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 2 Educational matters
[pages 6 - 18]

Feasibility

19. Of the matters referred to us by the Secretary of State, uncertainties about the educational feasibility of a common system of examining were of first importance. Only if these could be resolved was it necessary for study of the administrative and cost aspects to be carried through and recommendations made. We therefore kept in close touch with the work of our Educational Study Group through regular accounts of their meetings and through cross membership (the chairman and five members of the Group were also members of the Steering Committee). Progress in the Group encouraged us to pursue concurrently our discussions on administrative and other aspects of a common system.

Report of the Educational Study Group

20. Because of the importance of the Group's findings to our task, and in order that our own report may be read as a self-contained document, we summarise the Group's report in this chapter. For the most part it is expressed in terms which can be generally understood by the lay as well as the professional reader; where necessary we have added an explanation or made comments of our own, making it clear in either case where we have done so.

Definition of a common system

21. The Group defined a common system of examining as:

'A single system providing examinations designed for candidates in the same ability range as that for which the GCE O Level and CSE examinations together are currently designed. The examinations may take a number of forms ranging from a common examination where all candidates take the same papers or other tests, to a differentiated examination where candidates, in addition to taking a common paper, may choose between alternative papers or tests set at different levels of difficulty. All grades must however be awarded on a single scale and all certificates must bear a common title.' (1)

22. We accepted this definition but think it will be helpful to give a fuller explanation of what is meant by 'the ability range ... for which GCE O Level and CSE ... are designed'. These examinations are in general designed for the most able 60 per cent of all pupils in each subject and individuals may therefore fall within this range for some subjects and not for others. But in practice the examinations in a good many subjects are taken by candidates from a different range. On the one hand, the range may be narrower; for example, Craft, Design and Technology mainly attracts candidates from the lower part of the 60 per cent range while French and the physical sciences, for example, mainly draw from the upper part of the range. Whether examinations in such subjects in future attract candidates from a wider range will depend largely on the development of suitable syllabuses. A common system could well encourage this but for the present there is no means of testing its feasibility for an appreciably wider range in these subjects. In English language and mathematics, on the other hand, candidates come from a range exceeding 60 per cent - in English language four fifths of all pupils take the examinations. We noted differing views about whether this is desirable but decided that it would not be practicable to make a special study of the question, which we had not in any case been called upon to resolve. What we had to consider was whether a common system could cater at least for candidates who in each subject take O Level and CSE at present and are drawn from the upper 60 per cent of the whole ability range.

The evidence reviewed by the Group

23. Most of the evidence about the feasibility of a common system came from the studies and joint examinations (2) carried out by consortia of GCE and CSE boards. A number of joint examinations was offered in each of the main subject areas, some attracting large numbers of entries. In other subjects there were fewer joint examinations and fewer entries. However, the Group also took into account other evidence, particularly that from O Level and CSE examinations, where this was thought to be significant. The joint examinations covered all the subjects that are of principal concern to users of examination certificates and which together account for the great majority of all examination entries. Inevitably they did not cover all subjects (for example, the less frequently taken modern languages) but the Group judged that the subjects not covered had enough similarities with at least some of the areas in which joint examinations were held to justify reaching general conclusions about them.

24. In reviewing the evidence, the Group shared our general approach to the imperfections which are found in any system of examining. They had no doubt that, if the present O Level and CSE examinations had been subjected to the same scrutiny given to the joint examinations, a good many of the same problems would have been found to exist. Where they considered that any shortcomings in the joint examinations were shared by O Level and CSE, they set them aside in coming to conclusions about feasibility, although drawing attention wherever possible to opportunities for making improvements in a new system.

25. Careful attention was paid to the suitability of syllabuses and assessment procedures for candidates throughout the range of ability entering the joint examinations in question, and to the presence of sufficient numbers of able and less able candidates to enable valid judgements to be made in these matters. In most cases it was found that the consortia operating the joint examinations had devised syllabuses on the basis of elements from existing O Level and CSE syllabuses and, in some subjects, the result was that parts of syllabuses and examinations designed for either end of the ability range were omitted. Some of the joint examinations were thus more suited to candidates in the middle of the ability range for that subject. Nevertheless, the Group were satisfied in most cases that sufficient numbers of candidates of differing abilities took the joint examinations and have made it clear where attention must be given to extending syllabuses in order to provide for candidates at either end of the ability range.

Curricular issues

26. The Group stood aside from issues concerning curricular approach and method. In those subjects, such as English, mathematics and the sciences, where these matters are under debate, they took note of differing views but did not comment on them. Rather, they considered that a common system of examining should have sufficient flexibility to embrace a wide range of approaches to learning and to adapt itself to change in the curriculum. Indeed the decisive consideration when examining techniques are being considered, and one which we ourselves had constantly in mind, is the relationship between curriculum and examinations. We wholly accept the generally agreed principle, which was followed by the Group, that the curriculum should lead. In our view it follows that, quite apart from the need to devise examinations which will provide for the necessary discrimination (3) among candidates, the syllabuses must reflect the needs of all the candidates and the examinations must give opportunities to all of them to display their capabilities. Subsequent references in our report to the ability of the examinations to 'discriminate' should be read in this context.

Nature of examinations in a common system

27. It will already be clear that a common system is of its nature complex, since it has to cater for a wider range of pupil needs and subjects and in a wider range of circumstances, than either of the two present systems. The Group imply this in stating their view that the joint examinations showed that a common system would require a greater variety of assessment techniques than either the CSE or O Level examinations. For example, although most of the joint examinations employed the traditional written papers, there will be a need for greater use of practical tests and oral assessment. Moreover, assessment over a period of time by the teacher who knows the pupil and his work (school-based assessment) was found useful in searching out skills and understanding which may be more readily tested in this way than in a formal written examination externally assessed by the board. The teacher can observe and assess the way in which the pupil sets about the process of solving practical problems in science or of designing and making in Craft, Design and Technology and how he develops a response to criticism in activities such as writing. These advantages do not apply only to the average and less able candidates; there is evidence that abler pupils also can be effectively judged by school-based assessment pitched at the appropriate level.

28. The joint examinations between them offered the range of examining strategies described below. The first three of these are usually referred to as 'common examinations' but all came within the meaning of the expression 'a common system of examining':

(i) common papers taken by all candidates;

(ii) common papers taken by all candidates, but containing questions designed to present different degrees of difficulty (for example, structured questions which all candidates are expected to attempt and which have a built-in 'incline of difficulty' (4));

(iii) common papers taken by all candidates, but containing questions/part-questions with stated different mark weightings (tariff questions) which involve choice of question on the part of the candidate;

(iv) a common paper taken by all candidates, plus alternative papers reflecting different approaches to the subject and/or different forms of assessment, but which are not intended to be at varying levels of difficulty. Candidates can attain the highest grades whichever papers they choose;

(v) a common paper taken by all candidates, plus alternative papers which are intended to be at varying levels of difficulty. If the candidate chooses an easier alternative paper he cannot normally attain the highest grades.

30. Many of the joint examinations adopted the 'common examination' approach in order to avoid this need for prior choice between papers. The success of this approach in any subject depended largely on the extent to which questions in common papers could evoke responses at the different levels to be expected from candidates over a wide range of ability. The evidence which the Group considered suggested that in some subjects the common examination approach was successful. In others they judged, after considering the evidence, that there was likely to be a need to adopt one of the other approaches involving candidates in a choice between alternative papers, usually alternatives at different intended levels of difficulty. This applied particularly to those subjects, like mathematics and modern languages, where the range of skills is wide and/or where certain concepts may be beyond the reach of many candidates. In such cases 'differentiated' papers are needed to enable all candidates to show what they can do and to allow the inclusion of items appropriate to some candidates only, without distorting the curriculum for others.

31. The Group noted that the need to offer candidates a choice of different papers whilst still placing all of them on a single grading scale presented certain problems. Thus, in the case of the approach described at (v) above, comparison of performance on hard and easy papers is especially difficult when, for example, a poor performance on the hard paper has to be judged against a good performance on the easier one. However, the practice adopted in some of the joint examinations of having some papers, or other elements of assessment, common to all candidates proved successful and seemed a promising way forward. Moreover, the boards already have substantial relevant experience in comparing answers to different sections of examinations or to different questions intended to be of equal difficulty; they rely partly on statistical and moderating techniques, but above all on the experience and skill of the examiners. All in all, the Group were satisfied that techniques exist to overcome the difficulties.

32. The Schools Council had recommended that the three present examining modes should be retained in a common system. These are defined in Chapter 1 (footnote 6) but the important distinction to bear in mind is that Mode I places the major responsibility for devising the syllabuses and for examining on the board and Mode III places the main responsibility on the school, subject to moderation by the board. The Group accepted the broad intention behind the recommendation, but questioned whether the mode terminology any longer reflected the wide variety of practice already to be found in the present system. For example there are many 'mixed mode' schemes where the syllabus is in part devised and examined by the board and in part devised and examined by the school; and such arrangements not infrequently apply to what are nominally Mode I schemes. Their report implies that in a common system, catering for the expected ability range, the tendency for more examinations to involve an element of school assessment would be generally reinforced, but that it would be increasingly unrealistic to attempt to restrict such arrangements to the three defined modes. The Group considered it important to preserve the educational advantages which derive from teachers being involved in the preparation of syllabuses or elements of syllabuses for their pupils, as well as in cooperating closely with boards in the assessment of candidates' performance. We ourselves are in general agreement with these views and we consider that there would be advantage in moving away from present mode terminology, with the aim of better describing the balance between the responsibilities of schools and boards for syllabuses and assessment procedures. We also agree with the Group that an examination of the Mode I type should be available in each main subject and we return later in this chapter (see paragraph 50) to the question of board responsibilities for, and the application of similar criteria to, all examinations in whatever mode.

The Group's findings

33. Having considered the evidence in all the main subjects (5) the Group concluded that a common system of examining is feasible. By this they meant, in essence, that candidates in the ability range for which a common system must cater can be placed appropriately on a single grading scale and that the introduction of a common system need not affect adversely the education they receive. In the subject chapters of their report, the Group considered the different approaches adopted in the joint examinations and gave their views on the degree to which they were successful. In some subjects (for example, biology) the evidence suggested that a common examination can provide a satisfactory approach - that is, questions can be devised within common papers capable of evoking a variety of response which reflects appropriate study by the candidates and is sufficient to secure adequate discrimination across the range. In some other subjects (such as mathematics) the Group's judgement from the evidence was that an approach to examining is needed which involves a choice of papers designed to be of different degrees of difficulty. In yet others (such as religious studies) the evidence from the joint examinations was slight, but they believed that they could be catered for in various ways within a common system. For these last subjects in particular they came to their view with the help of evidence from outside the joint examinations and by analogy with other subjects. In no case do they prescribe particular solutions since they recognise that present procedures may be modified or new approaches devised.

34. It is not possible here to reproduce in full the Group's detailed findings subject by subject. But we believe it will be helpful to summarise briefly what was said about some of them. We have chosen mathematics, English language and, from the sciences, biology, partly because of the special importance of English and mathematics and partly because, with biology, they illustrate why a common system will need to embrace a range of different forms of examining.

35. Mathematics O Level and CSE examinations attract large numbers of candidates from a wide range of ability. The subject, like English language, is often required as a qualification by employers and higher and further education institutions. Seven consortia originally offered joint examinations; of these, five were still in being in 1977 and in that year attracted about 26,000 candidates; the whole of the intended ability range was represented although some of the examinations attracted a disproportionately small number of more able candidates. Taken together the syllabuses were varied and well considered and tended to support the view that syllabuses appropriate to a common system could be devised. The nature of the subject - embracing the acquisition of basic skills of numeracy and the understanding of abstract concepts - gave rise to problems where consortia adopted the common examination approach; all those that did so have switched or are now switching to an examination with papers differentiated by level of difficulty. The Group found that three of the consortia had offered examinations with choice of paper which worked well enough to point towards a satisfactory approach within a common system; all these included an optional 'hard' paper based on an extended syllabus either as an addition to compulsory papers or as an alternative to another part of the examination.

36. English language examinations attract more candidates than any other and the candidates are drawn from an exceptionally wide ability range. Seven consortia offered joint examinations, of which five are still operating; they attracted substantial numbers of candidates, about 36,000 in 1977. Although a disproportionately large number were drawn from the lower end of the intended ability range, sufficient numbers obtained O Level grades A and B to enable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. The aims, objectives and content of the examinations were especially important because detailed syllabuses are not normally provided for English language; three of the joint examinations were found to be particularly helpful in showing teachers what was required and, taken overall, the consortia demonstrated that clear aims and objectives can be devised for a common system. All but one of the examinations tested a broad sample of aims and so helped to provide a clear framework for the course.

37. All the consortia adopted the 'common examination' approach to a common system. This held some promise. Two of the consortia tested successfully a broad and balanced range of written skills. Many of the consortia tested listening-comprehension and speaking, and assessment of these activities by the school, as opposed to formal orals, appeared to offer the best prospects. On the other hand, the discussion-type essay and précis did not fit successfully into the common examination approach; these forms of composition, and to a lesser extent others, tended to be beyond the reach of all but the abler candidates. One consortium succeeded in setting passages to test comprehension of writing at a level accessible to most candidates, but in general passages used were suitable to the more able and beyond the less able.

38. We ourselves gave the Group's findings on English language very careful attention. We noted that the more successful joint examinations had successfully tested a broad range of written and oral skills in a common examination. This represents an important addition to the knowledge and experience which the examining boards have already gained over many years in catering for candidates drawn from a very wide range of ability. We consider that this experience provides additional support for the Group's conclusions. These conclusions were that a common system of examining in English language is feasible and could, though it need not necessarily, take the form of a common examination provided that this is carefully and skilfully designed and makes provision for suitable choice for candidates to show their respective capabilities. The Group found that some of the joint examinations were more successful than others in solving the problems associated with a common examination; they took the view that further work should involve the sharing of experience and should build on the more promising lines of development.

39. Biology. Examinations in the three main science subjects tend at present to be taken by candidates from the upper part of the range of ability for which O Level and CSE are in general designed, although biology attracts candidates from a wider range of ability than physics and chemistry. The joint examinations did not cover any newer types of science course which could amongst other things help to extend the ability range from which candidates are drawn. Five consortia originally offered joint examinations in biology; of these, three were still in being in 1977 and attracted in that year about 14,000 candidates drawn, according to the consortia, from over the whole intended ability range for the subject. The syllabuses were suited to this range of candidates and reflected O Level and CSE practice. Unlike physics and chemistry, for which the evidence suggested a need for differentiated papers, the joint examinations in biology offered evidence in two cases that a common examination approach could succeed. Candidates responded to the same tasks in different ways and at different levels according to their abilities and this was successfully complemented by teacher assessment and the use of optional questions at varying levels of difficulty.

Further work recommended by the Group

40. In the concluding chapter of their report, the Group recommended some further work which must be carried out in the period leading up to the introduction of a common system because, in their view, that system cannot work without it; in addition, some possible improvements are identified which are not essential to the introduction of a common system but for which the proposed changes afford a good opportunity. The major essential task is to devise, for each subject, aims, objectives, syllabuses and forms of assessment to suit the ability range of candidates likely to be presented for that subject and enable both the ablest and the weakest candidates to show what they can do. Development is especially needed (i) in major subjects for which examinations have not yet been developed by some consortia; (ii) in those subjects, combined forms of subjects or aspects of subjects which were not treated by any of the consortia in the joint examinations; and (iii) in subjects represented in the joint examinations but in need of reappraisal.

41. The Group recognised that it may not be possible to deal with all this further work at once and priorities should be established, with these considerations in mind: the importance of a subject by virtue of the number of candidates taking it, its importance as a qualification to users, and the technical difficulty of the transition from a dual to a common system (which will be greater for subjects attracting a wide range of ability). On these counts English, mathematics, sciences, history and geography must be given high priority. Subjects where the ability range is not as wide (eg modern languages and craft subjects) will deserve a somewhat lower priority, not because they are intrinsically less important but simply because preparing for the introduction of a common system necessitates fewer changes of existing practice. The same considerations should be applied in determining the urgency to be attached to other subjects.

42. The Group recommended the application of two general principles in the preparation of new syllabuses for a common system: that schools should have an appropriate choice of syllabus (apart from the opportunity for a school to offer its own syllabus, as at present in Mode III) and that the range and scope of available syllabuses should be as clear and intelligible as possible, to users as well as to schools. Some rationalisation may nevertheless be possible where a large number of existing syllabuses have a great deal in common. The system will be better understood, and more intelligently used, to the extent either that syllabus titles themselves give a clear indication of the content or that information on this subject is readily accessible to those who may need it.

43. Turning from the syllabus to the examination, the Group considered how far reliance can be placed on a common examination, and to what extent it will be necessary to have recourse to some other form of examination involving the use of differentiated papers. In some major subjects it appeared possible to discriminate adequately over the subject ability range by a common examination.

It is possible that further development work taking account of experience in GCE and CSE, as well as in the joint examinations, may reveal wider scope for a common examination than at present seems likely. On the basis of present evidence, however, the Group considered that some subjects are likely to require differentiated papers. Since few of the joint examinations took this form more extensive development work is needed to identify the most promising applications in particular subjects, and to resolve attendant difficulties such as comparability between options, and the balance between, for example, poor performance on hard papers and good performance on easy ones. The range of work now to be tackled, therefore, includes the identification of syllabus material that can be examined in common, and the definition of objectives and syllabus content for specific levels of ability; the basis for choice and options in the examination and the comparability of such options for the purpose of grading; analysis of the utilisation of various techniques such as essay questions, structured questions, objective questions, and tariff questions, and their relationship to the performance of pupils of different levels of ability.

Our approach to the Educational Study Group's report

44. We accepted the Group's findings which were, in essence, that it is feasible to examine all the main subjects within a common system provided a substantial programme of development work is carried out before the system is established. In reviewing this development work, we had in mind the fact that when the joint examinations were first mounted at the initiative of the Schools Council, there was little experience of examining across the full range of candidates taking O Level and CSE. The position has now changed. A great deal of evidence has accumulated and the findings of the Council and the Educational Study Group are available. It is now necessary to build on lessons learned and on the combined experience of the GCE and CSE boards in catering for different although overlapping bands of ability. We consider that a more coordinated approach to development work is essential to ensure that preparations are soundly based and take full account of the suggestions for further work in the Group's report. Only in this way can preparations for a common system be completed satisfactorily and without undue delay. We consider that the task of coordination, together with the responsibility for devising criteria for syllabuses and assessment procedures, should fall to a central body which is likely to be the Schools Council.

45. We also noted the marked difference of emphasis between the 'common examination' form taken by most of the joint examinations and the findings of the Group which pointed towards a need in a number of important subjects for examinations including alternative papers. There is little doubt that the consortia, for the most part, used common examinations because they felt that this was the best way to secure the full organisational advantages seen in a common system. Nevertheless, the Group took the view that, despite the need in some subjects for alternative papers involving a prior choice by candidates, most of the advantages seen in a common system would remain.

46. We agreed with the Group but considered the point further because of its importance. Some of the advantages of a common system which the Schools Council had identified (see Chapter 1, paragraph 8) would be little affected, if at all - for example, the lessening of administrative burdens on schools and increased understanding on the part of users about the meaning of certificates and grades. Nor do the Group's findings seriously erode the other main advantages which the Council foresaw in terms of school organisation. In some subjects, a common examination was shown to be successful and it may prove feasible in others following further development work. Where alternative papers are needed they may well overlap. Moreover, within a common system, such papers can be set in forms and at levels of difficulty proper to each subject, with the proportion of candidates for whom a more difficult option is appropriate varying from subject to subject. It should be possible to defer decisions about which papers the candidates are to take to a point where these can be more soundly based; to teach all candidates together for at least part of the course; and to organise teaching groups more flexibly than under the present dual system.

47. Having accepted the Group's judgement that a common system was feasible from an educational standpoint, and having considered some major implications of their findings, we went on to apply some broader tests and to consider whether any future work, over and above that which the Group called for, appeared necessary before such a system could be introduced. Our main concern was to establish whether, and to identify the best means whereby, a common system could secure and maintain public confidence outside the schools.

48. Examinations are commonly seen to fulfil a number of different roles, both within the school and more widely. Public confidence depends principally on the role of examinations in attesting to parents and others outside the school an individual's achievement at school and in providing a qualification for employment or courses of further education. Generally speaking the present public examinations enjoy the confidence of users of the certificates as a test of performance in the subjects taken by candidates. Although examination results are not a comprehensive guide to standards of performance in schools, considerable harm would be done to confidence if acceptance of the consistency of examination standards from year to year and their comparability over the country was diminished. Pupils would suffer uncertainties in selection for jobs and places in higher and further education. Employers, colleges and universities would be tempted to introduce their own tests, which would tend to narrow syllabuses and bring about undesirable variations in the curriculum.

49. A common system would, of course, be more understandable in some respects - and therefore likely to gain confidence - than the present dual arrangements. The single grading structure and title would leave less room for confusion. These improvements may not in themselves, however, be sufficient to secure confidence in a new system which brings together O Level and CSE, each of which serve in overlapping but slightly different ways to 'attest' and 'qualify' pupils after they leave school. Both parts of the dual system contain within them variations in syllabus and assessment procedure; but there are some differences of emphasis between the two parts. The CSE provides successfully (often through Mode III arrangements) and to a greater extent than O Level for those needs which vary from school to school or region to region. At the same time CSE Grade 1 is intended to serve the same purpose as an O Level and the examination is used as a qualification by young people leaving school for employment or further education or as a basis for A Level work. O Level provides syllabuses which are seen, rightly or wrongly, as having nationally more common content and a uniform standard resting to a greater extent on board-based forms of assessment (Mode I); they are used as qualifications like CSE but carry more weight as a foundation for A Level courses leading to higher education. These distinctive features exist side by side in the dual system and a common system must be flexible enough to encompass both. This means, in our view, that the schools and the users of examination certificates will have confidence in a common system only if it is seen to operate within a framework which ensures the survival of the characteristics associated with both O Level and CSE and which does not allow the displacement of either.

50. Bearing in mind the considerations outlined in paragraphs 47-49, we took the view that, while the exact blend of school and board responsibility for syllabuses and assessment will vary according to the nature of the subject and the needs of the candidates, the need to ensure confidence in a common system on the part of users underlines the importance that will have to be attached to board responsibilities for all examinations, particularly for the moderation of school-based syllabuses and assessment. Confidence in standards and comparability between examinations throughout the country will be reinforced by the knowledge that all boards are applying broadly similar criteria, agreed with a central coordinating body, to examinations in whatever mode and covering the syllabuses, assessment and moderation procedures. Whatever procedures are adopted it must be clearly recognised that the responsibility of the examining authority for the standards underlying its certificates is unaffected. In deciding how that responsibility should be exercised, those concerned will, of course, need to have regard to the characteristics of different subjects and their development, the capacities and needs of the schools and the efficiency under different circumstances of the available examining techniques.

51. Employers and institutions of higher and further education express anxiety under the present dual system about the variations in content between syllabuses bearing the same title, about unfamiliar subjects and about the multiplicity of closely related subject titles. We recognised that the problem of related subject titles arises in particular with Mode III examinations and that uncertainty about syllabus content on the part of users is felt more often in relation to CSE than O Level. A common system cannot be expected automatically to remove such anxieties entirely and some variation in syllabuses is both natural and right. The introduction of a new system offers the opportunity, however, of making improvements and it would help to gain the confidence of users in a new system if the boards, with the help of a central coordinating body, could bring these about.

52. Some users, especially those in higher and further education, are particularly concerned with the extent to which knowledge and skills of the kind expected of more able pupils are tested by examinations. At present this is done to a large extent by O Levels, which are designed for the upper 20 per cent of the whole ability range. One of the requirements of a common system is that it should serve as well in this respect, whilst still providing as satisfactorily for the other candidates whose needs are of equal importance. The Educational Study Group's report, by underlining the necessity in some subjects for the use of alternative papers, points to one important way in which this can be achieved. Where the subject requires, alternative papers or questions must be made available so that appropriate content (such as the more abstract concepts in mathematics) and skills (such as writing in modern languages) can be tested in the more able, whilst alternative papers and tests are available for the other candidates.

53. We were aware that some employers find it especially difficult in the present system to interpret the examination certificates. We considered whether to recommend that efforts should be made to assist employers, and perhaps professional bodies, by including more information on examination certificates. This could in theory be attempted by devising a brief description of what the different grades are intended to imply, but there are many practical difficulties about providing concise yet informative details of tills kind. We did not undertake any survey of employer opinion, but the evidence available to us suggested that employers often use examination certificates as one piece of evidence and supplement them in various ways - for example by their own tests in subjects of most interest to them. We consider that new syllabuses used in a common system should be made readily available to users and that employers should generally be encouraged to turn to schools for more detailed advice about achievements of young people. This would help to make a better match between young people and their careers.

54. We endorse the Schools Council's recommendation that the grading scale used in a common system should be such that the present standards represented by the GCE Grades A, B and C and CSE Grades 2, 3, 4 and 5 should be those used on a common seven point scale, and that there should be an ungraded category for those whose performance does not merit a certificate. It is sometimes argued that fewer grades would be sufficient in a common system, but we believe that users should be able to perceive continuity between the dual and the common system in those parts of the grading structure which are of concern to them. Continuity also means that teachers and examiners will already be familiar with levels of performance expected for each grade and this will help to ensure the maintenance of standards. When a common system is established and has been in operation for some time, it would be possible to reconsider the grading structure. Until then we believe that the Schools Council's recommendations should be adhered to.

55. We have referred above to a possible central coordinating body and consider this in greater detail in Chapter 3, in the context of the structure of a common system of examining. There is some risk that the greater need in a common system for a variety in forms of examination and in examining techniques will lead to uncertainties and misunderstanding on the part of users which would offset the greater simplicity of a single grading scale and title. We believe that this risk can best be avoided by a strengthening of central coordination between the boards to ensure that the procedures underlying the examinations are seen as following a comprehensible and reasonably consistent pattern throughout the country. In Chapter 3 (paragraph 85) we set out our view that general criteria should be agreed centrally for syllabuses and assessment procedures and that in commonly taken subjects board-based syllabuses with board-based assessment should be available to all. We believe that these general criteria will need to be supplemented by criteria applying to examinations in specific subjects widely used as qualifications for subsequent courses and for employment, also agreed by the boards with a central coordinating body. The need for such coordination was indicated by the Educational Study Group, which recommended that it should be the aim to secure some agreement as to the scope and limits of assessment techniques and as to the conditions and types of task to be set in the interest of comparability. The Group noted that the need for coordination is exemplified in English where the differences in approach of boards, in marking and weighting papers, to such matters as spelling and grammar are wide.

Footnotes

(1) The Schools Council recommended the title 'Certificate of Education'.

(2) The Schools Council sponsored a series of feasibility studies, mostly involving operational joint 16+ examinations taken by candidates in place of, or in addition to, O Levels and CSEs. The examinations were joint in the sense that they were devised and offered by consortia of GCE and CSE boards, although leading to the award of O Level and CSE certificates. After the Schools Council ceased to sponsor the joint examinations, some consortia and individual boards continued to offer 16+ examinations based on this earlier work. In the remainder of our report the term joint examinations refers to all 16+ examinations up to and including 1977.

(3) The capacity of a test to distinguish between the performances of all the candidates and to enable appropriate grades to be awarded.

(4) A series of questions (or papers) which grow progressively more difficult to enable candidates to go as far as they are able.

(5) Evidence was studied in the following subject areas: English language and literature, mathematics, sciences (physics, chemistry and biology), history, geography, modern languages (French and German), classics, commerce, social science, religious studies, craft design and technology, home economics, needlecraft and dress, art, and music.