main concerns relating to the standards that could be
expected of a body such as Ofqual. Unfortunately, they have not set the
right objectives for Ofqual and, in particular, they have defined too
narrowly Ofqual’s role in assessing standards. It is for that
reason that we do not believe that Ofqual, in its existing form, will
be successful in doing what the Secretary of State seems to want and
ending the annual debate about standards in British examinations and
dumbing down.
As we have
said on other occasions, we are particularly disappointed that the
Government have not addressed many of the criticisms of standards set
out in the excellent report by the Select Committee on Children,
Schools and Families, entitled “Testing and Assessment”.
The Committee was clear about the potential variation between the
apparent education standards that are highlighted by the regulated
qualifications that we have in this country and the underlying measures
of educational performance, standards and effectiveness. In
paragraph 250, the Committee concluded
that “the
Government has failed to address the issue of the standards themselves.
In the context of the current testing system, with its ever-changing
curriculum and endless test reforms, no regulator, however independent,
can assure assessment standards as they are not capable of accurate
measurement using the data available. Until the Government allows for
standardised sample testing for monitoring purposes, the regulator will
be left without the tools required to fulfil its primary
function.” Essentially,
the Committee argued that because examination standards and the nature
of examinations had changed so much over time, and because of the
pressure of comparability brought about by test reform, the targets set
by the Government and the different assessment standards used at
different times, it was impossible to use one examination, or even a
number of examinations, to form an objective assessment of standards
over time or at any point in time. It is because of the fundamental
uncertainty in the public’s mind, and in the debate on education
standards about whether the results of examinations tell us something
about educational standards per se, teaching to the test, the dumbing
down of qualifications and assessment, or some other change in the
mechanism that creates test results—that includes the increased
focus because of Government strategies to force school
improvement—that we have
the debate about dumbing down each year. Because of all that, the public
have no confidence in results as a measure of educational
standards. In
their response to the Committee’s report, the Government were
commendably honest. In paragraph 50, on page 12, they say
not only that they do not accept the Committee’s recommendations
on sample testing but, in commendably clear terms, that
“Ofqual’s
role is not to monitor education standards as a whole; it is to
regulate the qualifications and assessments which are one of the means
by which those standards are
measured.” That
is extremely clear and one of the reasons why we are unhappy with these
measures. Essentially, we believe that there needs to be a body that is
able to monitor and track standards over time. That body should be able
to ensure that different qualifications are consistent between
themselves and over time through the way in which it measures standards
as well as measuring those standards separately from changes in the
qualifications. One
of our concerns when we took evidence on this matter a couple of weeks
ago was whether Ofqual would be able—even over time—to
develop into a more independent body capable of the wider role that the
Government do not presently envisage in monitoring overall educational
standards. Our amendments seek to address the wider role that we think
Ofqual should have, giving it powers and duties to carry out the sample
cohort testing that we think will be necessary to create an assessment
of what is happening to underlying educational
standards. When
we took evidence on this issue we had ambiguous and arguably mutually
inconsistent statements from those who gave evidence. On 3 March we
heard from Kathleen Tattersall of Ofqual, who indicated that Ofqual
does not necessarily need an explicit power in this area. She
said: “My
understanding of the legislation is that we are not precluded from such
thoughts down the line”.——[Official
Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill
Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 66,
Q175.] However,
she did not think it necessary to put those powers in this particular
Bill. I would hope that if Ofqual was determined to prove itself to be
a regulator and watchdog with teeth, it would want to take those powers
and would push to do so. I was reassured by Kathleen
Tattersall’s view that the legislation did not preclude Ofqual
pursuing that type of strategy over a period of time. That was not what
we were told by the right hon. Member for South Dorset when we took
evidence from him on 10 March. When he was questioned about sample
testing, he
said: “As
Ministers, we want to decide whether it is appropriate to hold
standardised sampling tests whereby the same test is taken every year
by different cohorts of
children.”——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
10 March 2009; c. 163,
Q375.] In
other words, the right hon. Gentleman did not think it appropriate that
Ofqual should simply take such powers of its own accord. Clearly the
Minister felt, for whatever reason, that it would be the duty and
responsibility of Ministers to be clear whether cohort testing was
used, as well as the existing qualifications testing, so that we could
figure out whether standards were improving or declining over
time.
Then, however,
a couple of questions later we heard from the Under-Secretary of State,
the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, who was much more open to the
possibility of using the type of standardised sampling testing that her
colleague, the Minister for Schools and Learners, the right hon. Member
for South Dorset, appeared to have ruled out just a few questions
before. The hon. Lady had
said: “There
is nothing in the Bill preventing Ofqual from doing standardised
sampling if that is the way that it wishes to fulfil its duties. It
will be up to Ofqual to decide whether that is the best
way.”——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
10 March 2009; c. 163,
Q378.] The
hon. Lady went on to make it clear that there is nothing to stop Ofqual
carrying out sample testing if it wishes to do so. I was encouraged by
the hon. Lady’s openness to the possibility that Ofqual might
want to do that, because it indicates that she might have in the back
of her mind the possibility that Ofqual may over time develop into a
body that is able to take a wider view of its responsibilities in
relation to monitoring standards. Some amendments touch directly on
this. However, I would appreciate clarification from Ministers on what
the actual position is. Is it the Portsmouth, North position, which is
that—though this is not embedded in the Bill—it is
perfectly acceptable if Ofqual want to carry out this type of
standardised testing? Or is the position as described from Dorset
South, which is that it is appropriate only for Ministers to make such
decisions? When
I had a conversation with Ofqual some months ago, it seemed to me that
although it had not necessarily thought through this issue in detail it
was at least open to the possibility that, in time, it might use such
measures. At the very least, I want to ensure that the Government are
clear that if Ofqual wishes to do so then it should be allowed to do
so. One
issue that is crucial and ties together a number of these amendments is
what we mean by educational standards. We have heard from the
Government’s response to the Select Committee report, that the
Bill and the establishment of Ofqual is designed to create a body not
to objectively look at educational standards as a whole, but to
regulate the existing qualifications framework. The potential for
differences between what is implied from changes in exam results in
terms of regulator’s qualifications and what might be assumed
about underlying standards is very important and quite
topical.
I noticed at
the end of last week that Mike Creswell, the director-general of the
Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, issued a number of public
comments and warnings about the introduction of the modular system for
GCSEs, which is being brought in from September. The modular system
will allow the GCSEs to be taken over a period of time, module by
module. Moreover, it will allow for quite a number of retakes. I cannot
remember exactly how many, but potentially quite a few. Dr. Creswell
said that pass rates rise when a modular system is introduced. He said
that such a rise would lead to direct concerns about standards. He
referred to the widespread view that standards are being
eroded.
Dr. Creswell
pointed to international evidence that suggested that modular exams
increased the results. He said that everywhere in the world, pass rates
seem to rise when a modular system is introduced. Such a rise is not
particular to GCSEs and A levels. He went on to mention how students can
achieve higher results, which creates the appearance of educational
standards improving, when modular qualifications are introduced. We
took evidence from Katherine Tattersall on that issue when she was in
front of the Committee. I asked her if she
would “expect
a cohort with the same abilities that had previously gone through under
the old qualification to get the same broad distribution of grades in
the new examination, even if its composition, modules and coursework
has
changed?” Kathleen
Tattersall’s first answer was rather ambiguous. However, once I
said that she could assume that the abilities of the cohort were
identical to those of the previous cohort that had taken examinations
under a non-modular system, Kathleen Tattersall replied by
saying: “Assuming
that they are identical”—
in other words, the
cohort— “in
a very large cohort, you would expect a broadly similar pattern, even
if there are some shifts because of the nature of the curriculum change
or the accessibility of the examination, modules or
whatever.” —[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
3 March 2009; c. 78,
Q204.] That
was a relatively clear answer with studied ambiguity around the edges.
It was a lot clearer than the Minister’s response to the same
question. This is not some sort of theoretical question that is not
going to emerge in the very near future. This is an issue that will
arise in the very near future when the modular qualifications come in.
If exam results rise, there is bound to be the suggestion that it is
due to a “dumbing down” and a change in the assessment
for these particular examinations. If we cannot get a clear view from
the Minister on whether or not the intention is, as Kathleen Tattersall
said, to keep the broad grade distribution similar after modular
examinations come in or on whether the Government will allow the
examination results to rise, as Mike Creswell suggested last week, we
really will be in a horrific muddle in terms of what we mean by
examination standards. Moreover, it may erode confidence in examination
standards and in the job that Ofqual does to maintain those standards
over a period of time. That challenge will arise very early in
Ofqual’s period as an independent regulator, so meeting it will
be crucial in determining if there is going to be confidence in the job
that Ofqual does.
8.15
pm In
that regard, I would like to draw attention to the explanatory notes to
the Bill and to some of the comments in them about the job that Ofqual
will be expected to do. In particular, I would like to draw attention
to paragraphs 342 and 343, where there are extensive comments on what
the duties of Ofqual will actually mean in relation to maintaining
standards.
If you do not
mind, Mrs. Humble, I will just read briefly some of those
comments for the convenience of the Committee and for the record.
Paragraph 342 of the explanatory notes says:
“Ofqual
must perform its functions with the aim of ensuring that comparable
qualifications and assessments — whether they are
contemporaneous or delivered at different times — indicate a
consistent level of attainment. If the requirements of a qualification
have changed over time, perhaps because the requirements of the
industry they relate to have evolved (this will be a particular issue
in the IT industry, for example), it may be that a modern qualification
is not comparable with its predecessor and therefore that Ofqual does
not have to secure a consistent level of attainment. But if two
qualifications are comparable, Ofqual must act to ensure that they do
indicate a consistent level of
attainment.” When
the Minister responds later, I would be particularly grateful to know
if this paragraph should be interpreted as meaning that, for example,
in the case of modular qualifications there would be a duty to act to
ensure a consistent level of attainment between the
modular qualification and the predecessor non-modular
qualification, or if the modular qualification in some way constitutes
a new qualification, where there might be a permanent ratcheting up in
the results that are accepted.
In paragraph
343, there is a description of the job that Ofqual will have to do,
which is just as intriguing when it
says: “The
standards of qualifications and assessments — the benchmarks
against which learners are measured — are not the same thing as
the standards of education more broadly. “Standards” in
this first sense are like the height of a hurdle, and Ofqual’s
objective is to keep that height consistent between comparable
qualifications and assessments. Whilst it is generally a policy
objective of the Government to improve the quality of teaching and
learning such that the number of people able to jump the hurdle
increases (which is how the term “standards” is more
commonly used), that is not a concern of Ofqual’s under its
standards
objectives.” So
I would also like to be clear about precisely what that means and to
what extent Ofqual will concentrate on comparability between
qualifications that are available at any point in time, rather than
ensuring that there is confidence about the general level at which the
hurdle is being set and whether or not that hurdle is changing, in
terms of its height, over time.
Those are two
of our principal concerns. First, there is the fact that
Ofqual’s role has been defined in such a narrow way, regulating
specific qualifications rather than standards as a whole. Secondly, I
would suggest that there is ambiguity and confusion in the Government
about what the maintenance of standards, even in regulated
qualifications, means over time.
Therefore, I
would like to address some of the specific amendments, taking into
account the fact that some of the comments I have already made really
explain why we have tabled some of them.
Amendments 60
and 61 would add an overall responsibility for maintaining educational
standards to Ofqual’s objectives. In other words, they would add
to the five objectives, which are currently set down in clause
125(1)(a) to (e), a clearer objective for maintaining educational
standards over time. We think that that is absolutely crucial if Ofqual
is to do the job that most people would expect it to do, rather than
this much narrower job that the Government have given it to
do. Amendment
61 would not only make it clear that there had to be an educational
standards and performance objective, but would place a duty on Ofqual
to carry out sample testing annually in selected subjects and to report
on the changes in educational standards over time, comparing not only
the standards in any one year with those of previous years, but
standards in the United Kingdom with those in other OECD countries. We
know that the Government’s line on that is that Ofsted is
supposed to be carrying out an evaluation of school standards, but if
the Minister is fair-minded and reasonable, she will not consider that
Ofsted is remotely carrying that out or trying to carry it out in the
way
envisaged in amendment 61, nor will she try to argue that the
international surveys of educational performance are carried out on a
reliable and consistent enough basis to serve as an excuse for Ofqual
not doing the work itself. Those two amendments are extremely important
to the wider role that we want Ofqual to
have. Amendment
62 would add to Ofqual’s objective for assessment standards a
duty to ensure that its regulated assessments allowed for the
monitoring of changing standards. In clause 125(3)(b), the objective
set down in relation to assessment standards is that there should
be “a
consistent level of attainment (including over time) between comparable
assessments.” Our
point is that those assessments need to be not just about comparable
assessments and comparable qualifications; they also need to be
invariant to the changes in the composition or assessment standards for
particular
qualifications. Amendment
63 would add the duty that Ofqual should review changes in assessment
standards to date as part of its objectives. That is a very important
point if Ofqual is to have any credibility in relation to the debate
about what has happened to educational standards in the last decade or
so. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned a
number of studies that have commented on the change in educational
standards in the last decade or so and he cited some quite important
and independent evidence from commentators who believe that grades in
GCSE, A-level and other qualifications today are not comparable to the
grades from five, 10 or 15 years ago. For Ofqual to do its job
effectively, there must be an expectation that it will not only try to
make sensible judgments going forward, but will be able to inform us
about what has been happening to standards in recent years, which is
bound to be of public interest for a long
time. Amendment
64 would ensure that Ofqual had to demonstrate its independence and
objectivity as part of the public confidence objective. In clause
125(4), there is a
duty “to
promote public confidence in regulated qualifications and regulated
assessment
arrangements.” It
is vital that Ofqual delivers confidence not only in regulated
qualifications, but in Ofqual as a body in terms of its independence,
the integrity of those who work for it and its ability to challenge the
Government, and in terms of the judgment that it makes about standards
being broad and meaningful, not narrow and restricted in the way that
the Government seem to
envisage. Amendment
65 would place an additional duty on Ofqual to carry out cohort testing
to assess changes in standards over time. Depending on one’s
point of view, it either complements or overlaps with amendment 61.
Amendment 219,
which— 8.24
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House. 8.40
pm On
resuming—
| 
