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 3 Structure of the examining system
[pages 19 - 27]

Principles relating to administrative change

56. Our second task was to consider and make recommendations about an administrative structure for a common system. We were influenced in our discussions about administration by four major considerations.

57. First, we decided at the outset that it would be necessary to adopt a practical rather than a theoretical approach to administration, designed to utilise the considerable resources which the existing boards already devote to examining. These resources include premises and equipment of a kind that will continue to be required and, above all, experienced staff without whom it would not be possible to make the change to a common system and put it into operation on the timescale envisaged. This has naturally led us to concentrate on ways of integrating the existing boards into a new administrative structure.

58. Secondly, we recognised that examining is a continuous process which takes place every year and the interests of candidates being examined during a period of change to a common system cannot be overlooked. Any administrative changes must be capable of introduction with a minimum of disruption. Changes affecting schools and the certificates should be well understood before implementation, by the schools on the one hand and by the users and the general public on the other.

59. Thirdly, we considered that administrative change must not interfere with the provision of other examinations, notably the A Levels provided by the GCE boards. We recognised that consideration is being given to the possibility of replacement of A Levels by new examinations at N (Normal) and F (Further) levels; a new administrative structure should not create a barrier to their possible introduction. A new structure should also be able to accommodate examinations for a Certificate of Extended Education (for 17 year old 'new sixth formers') if the Secretary of State decides that these should be introduced. Finally a new structure should not discourage the substantial overseas entries for examinations offered by some of the GCE boards.

60. Fourthly, we believed it essential that a new administrative structure should be such as to assist in giving the certificates awarded a national currency. The procedures operated by the boards need to be seen as reliable and consistent throughout the system, and the boards should be able to continue to provide syllabuses leading to examinations which are relevant to, and at standards appropriate to, the needs of employment and of further stages of education. At the same time, a new administrative structure must afford sufficient flexibility to cater for the needs of individual schools.

Possibilities considered by the Committee

61. A number of administrative structures could theoretically be devised which would meet these requirements to a greater or lesser extent. We were aware of suggestions that a single national examinations board, perhaps operating through a regional sub-structure, might be established, and that it would be well placed to ensure that certificates would be accepted nationally. Although we attach importance to central coordination of the work of the boards, we decided not to recommend such a fundamental change since it would involve disrupting valuable links between the boards and local education authorities and universities; and because we considered it undesirable for a single organisation to have a monopoly of 16+ examining, which would deny any choice of board to schools and might inhibit the discussion and introduction of desirable changes in the curriculum.

62. At the other extreme we considered whether some or all the existing boards could independently offer the full range of examinations under a common system either in free competition with each other, or restricted to particular regions, or through some intermediate arrangement. We decided that none of these possibilities, although involving little administrative change, represented a real option. As explained in Chapter 2 the experience of both O Level and CSE examining is needed as the basis for developing new examinations under a common system. Nor would these arrangements utilise efficiently the resources of the present boards. Separate regions would guarantee each board a regular supply of work, but would destroy, where it exists, the freedom of schools to choose a board which suits their requirements and would pose severe difficulties in practice in reaching agreement on the division of the country into small areas. Allowing the boards to compete freely would mean that none could be sure in advance of its share of available work and would make an unreliable basis for the examination system.

63. We also gave careful consideration to the proposals of the CSE and GCE boards themselves, as set out in the report of the Schools Council Working Party on Administration. The CSE boards had proposed a two-tier structure, with 14 or so regional boards and 6 provincial boards, the former responsible for 16+ examinations and the latter for sixth form examinations. The GCE boards considered it unrealistic to attempt radical changes in the short term and thought a new structure should be achieved generally through collaboration between groups of GCE and CSE boards. Although most GCE boards believed freedom of choice of board to be essential some expected in the longer term a move towards a regionally based system. We found the GCE boards' proposals too imprecise to afford the Secretary of State the degree of assurance needed to commit the education service to a common system. They leave unanswered major questions about forward planning, cost, utilisation of the resources of the CSE boards and the future number of boards. The CSE boards' proposals, although more precise, appeared to imply that most of the present GCE boards would cease to be responsible for 16+ examining. This too we found unacceptable because of our view that the development of new examinations needs to be undertaken jointly on the basis of both O Level and CSE experience. These proposals also appeared likely to increase the problems involved in maintaining national comparability and they allowed virtually no scope for schools to choose between boards.

64. We concluded that no 'perfect' solution existed, taking that to involve the satisfaction of requirements we considered essential together with all those features of the existing dual system to which boards, or schools, may be strongly attached. We therefore had to look for a solution which, while not coinciding exactly with what some schools or either group of existing boards would like to see, could be recognised by all. as a workable approach consistent with the essential requirements of a common system. We turned to the most obvious alternative to the possibilities already discussed - the early establishment of a well defined pattern of cooperation between the boards. We were encouraged in this by indications in the boards' own proposals that they too saw cooperation, albeit in very different forms, as a necessary feature of a new administrative structure.

Cooperation between boards

65. This could in theory take a number of different forms, but we discarded most as impracticable. General cooperation amongst all boards under central guidance would lead in effect to the model which we have already rejected - a single national board, with regional offices. Cooperation between GCE boards only or between CSE boards only would have little point since the combination of experience in dealing with candidates at higher and lower levels of ability necessary under a common system would not be obtained. Cooperation between CSE and GCE boards on a one to one basis has to be ruled out because of the disparity in their numbers. This leaves the possibility of cooperation on the basis of groups of boards embracing at least one each of the present GCE and CSE boards (such groups would naturally tend to comprise more CSE than GCE boards). There might well be some reduction in the number of boards by amalgamation or during the formation and development of groups. We expect that the identification of an individual board with one or other aspect of the dual system would tend in time to disappear.

66. There is, however, a danger that if the certificates were awarded individually under a common system by the former GCE and CSE boards, these would not be seen, at least at the outset, as comparable either within the group or nationally. We consider therefore that certificates must be issued in the name of the group and not in the name of an individual board; this means that the group would have to accept responsibility for certificates and gradings. The procedure would have important implications for the structure of a group and the relationships between the individual boards concerned. A group would require some central machinery to enable the boards jointly to take responsibility for the group's certificates and grades, both during the period of preparation for a common system and after its introduction. It should be competent, when necessary, to secure agreement about procedures to be used for determining syllabuses and methods of assessment by constituent boards.

67. In our view groups of boards should be territorially based. We see three reasons for this. Examining within a defined region is an essential aspect of the present CSE boards' work and constitutions; a territorial basis should go far to ensure a balanced distribution of examination work among the groups; and it would facilitate cooperation between schools and local education authorities in the work of the examining boards. The number of groups to emerge if the Secretary of State accepts our recommendations would depend on subsequent negotiations. Bearing in mind the number of GCE boards and the links that exist between some of them, and the special position of Wales (where the WJEC would provide the natural examining authority in a common system), it seems unlikely that more than four groups would be established in England. The areas to be covered by groups in England would require consideration after a decision by the Secretary of State, but it would be necessary for them to coincide with local education authority boundaries and to take account of the geographical distribution of business of the boards concerned.

Distribution of work within examining groups

68. It would not be practicable to devise a detailed internal group structure in advance of agreement between boards on the formation of particular groups, and we accepted that such agreement could not be expected until after our report had been made and after it was known whether the Secretary of State favoured the introduction of a common system. Nor would it in any case have been right to seek to prescribe a uniform model in all respects because of the varying character of the present boards and hence of future groups. There should be flexibility, to allow for local circumstances and for development as experience of operating in groups is gained. At the same time representatives of a number of boards put it to us that a lead on this matter would help them to consider their position in relation to a group and to facilitate the eventual formation of groups.

69. There is a wide range of possibilities. At one end of the range a group of boards could resemble a loose federation, the constituent boards continuing to deal direct with schools and conducting examinations separately subject only to those conditions agreed by the group as a whole as necessary in order that the certificates should bear the group's name. At the other, a group could have a fully integrated structure with a central capability for distributing work among its constituent parts.

70. One important consideration is the fact that in some less commonly taken subjects it would be superfluous and uneconomic for each constituent board to offer board-based examinations; one board could make the necessary provision for the whole group. (In some minority subjects, and for curriculum development project examinations as now, one board or group might provide an examination nationally, in agreement with a central coordinating body, the examination being taken as now through the home board or group.) Even for board-based examinations in the main subjects, where the present numbers of candidates may well be sufficient for each board in a group to continue on an economic basis to provide examinations in these subjects, it may be considered unnecessary to have as many different board-based syllabuses in a group as there are boards in the group. The work of our Educational Study Group suggests that much work will be involved in developing new syllabuses and assessment procedures, and groups may need to concentrate their efforts on joint preparation of a sufficient number of syllabuses and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. This suggests that groups might find advantages in some measure of internal unification, perhaps including the issue of a single handbook of regulations and board-based syllabuses.

71. The way in which a group decides to work would have important consequences for its relationship with the schools, both in terms of administration and of syllabus choice. It seems an obvious convenience for each school to have one main point of contact with the group for such matters as making examination entries and the issue of certificates. This could offer scope for administrative economies and would enable the group to manage its affairs so that its resources were efficiently utilised, especially if a single office were established by the group for these purposes: and a solution of this kind would appear suitable for a group with a unified rather than a federal structure. But there are other possibilities. The examining group area could be sub-divided into smaller areas, for example, each of which would be allocated for this purpose to one of the boards comprising the examining group; or each examination group area could be sub-divided into areas related to existing board areas; or each school might be asked to choose whichever 'office' it preferred to deal with from among the offices of the boards in its group.

72. When considering how best to organise internal working arrangements, examining groups will also have to take into account their responsibilities in relation to schools wishing to develop school-based examinations. Whether or not a group chooses to develop an integrated structure overall there would obviously be advantages if such schools could be associated with a board office reasonably nearby. In some cases the existing offices incorporated into a group might provide suitably distributed accommodation; in others there could be a need for a group to make new arrangements. This local provision would perhaps be the more important where several neighbouring schools wished to cooperate in developing school-based syllabuses and assessment procedures.

Structure of examining groups

73. A group dealing with schools on administrative matters through a single central office and, as a group, offering board-based examinations to schools, would naturally require stronger machinery at the centre than a group with constituent boards dealing separately with schools. A group would in any case need a central council and committees to discuss or determine educational, administrative and financial matters. The issue of certificates by the group would require at the least a forum in which agreement could be reached on matters affecting syllabuses and assessment procedures. The resolution of issues of this kind would be assisted by guidance and criteria issued by a central coordinating body, but decisions should be reached in the group rather than imposed from outside.

74. Just as we have not sought to prescribe a single method of functioning, we did not seek to work out in detail a model for the structure of a group or for the composition of its committees. These could vary according to local needs. Certain principles should apply, however, to a senior body of a group and to its main committees. The senior body would be crucial to preparation for the introduction of a common system in its area. It would have a wide range of responsibilities and a corresponding need for representation from a number of interests. Public confidence in the new system would largely depend both on the success of its work and on its being seen as a body with an appropriate balance of representation. We do not believe that control of the senior body by a single interest would promote public confidence in a common system of examining. Instead there should be representation of the appropriate interests without anyone of these having a majority voice. These interests are the teachers in the schools in the group's area (at least some of whose representatives should be chosen by and accountable to their colleagues); the universities, with which the GCE boards are linked, and which, with other higher and further education interests, have a general 'user' interest in the examinations; the local authorities, who meet the greater part of the cost of examining; and the other users, notably employment interests and parents. It should be open to the Secretary of State to nominate an assessor to a senior body in a group.

75. The senior body of a group would be responsible for major policy issues. Below that level, much as in the present boards, there would be a need for committees dealing with educational and administrative/financial matters. A committee concerned with the conduct of examinations by the constituent parts of a group should, in our view, contain a majority of serving teachers, together with suitable representation of other interests. A committee dealing with the administrative and financial affairs of a group should, on the other hand, contain strong local authority and university elements, reflecting their financial commitments to the group; once again other interests should also be represented.

76. Care would be needed to ensure that the overall capacity for research (into examining techniques and comparability of standards, for instance) is maintained in a new structure. At present, research of a broad nature is promoted by the Schools Council and should continue to be fostered centrally. At board level the present GCE boards have a larger research capacity than the CSE boards, all boards being free to decide individually whether to undertake research. The cost has to be recouped through fees which are fixed with an eye to the charges of other boards. There would in future be advantage in research being organised on a group basis rather than by individual constituent boards, so that all boards are involved in the work and its funding.

Choice of board

77. Schools must under the present system enter CSE candidates with their local CSE board, but can choose which GCE board or boards to use. This helps to explain the differences of philosophy between the two parts of the dual system. The absence of choice of board is, in the CSE view, compensated for by the fact that teachers elected from the schools in the area control the boards' educational policies and examinations; and by the freedom for schools to design internally their own syllabuses and assessment procedures under Mode III arrangements. But in the GCE view Mode III arrangements do not provide for sufficient choice. Teachers should be able to choose from a range of board-based syllabuses and examinations (Mode I) to suit the educational needs of their pupils and should not be obliged to rely on school-based arrangements if a board's Mode I examinations do not meet their needs. Freedom of choice is also seen as desirable because it enables schools to choose the board whose administrative and other procedures they find most convenient.

78. An administrative structure based on territorial groups of boards, on the lines so far described, would depart from present practice unless it allowed schools to opt for groups in other parts of the country. At present all but two of the 8 GCE boards have centres (schools and colleges) entering candidates throughout most parts of the country. Although all have regional concentrations of centres only the WJEC has a clearly defined territory (Wales). But under a rigidly territorial system a school in the south of England, for example, which at present enters candidates with the JMB (whose offices are in Manchester and most of whose centres are in the north) could not continue to use that board which would be a natural component of a group in the north of England.

79. We have therefore given very careful consideration to the case for incorporating, in an essentially territorial system, provision for schools to enter candidates other than with their local group. We noted first of all that the Schools Council had recommended that there should be a choice of board and we tested each of the main arguments which are put forward in favour of choice of board. It is clear that many teachers see such choice as necessary because of the opportunity it offers to select, from a range of board-based examinations and a variety of administrative practices, those which best suit their pupils and schools. We recognise the strength with which this point of view is held, although we believe that groups of boards could provide a wider range of board-based examinations in the commonly taken subjects than most individual boards at present. The present arrangements for taking examinations linked to curriculum development projects or in minority subjects from elsewhere through the 'home' board or group could of course continue.

80. We also believe that the effect of establishing any new administrative structure should be seen in perspective. The period leading up to the introduction of a common system should be long enough to make the necessary adjustments and schools will in any case be preparing to adopt new syllabuses under a common system whatever change of board may be involved. Moreover most schools already do at least part of their examining business with a local board. In practice we expect that most schools will want to participate in or keep in close touch with the development of the new examinations and this can most readily be done through the group in whose area schools are located and with which the teachers are most likely to be involved.

81. Having considered choice from the point of view of schools, we went on to examine the argument that the national coverage of most GCE boards, which derives from the freedom of schools to choose a board, has helped to ensure national comparability of grades awarded by those boards. The coverage of the GCE boards has, we understand, helped to make possible a number of studies of the comparability of grading standards. This has been important in a system operated by 22 separate boards, many of which examine only in restricted parts of the country. But there are two features of the new system described in this report which would balance any loss of national coverage. First, the proposed groups will cover very substantial areas of the country and will be in a position to devote more effort to monitoring standards than most of the present individual boards. Secondly, the changes which we foresee in central coordinating arrangements will enable more attention to be given than at present to national monitoring of examination grading standards.

82. We consider that as a practical matter a substantial majority of schools would, in a common system with an administrative structure of the kind described, wish to enter candidates with their territorial group; and that it is on the other hand unnecessary to design a new administrative structure so as to guarantee that some examinations attract candidates throughout the country. Freedom of choice of board might in practice be little exercised, but to deny it altogether or to prescribe controls before schools can see more clearly the nature of the new structure as it affects them would, we believe, be an obstacle to the smooth introduction of a new system. Our conclusion is that it would therefore be best not to restrict deliberately this kind of choice if a common system is introduced. Our views apply to both maintained and independent schools and similar considerations relate to further education colleges, which should be afforded the same opportunity for choice as schools. Schools would be able, as at present, to choose between GCE boards for A Levels; our proposed administrative structure would not prevent schools from changing A Level boards if they wished to do so in order to take 16+ and 18+ examinations from the same group.

83. We considered whether it would be right to suggest any conditions of an 'administrative' nature which might operate to limit choice, at any rate at the outset, but decided that these either conflicted with the principle or would have undesirable side effects. We rejected the suggestion that schools should be obliged to seek the consent of their territorial group before going to another; this appeared to offer insufficient guarantee to those schools wishing to make use of this freedom. Nor did we consider that, in the case of maintained schools or colleges, choice should be dependent on the local education authority, although we would expect that authorities would keep a close watch on any financial implications. Nor does it seem desirable to limit the time during which schools may continue to exercise choice since this might be seen as an effective barrier by schools, which would be reluctant to enter on temporary arrangements. Whatever detailed arrangements are eventually made, however; it may be useful to discover from the groups themselves the extent to which schools opt for other than their territorial groups. A regular fact-finding exercise could be designed for this purpose by the central coordinating body.

Coordination at national level

84. It will be clear that, in our view, much could and probably should be left for consideration and agreement within each group. At the same time, central coordinating arrangements at national level will be required both in the long term and during the transitional period which would follow a decision by the Secretary of State, if that were to be in favour of a common system. A first priority will be to settle the composition of groups of boards and reach a sufficient measure of agreement within each to enable planning and development work for a common system to get under way. If the Secretary of State accepts our recommendations about an administrative structure, the boards will need advice on the application of the principles which we have described and perhaps assistance in settling the composition of groups. These tasks should fall initially to the Department of Education and Science.

85. Once the composition and structure of groups has been settled in broad outline, the main effort will be devoted to the planning and coordination of the further development of syllabuses and assessment techniques discussed in Chapter 2. A central coordinating body will be needed to watch over these preparations and to obtain the information necessary to check that any conditions set by the Secretary of State for the introduction of a common system are satisfied in relation, for example, to national comparability for the certificates awarded. In addition to criteria applying to examinations in specific subjects, a central coordinating body should also agree some broader criteria to establish and maintain confidence nationally in a common system. In particular it would be necessary to confirm that:

(i) syllabuses accepted by examining groups for certain subjects (such as mathematics) which are particularly important for subsequent stages of education or careers, have sufficient in common - and relevant to the needs of subsequent courses of education and employment - to enable the required grades to be accepted with confidence;

(ii) general criteria for assessment procedures were publicly available, whatever position they might occupy in the spectrum between entirely board-based and entirely school-based; and

(iii) at least one syllabus in all commonly taken subjects should be available in each group as a board-based syllabus and with board-based assessment.