Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Leighton Andrews, Minister for Education and Skills for Wales

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Education on 12 March. I was pleased to have the opportunity to explain issues relating to the regulation of three-country qualifications and to last summer’s awarding of GCSE English Language from the perspective of the regulator of qualifications in Wales.

In my oral evidence to the Committee, I made reference to what I referred to as “grade deflation” in England. I feel it would be helpful for you and Committee members if I elaborate on that a little.

August 2012 saw the first results for a new suite of GCSEs in English. 2011 saw the final results for GCSE English, which was available in both England and Wales. That GCSE was replaced in England in September 2010 by a revised GCSE English and a new GCSE English Language. In Wales only GCSE English Language was available from 2010.

In simple terms I think it is worth noting that in 2012, for the first time in many years, there was a fall in the overall outcomes for GCSE English/English Language in England. Data from the Department for Education in England show that in 2012 63% of the cohort in England achieved a grade C or above in GCSE English or GCSE English Language, compared to 68% who achieved grade C or above in GCSE English in 2011.

I also believe that it is important to set this in the context of a desire to maintain comparable outcomes, particularly when specifications for qualifications change. This principle should have been particularly important in 2012, because of the changes to the GCSE suite for English/English Language that I refer to above. The principle of comparable outcomes was established on the basis that, when specifications change, awarding organisations and regulators should work to ensure similar outcomes between the final awards under the old specifications and the first awards under the new specifications. In so doing, the intention would be to ensure that no candidates are either unfairly disadvantaged, or advantaged by a switch in specifications. In my view this was demonstrably not the case in last summer’s awards in England.

March 2013