Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by NASUWT, The Teachers’ Union

Executive Summary

The NASUWT is clear that there is no evidence that standards in the qualifications used most regularly in the 14-19 sectors have fallen over time.

The Coalition Government is currently looking to implement numerous reforms of the English education system, causing a great deal of turbulence and uncertainty for schools, teachers and pupils. The reforms proposed by the Coalition Government to the accredited qualification system will add to this turbulence.

It is inappropriate to propose reforms to accredited qualifications for which there is no demonstrable need.

The NASUWT maintains its support, in principle, for the existence of an independent regulator for qualifications and examinations that is perceived as being free from political interference.

The market alone cannot be relied upon to ensure that the standards of comparable qualifications are consistent, that learners are treated fairly and that fees paid to awarding organisations represent genuine value for money.

The complexity of the current market presents significant challenges in the establishment of an effective accredited qualifications system that meets the legitimate needs of all those with a stake in the coherent and purposeful functioning of the system.

Accredited qualifications are most properly regarded as a public good, provision of which represents a core responsibility of the state.

The NASUWT maintains that there is a clear case for the awarding and accreditation of qualifications, particularly key qualifications available in the 14-19 sectors, to be undertaken by a single, dedicated and appropriately accountable organisation located within the public sector.

The NASUWT has concerns about the degree of democratic accountability that Ofqual is likely to be subject to and that the intention of the Coalition Government to make the Chair of Ofqual a direct appointment of the Secretary of State for Education has potentially profound consequences with regard to the ways in which Ofqual will be able to operate effectively and objectively in future.

Ofqual’s development of its regulatory strategy should be taken forward in conjunction with teachers and teacher trade union representatives centrally involved in the process of qualification development and approval.

There is a high degree of accuracy currently in the setting of papers, marking of scripts and awarding of grades; claims that this is not the case are largely unsubstantiated.

Ofqual should take an active role in monitoring awarding bodies’ work at all stages and levels: the NASUWT believes that the establishment of an effective and meaningful regulatory relationship requires bodies subject to regulation to act in ways that are consistent with the public interest.

The high cost to schools of entering pupils for examinations, especially at a time of financial constraints means value for money in the design and delivery of accredited qualifications is important.

It is wrong for awarding bodies to make profits as a result of the provision of qualifications. This represents exploitation of the education system to allow private companies to benefit from public money.

The advice and support provided by the awarding bodies should be available to all schools, not favouring only those that can afford to purchase this advice. This brings into question the equality of opportunity that should be offered and protected through the education system.

Competition between awarding bodies has led to a driving down of the quality of support and good practice.

Background and Context

1. The NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the House of Commons Education Select Committee Inquiry into how examinations for 15-19 year olds in England should be run.

2. The NASUWT draws the attention of the Committee to the ongoing and significant levels of debate about alleged declines in educational standards, particularly in relation to the qualifications used most regularly in the 14-19 sectors.

3. The NASUWT is clear that there is no evidence that standards in these suites of qualifications have fallen over time. The Union notes statements made by representatives of Ofqual to this effect and that arrangements are in place to ensure that effective steps can be taken to address any concerns in this respect that relate to the design of qualifications before they become problematic.1

4. Given that one of the motivating factors behind Ofqual’s establishment was to reinforce public confidence in the accredited qualifications system, it is essential that Ofqual takes a more proactive stance than has been apparent to date in communicating its positive findings about the consistency of standards in the system and makes clear the steps that it is taking in consultation with stakeholders to ensure that these are maintained in future.

The Impact of Broader Coalition Government Policy on the Examination System in England

5. The Coalition Government is currently looking to implement numerous reforms of the English education system, from the break-up of the maintained sector of schools and the admissions code to initial teacher training (ITT) and the National Curriculum, as well as particular subject areas such as personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) and work-related learning (WRL). These changes are proposed to be put in place swiftly with reduced time for consultation, in some cases, and with little proof that there is a need for change. These reforms are causing a great deal of turbulence and uncertainty for schools, teachers and pupils.

6. In March 2011, the UK was identified by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as a particularly high-performing country and was invited to attend the International Summit on the Teaching Profession held in New York. The invitation recognised the work done by the previous administration in collaboration with all stakeholders to improve the education system.

7. Many of the reforms taken forward by the previous administration, including those related to the qualifications system, have not yet had time to “bed in”. This highlights the inappropriateness of the Coalition Government’s determination to implement further changes to the curriculum and qualifications system. A clear example of this is the current review of the National Curriculum being taken forward despite the fact that the current secondary National Curriculum has only been in place since 2008.

8. The approach of the Coalition Government described above, therefore, represents a clear reversal of the positive approach to policy development in relation to the curriculum and qualification reform evident previously.

The Status and Activities of Awarding Bodies

9. In relation to the provision of accredited qualifications, the NASUWT shares the view Ofqual expressed in its consultation document From Transition to Transformation that the market alone cannot be relied upon to ensure that the standards of comparable qualifications are consistent, that learners are treated fairly and that fees paid to awarding organisations represent genuine value for money.

10. In the NASUWT’s view, it is the marketised nature of the provision of accredited qualifications in the education systems where Ofqual’s remit applies that represents the most profound risks to securing these important policy objectives. Not least, the size and complexity of this market, the precise extent of which Ofqual admits is difficult to determine with any accuracy, presents significant challenges in the establishment of an effective accredited qualifications system that meets the legitimate needs of all those with a stake in the coherent and purposeful functioning of the system.2

11. Given the wider societal benefits of a fit-for-purpose accredited qualifications system, including those related to employment, access to higher education and the formation of judgements about the effectiveness of education and training systems, the NASUWT is clear that accredited qualifications are most properly regarded as a public good, provision of which represents a core responsibility of the state.

12. However, the current accredited qualifications framework, with its range of non-public sector awarding organisations, many of which are engaged in the delivery of accredited qualifications in order to extract public funds from the education system to secure commercial profits, leads to profound and destructive market failures. These include: the ineffective use of the public resources voted by Parliament to ensure the effective accreditation of learning within the state education system; the duplication of provision between awarding bodies, particularly where awarding organisations compete to provide the same or similar qualifications; and the non-availability of qualifications that would be of value to learners as a result of the unwillingness of awarding bodies to make such qualifications available.

13. As a result of this approach to the design and delivery of accredited qualifications, there is a clear lack of public accountability in the ways in which awarding organisations make use of public money to fulfil a key role within the education system. In light of the fact that the content and structure of the qualifications system has a significant influence on the curricular experiences of pupils in schools and colleges, the independent and publicly unaccountable status of awarding organisations cannot be considered appropriate.

14. Recent developments within the qualifications system have served to compound these problems. The NASUWT notes that the post-19 qualifications system is developing significant deregulatory trends, with education providers and employers being given the right to apply to be awarding organisations. These trends raise issues around the management of quality assurance and rigour in the application of standards applied to providers entering a complex market.

15. In this context, the NASUWT maintains that there is a clear case for the awarding and accreditation of qualifications, particularly key qualifications available in the 14-19 sector, to be undertaken by a single, dedicated and appropriately accountable organisation located within the public sector, as can be found in other successful education systems around the world where 15-19 qualifications exist, such as New Zealand, Eire, and Scotland.

16. The viability of this approach to the development and provision of qualifications is confirmed by the operation of the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), which takes responsibility for all accreditation and awarding organisation activities in Scotland in a way that is transparent and maintains high degrees of political and public confidence in the qualification system. The Committee should, therefore, investigate the SQA model further in developing its recommendations in this area.

17. One national awarding body would:

have built-in standardisation across each qualification and maintain confidence in standards;

be easier to regulate and would be more accountable to Ofqual, Parliament and the public, and if an appeal or complaint is made, only one awarding body would need to be monitored for compliance;

reduce bureaucracy in relation to the administration of examinations by centres and reduce workload burdens, ensuring that teachers and school leaders are not distracted from their core responsibilities for teaching and leading teaching and learning by the need to devote time and effort making choices between awarding bodies offering largely similar qualifications;

ensure better value for public funds through reduced costs to schools, economy of scale and no unnecessary duplication;

ensure equality of opportunity and help with parity of provision as well as facilitating the identification of gaps in provision and instituting more appropriate qualifications;

simplify consultation and collaboration with interested bodies, removing duplication of meetings and the variability of practice; and

Have a concentration of expertise in the design, delivery and administration of qualifications.

It is, therefore, clear that a single awarding body would consolidate and enhance public trust and confidence in the qualification system.

18. The Committee’s Call for Evidence also raises the viability of franchises to offer particular subjects. The NASUWT is clear that the introduction of franchises would undermine further the ability of the qualifications system to generate economies of scale as there would not be the flexibility to offset the costs of more expensive subjects with more popular ones as is possible with larger awarding bodies. Greater use of franchising could also lead to fewer new qualifications being developed, a possible reduction in the scope of examinations and would require schools to pay a registration fee to each subject awarding body.

19. In such circumstances, it is likely to be the case that consultation with stakeholders would be hampered by the significant range of franchisees that would operate within this market, creating a barrier to the involvement of teachers, employers, further and higher education in the development and monitoring of high quality provision of qualifications. Franchising could also lead to significant additional bureaucratic burdens on centres and increases in staff workload levels as a result of the need to conform to the distinctive administrative requirements of an increased quantity of qualifications providers.

20. It is also possible to identify further concerns about the renewal of franchises within such a system. In cases where possession of franchises is time limited, there may not necessarily be any alternative organisation with the expertise and experience necessary to compete against the incumbent awarding bodies or to replace any failing franchisees. In such circumstances, it is therefore difficult to establish how the viability and credibility of a franchise-based system could be maintained.

21. A system constructed on this basis would also need to be an overarching body to award the franchises. This could be added to Ofqual’s remit as they would have responsibility for maintaining high standards of quality but then there would be a need for a body to regulate the awarding process. It is clear that a franchise system would therefore add significantly to bureaucracy within the system.

The Role of Ofqual

22. Notwithstanding the case made elsewhere in this submission for the creation of a single awarding body within the public sector, it is clear that the Coalition Government remains committed to a marketised approach to the provision of accredited qualifications. In this context, it is therefore essential that the most effective arrangements possible for the regulation of the system are established and maintained. On this basis, the NASUWT accepts the need for an effective regulatory body to be in place, with the full range of statutory powers and sufficient resources to allow it to ensure as far as possible that learners, teachers and others with a legitimate stake in the effective operation of the accredited qualifications system are not subjected to the negative consequences of failure within the qualifications market.

23. This draws attention to the extent of Ofqual’s statutory remit and the principles, priorities and practices that determine Ofqual’s activities within the context of this remit. The NASUWT recognises that Ofqual’s current remit is set out in statute in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 and that Ofqual must work within the framework established by the Act.

24. It should be recognised that in discharging its responsibilities under the Act, Ofqual has the ability to have a significant impact on the experiences of learners and the professional and employment circumstances of those responsible for the provision of education and on wider society in terms of the status of accredited qualifications as a public good. In this regard, the NASUWT has concerns about the degree of democratic accountability that Ofqual, which is answerable only to Parliament, is likely to be subject to. In the Union’s view, the limiting of Ofqual’s accountability to the submission of its annual report to Parliament and periodic reporting to the House of Commons Education Select Committee risks reduced opportunities for appropriate organisations to influence and make representations about the regulation of qualifications and examinations than was the case when Ofqual’s functions were undertaken by an executive agency, most recently the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA).

25. Notwithstanding these considerations, the Union is concerned that the intention of the Coalition Government to make the Chair of Ofqual a direct appointment of the Secretary of State has potentially profound potential consequences with regard to the ways in which Ofqual will be able to operate effectively and objectively in future.

26. In particular, there is a danger that the creation of an independent body to oversee the process of regulating qualifications at strategic, qualification and subject-sector levels could have the effect of further removing the voice of teachers and practitioners from the design, creation and implementation of qualifications and assessment for adults, young people and children. In respect of teachers, it is clear that the specifications and assessment arrangements associated with general qualifications can, if devised inappropriately, impact upon the degree of professional discretion that teachers are able to exercise in relation to meeting the learning needs of pupils and can also have significant workload-related and bureaucratic implications. For this reason, Ofqual’s development of its regulatory strategy should be taken forward in conjunction with teachers and teacher trade union representatives centrally involved in the process of qualification development and approval given their status as trained professionals with current frontline experience.

27. This highlights the importance of the establishment by Ofqual of more effective arrangements for the engagement of teachers and their unions in the development and design of criteria in addition to that sought from representatives of the higher education sector, subject associations, employers and bodies such as Sector Skills Councils. While the NASUWT does not deny that each of these groups has a legitimate stake in the work of Ofqual to secure standards, none are able to contribute the perspectives and experiences of frontline practitioners tasked with making use of qualifications specifications in practical learning contexts.

Ensuring Accuracy

28. The NASUWT is clear that there is a high degree of accuracy currently in the setting of papers, marking of scripts and awarding of grades. The publicity around appeals to awarding bodies has increased creating an incorrect perception that there is a concerning level of inaccuracy. In fact, the results of the appeal system demonstrate that there is a high level of accuracy.3

29. It should also be recognised that in order to sustain and improve accuracy still further, increasingly effective use is being made of technology.

30. It is important that in seeking to establish systems that ensure the highest possible levels accuracy, practicing teachers are given as much opportunity as possible to set, mark and moderate examinations. While it would be important for greater participation by teachers in this process to be established in ways that do not add to their workload and are consistent with the provisions of their statutory and contractual terms and conditions of employment, approaches to securing greater teacher participation merit further investigation. It would also ensure that teachers would have enhanced access to generally highly regarded examination-related training and development opportunities.

31. In ensuring that the highest standards of accuracy are secured and maintained, it is clear that Ofqual should take an active role in monitoring awarding bodies’ work at all stages and levels. The NASUWT believes that the establishment of an effective and meaningful regulatory relationship requires bodies subject to regulation to act in ways that are consistent with the public interest. It is therefore appropriate that Ofqual should expect regulated organisations to make sure that they behave in accordance with the conditions of recognition to which they are subject and that they have the expertise and resources in order to do so. It is also right that regulated organisations should be held accountable to the regulator for the quality and standards of the qualifications they award and the efficiency with which they operate. Awarding organisations should respect Ofqual’s role as a regulator, co-operate with it and take remedial action if problems arise. They should ensure that Ofqual is informed promptly of any difficulties or issues in respect of adherence to the terms of recognition applicable to them.

The Commercial Activities of Awarding Bodies

32. The high cost to schools of examinations, especially at a time of financial constraints, emphasises the importance of value for money. With a market system of competing awarding bodies, centres either have to pay to register with each board or risk restricting choice and disadvantaging some pupils. The choice also involves additional financial and time costs related to researching the relative merits of different awarding organisations.

33. Some awarding bodies profit from publishing textbooks for particular subjects. These can be expensive to buy as a class set, especially when specifications have changed numerous times over the past decade. It is wrong for awarding bodies to profiteer on the back of the qualifications they provide. This is exploitation of the education system to allow private companies to benefit from public money. The advice and support provided by the awarding bodies should also be available to all centres, not just those that can afford to purchase such services or are willing to do so. This would ensure that all relevant staff and learners benefit equitably from the highest possible standards of provision.

34. Competition between awarding bodies over price has led to a driving down of the quality of support and good practice. There has been a reduction in CPD courses on the delivery of the courses, for example, there are no longer visiting moderators for drama GCSE coursework where it is more effective to see the pupils working practically rather than relying on written work and video evidence, which cannot truly reflect the live performance.

November 2011