Mr.
Laws: I was temporarily excited that the Minister was
about to accept my new clause, but she then went on to give a long set
of reasons why she would not. Nevertheless, it was a constructive set
of reasons and, if I can extract a modest victory from her speech,
there was clearly some sympathy towards the intention of new clause 22,
so I do not need to press the matter
further. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
146, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
147 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
148Co-operation
and joint
working Amendment
made: 486, in clause 148, page 83, line 17,
after ‘of’ insert ‘any
of’.—(Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.) This technical amendment and
amendment 489 clarify that where the Bill makes provision about the
performance by Ofqual of its qualifications functions the intention is
to catch the performance of any of those functions and not just the
performance of all of
them. Clause
148, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
149Power
to provide information to other qualifications
regulators Amendments
made: 487, in clause 149, page 83,
line 24, leave out ‘another’ and insert
‘a’. This
amendment and amendment 488 are technical drafting amendments,
clarifying that Ofqual itself is not a “qualifications
regulator” within the meaning given to that term by
clause
149(2)(a). Amendment
488, in
clause 149, page 83, line 26, leave
out ‘other’. See Member’s
explanatory statement for amendment
487. Amendment
489, in
clause 149, page 83, line 32, leave
out ‘a qualifications function’ and insert ‘any of
the qualifications functions’.—(Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.) See Member’s explanatory
statement for amendment
486. Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb: Will the Minister set out what types of information
the clause will allow Ofqual to share with the other qualifications
regulators? I presume that, by other qualifications regulators, she
means those in other parts of the United
Kingdom.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Clause 148 allowed Ofqual to work with other
public bodies. This clause allows Ofqual to provide information to
qualifications regulators elsewhere in the United Kingdom, exactly as
the hon. Gentleman suggested, to support the qualifications functions
of the other regulator. For example, if the regulator in Wales
wanted information about a particular qualification
that was regulated by Ofqual so it could consider whether it should be
regulated in Wales, the clause would allow Ofqual to supply that
information. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
149, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
150 and 151 ordered to stand part of the
Bill..
Clause
152EYFS
assessment arrangements: duty to consult Ofqual
etc. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. Annette
Brooke: I probably should have asked this question
when we discussed an earlier clause, but I was distracted by this
morning’s excitement. I do not really know what early years
foundation stage assessment arrangements are, but it would be alarming
for formal assessment to be put in statute as far as that stage is
concerned. Will the Minister offer reassurance that there is not going
to be even more prescriptiveness and targets introduced to the early
years foundation
stage?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The early years foundation stage is a
play-based early learning framework designed to help teachers and
professionals in all schools, nurseries, out-of-school clubs and
child-minding provision, working with children from birth to five to
give them the best possible start. There are no formal courses or
lessons or any prescription in terms of what providers do in their
day-to-day practice. The Secretary of State sets arrangements for
assessment of the early learning goals, and Ofqual will have a
statutory duty to monitor and report on whatever arrangements are made
by the Government for assessing the early years foundation
stage.
Annette
Brooke: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am
still not entirely clear. The provisions seem to be an “Open
Sesame” to turn what are currently just aspirational goals into
statutory goals. I would like more clarification, by letter if
necessary.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I will write to the hon. Lady about the
possible processes for the assessment of early years foundations
stage.
Mr.
Gibb: Will the Minister confirm that all early years
settings are required to complete early years foundation stage
profiles, and that the concerns voiced by the hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole are therefore
justified?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: There is nothing new in the clause as the
issue is covered by the 2006 Act. I will, however, write to the hon.
Lady to
clarify. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
152 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
153Review
of regulated assessment
arrangements
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 380, in
clause 153, page 85, line 38, at
end add— ‘(3) Ofqual must
keep under review the process of developing NC assessment arrangements
with a view to ensuring that the academic standard of NC assessments is
maintained.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 382, in clause 153, page 85,
line 38, at end
add— ‘(3) Ofqual must keep
under review the process of developing and implementing NC assessment
arrangements with a view to ensuring that NC assessments are delivered
in a timely and orderly
fashion.’. Amendment
384, in
clause 155, page 86, line 45, at
end add— ‘(4) If it appears
to Ofqual that there is, or is likely to be, a significant failing in
NC assessment arrangements it must produce a public statement as soon
as is practicable which
specifies— (a) the
nature of the failing, and (b)
the reasons for the occurrence of the failing,
and (c) the actions it intends
to take to rectify the
failing.’. Amendment
381, in
clause 156, page 87, line 6, after
‘(1)’, insert ‘including a
description of how it intends to maintain the academic standard of NC
assessments’.
Mr.
Gibb: The clause relates to the administration of the
national curriculum tests and the early years foundation stage
profiles. The explanatory notes state that the arrangements under
chapter 3 are intended
to “strengthen
the assessment system, and to help improve public confidence following
the problems with delivery of NC tests in
2008.” Those
problems were colossal. On 16 December 2008, the Secretary of State
told the
House: “The
delivery of this summer’s national curriculum tests for 11 and
14-year-olds was a
shambles.” During
the same debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael
Gove)
said: “The
Sutherland report is an epic catalogue of incompetence, inefficiency
and blinkered inactivity in the delivery of a vital public service. It
paints an unremittingly depressing picture of the fiasco that was this
year’s national curriculum test
process.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2008; Vol.
485, c.
991-94.] The
Sutherland report was published on 16 December 2008 and
stated: “The
events of this summer also represent a failure on the part of one of
the Government’s Non-Departmental Public Bodies, the
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), to deliver its
remit.” It
went on to
note: “The
QCA Board had insufficient oversight of the management and risks
associated with the delivery of its biggest
contract”, and
that “neither
NAA senior personnel, the QCA Executive, or QCA Board appear to have
assessed the mounting risks
appropriately”. The
QCA board announced that its chief executive, Dr. Ken Boston, and the
National Assessment Agency’s managing director, David Gee, had
both been suspended pending a full inquiry into Lord
Sutherland’s findings.
Will the Minister tell us when the full board of inquiry into Lord
Sutherland’s findings will be completed and the report
published? Can she confirm whether Ken Boston and David Gee are still
suspended and whether they are on full pay? The
Sutherland inquiry made several important recommendations that the
Government have accepted. One key recommendation
states: “The
forthcoming legislation to establish Ofqual should ensure that it is
given statutory powers to regulate the quality and delivery of National
Curriculum tests, and clearly sets out reporting
lines”. That
is on page 9 of the report. That is the purpose behind a number of the
clauses in this part of the Bill. My concern relates to the issue of
quality as well as delivery. Amendment 380 requires Ofqual not just to
review all aspects of national curriculum assessment arrangements, but
to ensure that the academic standards of national curriculum
assessments are maintained. Amendment 382 seeks to implement the
recommendation in the Sutherland report
that “The
test delivery process and timetable should be designed to allow for
maximum marking time and
capacity” Amendment
382 requires Ofqual to monitor the assessment arrangements to ensure
that tests are delivered in a timely and orderly fashion. Amendment 384
requires Ofqual to make a public statement as soon as practicable if
there is likely to be a significant failing in the delivery of national
curriculum tests. It amends clause 155, which requires notification to
be given only to the Secretary of State. That should be more widely
publicised. Amendment 381 amends clause 156 and it is intended to
ensure that the document that Ofqual is required to publish also sets
out how it intends to maintain the academic standards of the national
curriculum tests. These are sensible amendments designed to ensure
efficiency, timeliness and rigour. I am sure therefore that the
Minister will find it easy to accept all four of
them.
Mr.
Laws: I shall be brief, because the hon. Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton has already made a good case for his
amendments. They are clearly topical in the light of the key stage
testing and marking shambles last year which he described in his
opening comments. I simply add two questions that I hope the Minister
can address. Has Ofqual carried out any further assessment of the
quality of key stage test marking last year? Has any evaluation that it
has carried out supported the assertion that it made fairly soon after
the key stage test shambles first emerged that the quality of marking
last year was as good as in previous
years?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I think I shall begin by confirming what
clause 153 requires. Ofqual must keep all aspects of national
curriculum and early years foundation stage assessments under review.
The reasons why Ofqual is required to do this are, by definition, to
fulfil its objectives. There are two objectives that are relevant here.
One is the assessments standards objective, which requires Ofqual to
promote consistent and reliable assessments. The other is the objective
to promote public confidence in assessments. Clearly a key part of
public confidence is that assessments are delivered in a timely and
orderly fashion: if there are problems or delays, as I am afraid we saw
last summer, public confidence will inevitably be
dented.
Amendments 380
and 382 seek to guide Ofqual, in undertaking its reviews, to look
particularly at standards and delivery of assessments. We agree that it
should be looking at these things, but we do not need these amendments
to achieve that, because the Bill already requires it to do that. It
would not be fulfilling its statutory objectives if it did not.
Amendment 384 seeks to amend clause 155. Clause 155 was inserted
following a recommendation from Lord Sutherland report in December on
last summer’s national curriculum test delivery
problems. 3.45
pm
If Ofqual
considers that there is or is likely to be a significant failing in the
assessment arrangements, the clause requires it to notify the Secretary
of State and any other body that appears to have contributed to the
failing. That duty ensures that, if Ofqual comes across problems with
the arrangements, there is no ambiguity about the responsibility to
report them to the Secretary of State, which will improve the chances
of any future problems being identified early to
maximise the prospect of them being dealt with. In similar
circumstances, amendment 384 would require Ofqual to produce a public
statement as soon as is practicable, which should specify the nature of
the failing, why it occurred and the actions that Ofqual intends to
take to rectify it.
The Bill
will, of course, allow Ofqual to choose to make a public statement
about its concerns, but it will equally give it the discretion not to
do so. It may be entirely appropriate for it to decide not to say
anything publicly; it may want to give QCDA, or the Secretary of State,
an opportunity to rectify problems before talking about them publicly,
to avoid damaging public confidence in the arrangements. If Ofqual
thinks it spots smoke, that does not always mean that there is fire. It
should have the discretion to check whether something really is burning
before deciding whether it would be in the public interest to alarm
people. I am concerned that the amendment would inhibit Ofqual’s
ability to be an effective
regulator. The
amendment would require Ofqual to report what actions it was taking to
rectify failings, but if it finds a problem, it will not be
Ofqual’s job to tackle it. Ofqual is the regulator, its role is
to monitor and report, not to do. If Ofqual was asked to take
responsibility for some aspect of delivery, it could not be an
objective observer reporting on that process, and it would blur the
lines of accountability for delivery, which, as Lord Sutherland found
in his report, are important to have clear. Therefore, if Ofqual chose
to report a problem, it might report, for example, what QCDA was doing
about it and give its judgement about whether that was sufficient, but
it should not be asked to report on what it was doing itself, which the
amendment
suggests. Amendment
381 would amend clause 156, which requires Ofqual to publish and keep
under regular review a national curriculum assessments regulatory
framework. That framework must describe how Ofqual intends to keep all
aspects of the national curriculum assessment arrangements under review
and to give guidance to bodies with responsibilities for the
development, implementation and monitoring of national curriculum
assessment arrangements on how to perform their
functions.
Amendment 381
proposes that that document should also include a description of how
Ofqual intends to maintain the academic standards of national
curriculum assessments. A similar point to the one I have just made
applies here. Ofqual is the regulator. It is Ofqual’s
responsibility to set out, through the regulatory framework, how the
QCDA, and other bodies responsible for delivering assessments, should
maintain standards. It is also Ofqual’s responsibility to
monitor and report on whether standards are being maintained. As
regulator, Ofqual cannot be responsible for maintaining standards; only
those who are delivering the assessments can do
that. I
entirely agree with the thinking behind the amendment, which is that
maintaining standards should be at the core of Ofqual’s
regulation of assessments. That is why promoting assessment standards
is one of Ofqual’s objectives. Due to that objective, Ofqual
will have to make maintaining standards one of the key aspects of the
framework, but it does not need the amendment to do that.
The hon.
Gentleman asked some specific questions, which I shall answer. The
Government responded to the Sutherland report in February. We hope to
be able to announce the QCA inquiry soon, but we need to allow the QCA
board to go through the due process. Ofqual published its conclusions
on key stage 2 last week.
| 
