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 II - ESG Report

Chapter 1 The feasibility of a common system of examining
[pages 10 - 15]

Definition of a common system

13. We take as our basic definition of a common system of examining at 16+ the following:

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 at different levels of difficulty. All grades must however be awarded on a single scale and all certificates must bear a common title. (1)

Nature of the evidence

14. Our conclusions rest on a large and varied body of evidence. For the most part this came from the joint examinations and we are indebted to those who made available to us material about the examinations and with whom they were discussed. The evidence from the joint examinations varied in force and weight; they were mounted quickly and were developed before an overall research strategy could be devised. Whilst a number of examinations was offered in each of the main subject areas, some of which attracted large enough entries for conclusions to be made, studies in other subjects provided a less adequate basis for judgement because they were represented by few examinations and attracted small entries. However, we also took into account other evidence, including that from O Level and CSE examinations, where we thought this to be significant in pointing the way forward. Where we had to support the available evidence by the use o( our judgement is made clear in the relevant parts of the report.

15. The joint examinations covered all the subjects that are of principal concern to parents, employers and other users of examination certificates and which together account for the great majority of all examination entries. Inevitably they did not fully reflect the diversity of O Level and CSE subjects. For example, they did not cover the possible combinations (or all the single elements) of the basic sciences or the less frequently taken modern languages. In our judgement, however, the subjects not covered have enough similarities with at least some of the areas in which joint examinations were held to justify reaching general conclusions about them.

Our approach to the task

16. We recognise that any system of examining is bound to fall short of perfection. The present dual system succeeds to a large extent in maintaining public confidence in its standards of reliability and consistency, but few would argue that O Level and CSE examinations leave no room for improvements or that examining is an exact science. We have no doubt that, if we had subjected the present examinations to the same scrutiny that we gave to the joint examinations, a good many of the same problems would have been found to exist. We proceeded on the assumption that a common system cannot be expected to avoid or remedy all the deficiencies which are inherent in examinations. Accordingly, where we considered that any shortcomings in the joint examinations were shared by O Level and CSE, we have set them aside in coming to our conclusions about feasibility. However, we draw attention wherever possible to opportunities afforded by a major change in the examination system to make improvements which would enhance the new, or indeed any, system.

17. In reviewing the evidence, we paid careful attention to the suitability of syllabuses and assessment procedures for candidates throughout the range of ability entering the 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 the consortia operating the joint examinations devised syllabuses on the basis of elements from existing O Level and CSE syllabuses and this meant, in some subjects, that parts of syllabuses and examinations designed for either end of the intended 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, we were satisfied in most cases that sufficient numbers of candidates of differing abilities took the joint examinations and we have made it clear in the following chapters where attention must now be given to extending syllabuses in order to provide for candidates at either end of the intended ability range.

18. We 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, we have taken note of differing views but have not sought to comment on them. Indeed, we consider 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. We have taken it for granted that the examination system should follow the curriculum and not lead it.

The structure of a common system

19. A common system has to cater for candidates over a wide range of ability in such a way that able and less able candidates are both given the opportunity of demonstrating their achievement. The joint examinations show that the system needs to rely on a wider range of syllabus content and assessment techniques than either one of the two present examinations. For example, although most of the joint examinations employed the traditional written papers, externally assessed by the board, assessment by the teacher who knows the pupil and his work (school-based assessment) was found useful in searching out skills and understanding which cannot be tested in a formal written examination but which can be demonstrated in practical, oral or course work. 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.

20. The joint examinations have between them offered the range of examining strategies described below. The first three of these are usually referred to as 'common examinations':

(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);

(iii) common papers taken by all candidates, but containing questions/part-questions with stated different mark weightings (such as 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.

21. There is an important distinction, so far as the candidate is concerned, between the approaches to examining described at (i) - (iii) and (iv) - (v) respectively. The former categories (common examinations) do not require the candidate to choose between alternative papers, although they may involve him in choosing between questions at various levels of difficulty or carrying different marks. This kind of choice is exercised by the candidate on the day of the examination usually with previous guidance from the teacher. On the other hand, categories (iv) - (v) require the candidate and teacher to choose between papers, perhaps early in the course of preparing for the examination.

22. Many of the joint examinations adopted the common examination approach in order to avoid this need for prior choice between papers. Successful adoption in any subject depended, to an important degree, 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 we considered suggested that in some subjects the common examination approach was successful. In others we 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 applies particularly to those subjects where the range of skills is wide and/or where certain concepts may be beyond the reach of many pupils in the intended ability range. Differentiated papers may then enable all candidates to perform appropriately; the more difficult paper may also enable a greater degree of discrimination amongst the more able candidates.

23. The need to discriminate across a wide range of ability and to express the results for all candidates on a single grading scale presents certain difficulties if the outcome is to be meaningful. It is not a new problem. In comparing answers to different sections of examinations or to different questions intended to be of equal difficulty, GCE and CSE boards rely partly on statistical and moderating techniques, but above all on the experience and skill of the examiners. There is, however, a particular difficulty relating to 20 (v) above in comparing performance on hard and easy papers, which is rendered especially acute when, for example, a poor performance on the hard paper has to be judged against a good performance on the easier one. 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 seems a promising way forward. All in all, we are satisfied that the techniques exist (2) to overcome the difficulties of assessing candidates who have taken differentiated examinations at different levels of difficulty, and of expressing the results on a common grading scale. Whatever the approach used, the most important ingredient in comparing performance is likely to be the judgement of examiners.

24. A major advantage seen in a common system, as compared with the present dual examinations, is that - as the Schools Council put it - it would be easier for schools to form classes on the basis that suited them best; and it would allow schools to defer decisions on putting pupils into different examination groups where this was desirable for particular candidates. We considered carefully the extent to which the need for prior choice between papers, in certain subjects, might reduce these advantages. We concluded that on the whole most of the advantages would remain. Even where alternative papers were required, it should still be possible to make choices later than is sometimes found between O Level and CSE courses. Moreover, although prior choice means that preparation for the examination will differ at least in part, it need not to the same extent as the present dual system predetermine the schools' organisation of teaching groups. These could be formed on the basis most appropriate to the nature of the subject and the educational needs of the pupils rather than on some rigid division between the two parts of the present dual system.

Feasibility

25. Having considered the evidence in all the main subjects we concluded that a common system of examining is feasible. In the chapters that follow we consider, subject by subject, the different approaches adopted in the joint examinations and give our 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 an appropriate variety of response which reflects appropriate study by candidates and is sufficient to secure adequate discrimination across the range. In some other subjects (such as mathematics) our 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 we believe that they could be catered for in various ways within a common system. For these last subjects particularly we have come to our view with the help of evidence from outside the joint examinations and by analogy with other subjects. In no case do we prescribe particular solutions, and we recognise that the examining boards may be able to devise new approaches or to refine ones already adopted.

Other matters

26. In considering feasibility we had in mind the School Council's recommendations about the features of a common system, particularly the modes in which the examinations could be offered and how the grading scheme should be operated. The Council recommended that examinations under Modes I, II and lII should be available, as well as mixed-mode examinations in which board-based and school-based syllabus elements and methods of assessment are combined. We accept the intention behind this, although it is arguable whether the mode terminology any longer reflects the wide variety of practice to be found in the system. Certainly the distinctions between them have become blurred in recent years, with many Mode I examinations, for example, allowing for part of the syllabus to be devised by schools and for assessments to be undertaken partly within the schools. However schemes may be defined under a common system, it is 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. But we accept that an examination of the Mode I type should be available in each main subject.

27. The Council recommended that results in a common system should be expressed in terms of seven grades. A seven grade scale would provide continuity between the dual and common systems and would be of importance in maintaining public understanding and confidence. We are satisfied that the award of the suggested seven grades is feasible and do not suggest that this recommendation should be modified. Where (as discussed in paragraph 22 above) the examination papers or other components are differentiated by their degree of difficulty, it will normally be necessary to limit the grades available to candidates who have taken the easier route. The extent of such limitation might be expected to vary from one subject to another, and indeed from one examination to another within a subject.

28. To extend the examinations to correspond to the scale of the present O Level and CSE examinations combined would in our view present no problems of principle. We acknowledge, however, that there will be practical and logistical difficulties in expanding the examinations, both in the preparation of syllabuses by the schools and of arrangements for moderating work assessed by them. There would appear to be no obstacle to offering suitable examinations for private candidates, candidates overseas and candidates from further education, provided that the pattern of syllabuses and examinations in each subject includes alternatives to school-based components to meet their needs.

Footnotes

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

(2) Discussed by, for example, JK Backhouse: Determination of Grades for Two Groups Sharing a Common Paper (Educational Research Vol. 18 No. 2).

(3) 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 the individual school or groups of schools but moderated by the board, on syllabuses devised by individual schools or groups of schools.