Mr.
Laws: Will the Minister tell the Committee whether
the conclusions were that the quality of the key stage test marking in
2008 was as good as in previous
years?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The statement made by Ofqual was that the
quality of marking in 2008 was at least as good as in previous
years.
Mr.
Gibb: Will the Minister confirm whether Ken Boston and
David Gee are still suspended and whether they are on full pay, or have
they moved on?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: They are still suspended and are still on
full pay.
Mr.
Gibb: I think that the public will be interested in that
final answer.
I was
slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response to the
amendments. I understand her point on reporting what action Ofqual will
take in tackling a problem with the QCDA, but one of the activities
that could be reported is a direction to the QCDA. That could be
regarded as activity as well as sorting out the problem. None the less,
I take on board her
point. I
was disappointed by her response to amendment 380 on
standards. If she was as serious about maintaining and raising
standards as Conservative Members, she would not have a problem with
accepting the amendment, notwithstanding that it might be regarded as
otiose if it is implicit elsewhere in the Bill that Ofqual has a duty
to maintain standards. Standards are so important that they cannot be
understated in any legislation. I will therefore press the amendment to
test whether the Committee is as serious as Conservative Members about
maintaining and raising academic standards in our
schools. Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
10.
Division
No.
32] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 153
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
154 and 155 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
156NC
assessments regulatory
framework Amendment
made: 301, in clause 156, page 87, line 10,
leave out ‘from time to time’.—(Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.) See Member’s explanatory
statement for amendment
290. Clause
156, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
157EYFS
assessments regulatory
framework Amendment
made: 302, in clause 157, page 87, line 29,
leave out ‘from time to time’.—(Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.) See Member’s explanatory
statement for amendment
290. Clause
157, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
158 to 161 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. 3.55
pm Sitting
suspended. 4.28
pm On
resuming— [Mr.
Christopher Chope in the
Chair]
Clause
162Annual
and other
reports
Mr.
Laws: I beg to move amendment 7, in
clause 162, page 88, line 37, at
end insert ‘and the extent to which it met
objectives.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 70, in clause 162, page 88,
line 37, at end insert ‘how it
performed in relation to its objectives, what its assessment is of
changes in educational standards and performance since its last report,
and how English educational standards and performance compare with
those in other developed countries.’.
Amendment 33,
in
clause 162, page 89, line 8, at
end insert— ‘(4A) No
recommendations contained in the report referred to in subsection (4)
shall be implemented unless the report has been approved by a
resolution of each House of
Parliament.’. Amendment
556, in
clause 162, page 89, line 22, at
end insert— ‘(9) Ofqual
shall, before each financial year, publish a document (the
“forward work programme”) containing a description of the
main activities which it plans to undertake during the year and how
these activities are intended to meet its
objectives. (10) Before
publishing the forward work programme for any year, Ofqual shall give a
notice— (a) containing a
draft of the forward work programme,
and (b) specifying the time
within which representations or objections to the proposals contained
in it may be made, and shall
consider any representations or objections which are made under
paragraph
(b).’.
Mr.
Laws: Thank you, Mr. Chope, and welcome back to
the chair. I hope that you are suitably impressed with the rapid rate
of progress since you were last in it—perhaps not quite as rapid
as some might have wished, but in any case, we are further on than we
were last
time The
clause deals with the annual reports that will have to be produced by
Ofqual, and we have tabled amendments 7, 70 and 556. Amendment 7 would
change subsection (2) to ensure that Ofqual would be required to define
specific and measurable success criteria for its objectives. As it
stands, the subsection does not make it clear that there should be a
specific comparison and assessment of its performance in that period of
time against the objectives set for the organisation. With many
governmental bodies in the past decade or so, there has been has been
an expectation that annual reports will make a rigorous attempt to
evaluate whether the performance targets that the body has been given
have been met. We have discussed in relation to other clauses what
Ofqual’s objectives will be and the need for some measurable
process to assess whether it is meeting them. It is therefore entirely
sensible to invite the Government to consider whether that assessment
should be part of the annual report.
4.30
pm Amendment
70 seeks further to flesh out what the annual report must contain. It
would indicate that the report must not only state how Ofqual has
performed its functions in the reporting period and how it performed in
relation to its objectives, but give an assessment of changes in
educational standards and performance since the last report. The report
would therefore have to give a sense of how standards are changing over
time.
Importantly,
the amendment would require Ofqual to make an assessment
of “how
English educational standards and performance compare with those in
other developed countries”.
Given the considerable
scepticism about the changes in standards that we have seen in the past
10 or 20 years as measured by qualifications, there has been an
increasing focus on how the English education system is performing in
relation to those of other countries. Indeed, international surveys
that seek to give some insight into the English
system and to compare it with other education systems are released
periodically. Given the debates within the UK and England on how our
educational standards are changing, and that Governments want to know
whether their investments in education are paying off, making
comparisons with other countries is potentially extremely valuable,
both as a benchmark for understanding whether the results of public
examinations actually reflect changes in standards, and so that we can
say whether we are getting value for money from our education
system. Amendment
556 would introduce new subsections (9) and (10) to the clause. It
would ensure a more rigorous process for Ofqual’s reporting
structure and performance measurement. It
states: “Ofqual
shall, before each financial year, publish a
document” that
represents the
“forward work
programme” and
contains
“a description
of the main activities which it plans to undertake during the year and
how these activities are intended to meet its
objectives”.
The forward work
programme would ensure that schools, colleges, qualification providers,
the media and parliamentarians clearly understand what Ofqual’s
priorities are each year, and that it can plan its qualifications
accordingly. One issue that we discussed earlier and in previous
sittings is the need for some coherence on the timeliness of what
Ofqual does, to ensure that other organisations are informed in good
time of Ofqual’s plans and priorities and that they are not
wrong-footed by initiatives that take place at very short notice,
without an ability to have an input.
Of course, a
forward work programme would also provide checks and balances for
Ofqual’s activities and allow for greater scrutiny of, and
accountability for, its performance. We think that all the
measures in amendments 556, 7 and 70 ought to be welcomed by
the Government, and that they are consistent with their strategy in the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb: It is good to see you back in the Chair,
Mr. Chope, after a short
absence. Clause
162 will require Ofqual to publish an annual report as soon as is
practicable after the end of each reporting period. The explanatory
note says that that report must be laid before Parliament. Our
amendment 33 says that no recommendation contained in that
report shall be implemented unless the report has been approved by
resolution of each House of Parliament. It is trying to echo the
affirmative resolution statutory instrument procedure that we have in
the House to ensure that the annual report is debated. It is all very
well laying a report before Parliament, but we need to be sure that it
is debated in the House.
I know that
we are not permitted in legislation to require the House of Commons to
do anything. To get around that convention we have tabled an amendment
requiring any recommendations to be debated in both Houses, the reason
being that Ofqual’s maintenance of standards is important to the
public, higher education and employers. Unless the annual report of
Ofqual is scrutinised in this place, I believe that we would be failing
in our duty to ensure that those standards are being maintained. That
would be an important annual parliamentary event, to ensure that our
standards are
maintained, and certainly a key priority for Conservative Members. That
is why we are sympathetic to amendment 70, which states that
changes in standards should be compared with those in other developed
countries. We tabled a
similar amendment requiring a benchmark comparison with similar
qualifications abroad. That is our party’s policy. If we were to
win the next election, we would have an official link requiring our
examinations to be compared with those in other countries. There is a
concern that our qualifications have drifted downwards compared with
many international qualifications that have not gone down the modular
route or reduced the knowledge content. It is interesting to note the
popularity of qualifications such as the international GCSE, which is
very popular abroad but the Government will not allow in state schools
in this country for fear of creating a two-tier examination system. The
truth is that we have a two-tier system in this country. We have a
system whereby the independent sector is allowed to teach and examine
using the IGCSE, but state schools are not permitted—or are
certainly not funded—to teach it. That has an effect of not
providing a competitor exam to the GCSE, which over the past 10 years
has been chipped away by the QCA and the Government so that its
standards are very different from those of the IGCSE, even though they
started out in a similar position when they were split.
Without
taking up any more of the Committee’s time, I think that we
should debate this annual report in Parliament and the amendment
provides a method by which the report’s recommendations will be
debated in this House and another
place.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I, too, would like to welcome you back to
the Chair, Mr. Chope.
Amendments 7
and 70 would require Ofqual to include in its annual report material on
the extent to which it has met its objectives. Amendment 70—I
think we have said this before—says that one feature of the
standards objective on which Ofqual must report is educational
standards and performance, including comparison with other countries. I
readily agree that Ofqual will need to report achievement of its
statutory objectives, a key feature of its accountability. I know that
Ofqual in its interim form agrees with this and is planning to identify
measurable success criteria and report on them, including in its annual
report.
I asked
Ofqual on Tuesday to write to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton and I can confirm that Kathleen Tattersall will be
writing, as committed, on setting measurable objectives. I do not think
it is necessary to include the detailed requirement in legislation.
Ofqual will be accountable to Parliament and the Select Committees will
no doubt put in place arrangements for scrutinising Ofqual’s
work and assessing what it has achieved. Ofqual will have to put in
place some exacting success measures by which its performance can be
assessed. Jeff
Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab): Welcome back
to the Chair, Mr. Chope. The Minister will recall that I
pursued the issue of reporting mechanisms to Parliament during the
evidence sessions because the
reporting process is crucial for the work carried out by Ofqual. The
presentation of the annual report to Parliament is going to be
important in how we deal with that. As I said at the evidence session,
I favour a repeat system for Ofqual, such as the one that the Select
Committees adopt for Ofsted. They scrutinise the annual report when it
is first presented publicly. Later in the year—maybe five or six
months later—there is another presentation from Ofsted, not just
to look at the outcomes from the annual report, but to go over any
other issues that may have cropped up in the intervening
period.
| 
