Waddell (1978)

Notes on the text

Part I

Preliminary pages Contents, Membership
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Educational matters
Chapter 3 Structure of the examining system
Chapter 4 Cost
Chapter 5 Conclusions
Appendices

Part II

Preliminary pages Contents, Membership

Report of the Education Study Group (ESG)

Glossary, Introduction
Chapter 1 Feasibility of common exam system
Chapter 2 English
Chapter 3 Mathematics
Chapter 4 Science
Chapter 5 History
Chapter 6 Geography
Chapter 7 Modern languages
Chapter 8 Classics
Chapter 9 Commerce
Chapter 10 Social science
Chapter 11 Religious studies
Chapter 12 Craft design and technology
Chapter 13 Technical drawing
Chapter 14 Home economics
Chapter 15 Needlecraft and dress
Chapter 16 Art
Chapter 17 Music
Chapter 18 Further work
Appendix A List of witnesses
Appendix B Questions
Appendix C Statistics
Appendix D Joint examinations

Report of the Cost Study Group (CSG)

Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Costs in 1976
Chapter 3 Costing a common system
Chapter 4 Changeover costs
Annexes

Report of the Steering Committee established to consider proposals for replacing the General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level and Certificate of Secondary Education examinations by a common system of examining

Chairman: Sir James Waddell CB

Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales by Command of Her Majesty July 1978

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1978
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Part I: Cmnd 7281-I
Part II: Cmnd 7281-II

Part I

Chapter 1 Introduction
[pages 1 - 5]

1. In July 1976 the Schools Council submitted to the Secretary of State for Education and Science a recommendation that the General Certificate of Education (GCE) O Level and the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) examinations should be replaced by a common system of examining at 16+ (1). In October that year the Secretary of State informed the Council that, although a common system could have considerable advantages, the proposal was subject to major uncertainties which needed to be resolved before a decision could be taken, and that a further study of outstanding difficulties would be undertaken by the Department of Education and Science and Her Majesty's Inspectorate.

2. We were appointed by the Secretary of State to oversee that study. The first of our meetings was held at the end of March 1977 and in the ensuing fifteen months we held a further twelve meetings. To help us in our work, we set up two study groups, one to consider educational matters, the other to consider costs. The membership of these study groups is given in Appendices A and B; each group included a good number of our own members. We are grateful to the groups for their reports, which we are forwarding to the Secretary of State with our own and upon which we have based a substantial part of this report.

3. Being a Steering Committee, we did not ourselves seek or receive either written or oral evidence from outside bodies, but through the membership and activities of the study groups, and through HM Inspectorate and the staffs of the Department of Education and Science and the Schools Council, we kept in touch with the views of examining boards and others with special knowledge of issues involved (2). Our chairman arranged to hold three meetings with representatives of all the CSE and GCE boards.

Background

4. The CSE and O Level examination systems have a number of features in common. Although the CSE boards operate under conditions laid down by the Secretary of State both kinds of boards are independent; the Secretary of State recognises the certificates without controlling any of the boards' procedures. Both systems provide public examinations for candidates at the age of about 16 and have accumulated much experience and expertise in educational matters, particularly the preparation of examination syllabuses and the application of a wide variety of assessment techniques. Both systems also involve the administration of substantial 'businesses'. In the summer of 1976 the boards between them handled over five million subject entries (3). To cope with this amount of work year after year is a formidable achievement; to create and maintain public confidence in the examining procedures, as both systems have done, is perhaps a greater one.

5. The differences between the two systems, however, are also important. Many of the present GCE boards have a long history, preceding the introduction of the GCE O Level in 1951; most have close links with the universities and all have strong teacher representation. The CSE boards were established more recently, with CSE being first examined in 1965; they are controlled by elected teacher majorities and have a substantial local authority representation. The target populations of the two examinations are different, although with some overlap (the O Level examination tending to be aimed at the upper 20 per cent of the full ability range and CSE catering for the next 40 per cent); and each has its own grading system. The highest of the 5 CSE grades (Grade 1) is by definition equivalent to Grade C or above at GCE O Level (4), but there is no defined equivalence at other levels. The GCE boards are responsible for providing sixth form examinations (A Levels); the CSE boards do not have a comparable role although they provide, as does also a consortium of GCE boards, pilot courses on a small scale for a proposed new examination (the Certificate of Extended Education) for the 'new sixth formers'.

6. The areas covered by the boards of the two systems are dissimilar too. The 8 GCE boards for the most part draw candidates from schools and colleges across the country, whereas each of the 14 CSE boards draws candidates from its own region alone. It is not surprising therefore that, in serving different markets, the boards have developed their own separate examining approaches. The CSE boards, for example, have tended to have a higher proportion of examinations set and marked internally by a school or group of schools, and moderated externally by the board, than most of the GCE boards.

7. The existence of two separate substantial families of boards and the overlaps between them can appear confusing, even haphazard, at times to those outside the schools who have infrequent contact with examinations. Although bringing the two systems together is not easy the Schools Council decided as far back as 1970 that there were sufficient advantages in doing so to justify looking into the possibility of change. The Council again described the case for a common system when making their recommendations to the Secretary of State in 1976.

8. The more significant of the points which the Council then made appear to us to be these. (i) At present schools have to make decisions, which are sometimes difficult, about whether to prepare pupils for O Level or CSE examinations, perhaps as early as the end of their third year of secondary education. In fact, children's abilities do not fall neatly into categories and such early choice cannot take account of their possible development in the fourth and fifth years. (ii) This separation into two groups tends to 'mark off' pupils from one another, with CSE being regarded by many as necessarily second best despite the fact that a Grade 1 has equivalence to O Level grades. (iii) CSE and GCE courses often diverge and place sometimes arbitrary restrictions on a school's organisation; a common system would leave schools freer to group pupils in the manner best suited to their educational needs. (iv) Most schools find it necessary under the dual system to deal with at least two examination boards, each with its own methods, requirements and timetable; and many schools deal with more than two boards. A common system should relieve schools of some of the consequential administrative burdens, and reduce the extent to which varying examination timetables disrupt teaching. (v) The two forms of present certificates and their separate grading schemes are confusing for the general public, and particularly for those users (5) of the certificates who are less familiar with the system. If a satisfactory common system could be devised it would remove this source of confusion.

The Schools Council's proposals

9. With these considerations in mind the Schools Council, which is charged with the task of national coordination in the field of examinations, set in train a range of studies and joint examinations intended to test the feasibility of a common system. The evidence from this work led the Council to recommend the introduction of a common system, and the key elements in their recommendations (see out in full in Appendix D) are, as we see them, that:

(a) a common system should be designed for the same range of ability as O Level and CSE together;

(b) examinations under the three modes (6) should be available, and to ensure reasonable comparability, criteria should be established for syllabuses and schemes of assessment;

(c) results should be expressed in terms of seven grades on a single scale which should be linked to the present O Level and CSE grades for an introductory period;

(d) the administrative structure should be such that the examinations would be teacher controlled, and regionally based, and that schools should have a choice of board;

(e) the Schools Council should have a coordinating role.

11. We concentrated our work on the areas of uncertainty which the Secretary of State had identified as arising from the Schools Council's proposals and we regarded it as our main function to seek acceptable ways of resolving the uncertainties. We noted carefully the potential advantages which the Schools Council saw in a common system, because clearly there would be little point in adopting such a system if the practical difficulties could only be overcome by sacrificing all or most of those advantages. We make it clear, in the remainder of this report, where our conclusions could qualify the advantages foreseen by the Council. However, in considering the issues before us, we did not consider it our business to embark on a fundamental reassessment of the strength of the arguments for a common system. The Secretary of State had already acknowledged these and did not ask to have them reconsidered.

12. The most important of the Secretary of State's reservations related to educational matters. Although she shared the Schools Council's view that a common system was desirable, she sought the firmest possible assurances that a common system of examining could be introduced without creating major educational difficulties. She noted that she 'must be certain that a common system can cater for young people with a very wide range of ability without impairing the reliability and usefulness of the examination results, not least in qualifying young people for employment or for further education'. Our principal task was to consider whether it was feasible for a common system to meet these requirements, and to present our conclusions to the Secretary of State. We express our views on this and other educational matters in Chapter 2. Our conclusion is that a common system is feasible.

13. The Secretary of State also said that, assuming a common system to be feasible, certain practical matters nevertheless had to be considered further. The Schools Council had described four possible ways of administering a common system but did not recommend any particular way. The Council expressed the view that the administrative problems could be solved after a decision in principle in favour of a common system. The Secretary of State indicated, however, that she was not prepared to take a decision until a clearer picture of the likely administrative structure for a common system was available. Our conclusions and recommendations on this are set out in Chapter 3. Our main recommendation is that a common system should be administered by groups of boards, each group including at least one GCE and one CSE board.

14. In Chapter 4 we comment on questions of cost. This too, featured among the uncertainties identified by the Secretary of State. Recognising that it had not been easy for the Schools Council to attempt to estimate the cost of a common system against that of the present arrangements, she nevertheless considered it desirable to have a further study made of transitional and recurrent costs likely to arise in examining boards and in schools. We make no precise estimates but provide maximum and minimum figures within which these costs would be likely to fall.

15. Public confidence in the examination system is at the heart of the matter in a number of contexts - and again it is a point to which the Secretary of State referred. A common system needs to build on and safeguard the confidence that already exists in the GCE O Level and CSE examinations. We therefore express views where appropriate in our report on the general effect which a common system might have on users of examination certificates and have drawn up our recommendations with their interests in mind, as well as those of the candidates, schools and boards.

Other matters

16. The Secretary of State had asked us to undertake a specific piece of work to look into some uncertainties about a common system of examining and to make recommendations about its feasibility. Nevertheless we were aware of general questions which are often debated concerning the need for, and place of, examinations in society and the imperfections which are inherent in the nature of any system of examining. As a Committee we were not constituted, nor had we time, to re-examine and come to a view on all these broad issues as they merit, although we kept them in mind as a background to our work. In the circumstances we did, however, accept two premises as necessary to our work, namely that public examinations would remain an essential feature of our educational system for the foreseeable future and that they would continue to fulfil at least two purposes - serving to record achievement and to provide qualifications used subsequently outside the schools.

17. In the same way it has not been our task to attempt to find a remedy for each and every deficiency in our present dual system of examining. Nevertheless we have sought wherever possible to identify ways in which failings observable in the present system, whether or not related to its dual nature, could be remedied in moving to a common system. It seemed to us that a change of this magnitude, involving additional burdens on many and some inevitable disturbance, ought not to be made without at the same time taking every opportunity to make other adjustments that are desirable. A new system should, moreover, have sufficient flexibility, and the capacity, to allow for change, development and improvement.

18. In our work we naturally had to give attention to certain matters outside our immediate field. We took account of the other existing examination responsibilities of the GCE boards for A Levels and examinations overseas. We were also alive to the coming decline in the size of the age groups from which examination candidates in a common system would be drawn (7) and the proposals at present under consideration for changes in examining at 17 and 18. But our aim has been to avoid making independent studies of matters of this sort, and, so far as there are decisions to be taken on other issues, to avoid prejudicing those decisions. In making our recommendations we have sought to ensure, in particular, that they need not disturb existing A Level arrangements.

Footnotes

(1) The recommendation relates to both England and Wales and, as such, is also of concern to the Secretary of State for Wales by reason of his responsibility for schools in the Principality. Appropriate references to the Secretary of State in this report should be read accordingly.

(2) One of our members received views from a number of employers on the nature of examination certificates (see Chapter II, paragraph 53).

(3) A list of GCE and CSE boards with a table showing the number of subject entries for each board in 1976 is at Appendix C.

(4) The Schools Council define CSE Grade 1 as follows: Grade 1 is to be awarded to a pupil whose ability is such that he might reasonably have secured a Grade A, B or C in O Level, had he followed a course of study leading to that examination instead of a CSE course.

(5) The term 'users' refers in our report to all those outside the schools who look to examination certificates for evidence of achievement. It includes parents, employers, professional bodies and those responsible for further and higher education. Some users, such as employers and colleges and universities, make specific use of examination results to help determine whether young people are qualified for jobs or courses of further education.

(6) Mode I Examinations conducted by the examining board on syllabuses set and published by the board.

Mode II Examinations conducted by the examining board on syllabuses devised by individual schools or groups of schools and approved by the board.

Mode III Examinations set and marked internally by individual schools or groups of schools, but moderated by the board, on syllabuses devised by individual schools or groups of schools.

(7) For example, the 16 year old age group will reach a maximum of 826,000 in 1980 and then decline continuously until at least 1993 (when children born in 1977 reach the age of 16) at which point it will total 546,000.