Education Bill

Memorandum submitted by Cambridge Assessment (E 12)

About us

1. Cambridge Assessment is a not-for-profit organisation made up of three exam boards, as well as a large educational research capability. We are an integral pa rt of education and training – our qualifications are recognised by universities, employers and official bodies throughout the world and taken by more than 8 million people in over 16 0 countries. Our exam boards and researchers cover all aspects of education – from teacher training, through vocational and general qualifications, to curriculum development. They include:

· OCR (Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations), our UK arm, which offer s qualifications to learners of all ages through 13,000 schools, colleges, prisons, training providers and companies .

· University of Cambridge International Examination s , the world’s largest provider of international qualifications for 14–19 year olds, including I nternational GCSEs and Cambridge Pre-U. W ork ing with governments to support education capacity building, Cambridge Internation a l trains education professionals in curriculum development and assessment.

· University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations (English for S peakers of Other Languages), which provides the world’s leading qualifications for learners and teachers o f English. Taken by over 3 million people in 135 countries each year, they are vital for entry to Higher Education, many professions, and for immigration.

Summary of response

2. Our response sets out our views specifically around Clause 22 of the Bill which as it stands revises Ofqual’s current qualifications standards objective to include international comparison.

3. We argue that the Bill’s focus on Ofqual’s objectives provides a good opportunity to reconsider the five objectives given to Ofqual in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.

4. We support the view that an independent regulator can encourage a system that instils greater trust in examination standards, with trust being built on a foundation of solid evidence, clear for all to see and understand. However, for this to happen, the most appropriate model of regulation needs to be put in place.

5. We therefore set out an alternative model that is founded on the core function of standards regulation. This reconsiders Ofqual’s current objectives and recommends that Ofqual should be allowed to focus on the qualifications standards objective above all else.

Full response

6. Our comments are focused on Part 4 on Qualifications and Curriculum, and specifically on Clause 22 on Ofqual’s qualifications standards objective.

7. The current Clause 22 expands upon Ofqual’s qualif ications standards objective. It seeks to ensure that Ofqual not only maintains standards between UK qualifications but also that it should maintain standards in line with international comparable qualifications.

8. The Bill’s focus on Ofqual’s objectives provides a good opportunity to reconsider the five objectives originally given to Ofqual in Section 128 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.

9. As a reminder of the current situation, u nder the current Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning (ASCL) Act 2009, Ofqual has five objectives:

· The qualification s standards objective – to secure that regulated qualifications give a reliable indication of knowledge, skills and understanding, and indicate a consistent level of attainment (including over time) between comparable regulated qualifications.

· The assessment s standards objective – to promote the development and implementation of regulated assessment arrangements which give a reliable indication of achievement, and indicate a consistent level of attainment (including over time) between comparable assessments.

· The public confidence objective – to promote public confidence in regulated qualifications and regulated assessment arrangements.

· The awareness objective – to promote awareness and understanding of the range of regulated qualifications available, the benefits of regulated qualifications to learners, employers and institutions within the higher education sector, and the benefits of recognition to bodies awarding or authenticating qualifications.

· The efficiency objective – to secure that regulated qualifications are provided efficiently and in particular that any relevant sums payable to a body awarding or authenticating a qualification in respect of which the body is recognised represent value for money.

10. We believe that an independent regulator can help create a system that instils greater trust in examination standards, with trust being built on a foundation of solid evidence, clear for all to see and understand. However, for this to happen, the model of regulation as currently set up needs to be reconceptualised .

11. We believe that Ofqual is more likely to effectively carry out the function of regulating standards if it is allowed to focus specific ally on the qualifications standards objective , rather than the collection of objectives which it currently holds. The system will be most effective if the regulator is given the time to focus meaningfully on one core objective rather than superficially on several.

12. More fundamentally, we also believe that the regulator can focus on standards more effectively if the roles of all those involved in the qualifications system are reconsidered. Over the years, state agencies have taken an ever-increasing role mediating between subject communities, professional societies, employers, Higher Education, teachers and those developing and providing examinations by taking upon themselves the role of defining the content and method of examinations. A more appropriate system should be reconfigured as follows:

· ‘Communities of interest’ (being the interested parties who use qualifications and should be responsible for determining their content. These include subject communities, professional societies, employers, Higher Education, and schools, colleges and teachers) – these communities should have a leading role in determining the content of each qualification and in working with Awarding Bodies to help set and maintain standards. As well as involvement in syllabus development, there ought to be scope, along the lines of universities’ own external examiner system, for Higher Education subject representatives to be involved in an annual review of each year’s exam series.

· Awarding Bodies – giving them greater ownership over the development of the design and content of qualifications (previously under the remit of the QCDA) makes them more accountable to users and to the general public and gives them greater responsibility for improving the system.

13. Under such an approach, the role that the regulator then plays can be redefined. The regulator is set free to focus wholly upon standards, the protection of the public from producers of bogus qualifications, and the provision of an ombudsman service to candidates who have been victims of miscarriages of justice on the part of Awarding Bodies. In this scenario , the r egulator takes on more of a ‘weights and measures’ role. As such its accountability is directly for maintaining the standards of the bodies that award qualifications through its licensing and oversight of institutions. It is also accountable for maintaining the standards of qualifications through its supervision of the governance arrangements which determine the way in which Awarding Bodies interact with communities of interest. The regulator would also as part of this role be responsible for ensuring that these governance arrangements operate effectively to maintai n the standard of individual qualifications over the ir lifetime. For these purposes it is necessary for the regulator to have as its remit only the qualifications standards objective.

14. As described, the responsibility for setting and maintaining the standard of each individual qualification would be taken up by the communities of interest rather than Ofqual. Ofqual’s qualifications standards objective is therefore best fulfilled by ensuring awarding bodies are ‘fit and proper’ providers through licensing pr ocedures – not by looking at the standard of every individual qualification, as currently provided for under sections 138-140 of the ASCL Act (accreditation of certain qualifications) . It is clear that n arrow and deep regulation of providers creates a more effective regulator than a broad and superficial approach covering individual qualifications.

15. It is worth noting that Ofqual’s partner quango, the QCDA, which the current Bill abolishes, was previously responsible for defining individual qualification (design) criteria – such as the number of units, the grading structure and methods of assessment – and subject (content) criteria. If we do continue down this road of regulating individual qualifications, there is a real danger of re-creating QCDA in Ofqual.

16. The focus on the qualifications standards objective means that two of Ofqual’s current objectives in particular become unnecessary – namely the public confidence objective and the awareness objective.

17. In the case of Ofqual’s public confidence objective, we would argue that the holding of standards in itself promotes public confidence rather than confidence being promoted separately from standards maintenance. To have a specific objective like this encourages the employment of ever larger communications teams delivering ever more communications programmes rather than a commitment to proper investigation and research.

18. In addition, t he re-linking of HE, business and subject communities directly with awarding bodies as set out above means that the users of qualifications give or withhol d their support. T he confidence of the public in the ability of a qualification to deliver progression is then assured without the need for a regulator to engage in PR activities.

19. In the case of Ofqual’s awareness objective we would argue that this replicate s and place s into a central structure the marketing operations of the awarding bodies which seek to bring attention to their individual qualifications and the benefits of them. A vibrant market is the best guarantee of public awareness of the available opportunities. The o bjective leads to loss of focus and requires additional resources. We would also argue that if the regulator succeeds in establishing itself as competent in its main role – regulating standards – potential market entrants will find their own way into the regulated sector .

20. O f qual’s assessment standards objective covers its work on the Government’s school tests, commonly called SATs, essentially replicating its standards role at that lower level – and should therefore remain .

21. In conclusion, we recommend that members of the Public Bill Committee take this opportunity to ensure that we have in place a regulation system which enable s the regulator to go about it s key role of maintaining exam standards. Such a system will be most effective if t he regulator is given the time to focus meaningfully on one core objective rather than superficially on several.

Suggested Amendments

In section 128 of ASCLA 2009 (Ofqual’s objectives), subsection (1) (c) and (1) (d) and subsections (4) and (5) are repealed.

Sections 138 to 140 of ASCLA 2009 (accreditation of certain qualifications) are repealed.

February 2011