The English Examining Boards: Their route from independence to government outsourcing agencies



99

In its subject panels the S.S.E.C. has devised an arrangement which allows the
group of three or four individuals which deals with each subject to indicate ex
cathedra their disapproval of syllabuses, question-papers and methods of
marking. Inevitably their criticisms are founded on a narrower experience than
that out of which have grown the syllabuses, question-papers and methods they
criticise, and much energy is devoted to attempts to enforce an undesirable
uniformity of detail. What may have still more serious repercussions is that
subject panels can be stamping grounds for individualistic specialists where
each ‘subject ’ is considered without much regard to its place in the curriculum
as a whole.

(Petch 1953: 174)

This observation could well have been written in the mid-1980s, when a virtually
identical process took place during the creation of the General Certificate of
Secondary Education (GCSE) which replaced the GCE Ordinary level. Despite their
long years of successful performance, the Boards are not trusted when it comes to
planning change.

The new examination was rolled out in successive stages: the Ordinary level for 16-
year-olds in 1951 and the Advanced level for 18-year-olds in 1953. As mentioned
above, entry to the examinations was restricted to the 20 per cent of pupils selected
for the grammar schools. Yet with secondary education now open to all, post-war
English society expected the attainments of all to be accredited. Pressure for change
began almost immediately.

An early attempt to respond to this pressure was to widen access to examination
success by creating a different type of examining board. This was the idea not of the
established university-based Boards, but of the East Midlands Union, one of four
regional bodies which accredited attainment in technical subjects. They proposed to
the Secondary Schools Examinations Council that, with technical schools now
forming a substantial segment of the new secondary structure, “z7
would be beneficial



More intriguing information

1. Markets for Influence
2. Non-causality in Bivariate Binary Panel Data
3. The name is absent
4. The Formation of Wenzhou Footwear Clusters: How Were the Entry Barriers Overcome?
5. What Lessons for Economic Development Can We Draw from the Champagne Fairs?
6. Handling the measurement error problem by means of panel data: Moment methods applied on firm data
7. HOW WILL PRODUCTION, MARKETING, AND CONSUMPTION BE COORDINATED? FROM A FARM ORGANIZATION VIEWPOINT
8. he Effect of Phosphorylation on the Electron Capture Dissociation of Peptide Ions
9. The name is absent
10. A Study of Adult 'Non-Singers' In Newfoundland
11. Modeling industrial location decisions in U.S. counties
12. Wirkt eine Preisregulierung nur auf den Preis?: Anmerkungen zu den Wirkungen einer Preisregulierung auf das Werbevolumen
13. The name is absent
14. The name is absent
15. On the job rotation problem
16. Passing the burden: corporate tax incidence in open economies
17. The name is absent
18. Personal Income Tax Elasticity in Turkey: 1975-2005
19. Can we design a market for competitive health insurance? CHERE Discussion Paper No 53
20. Perceived Market Risks and Strategic Risk Management of Food Manufactures: Empirical Results from the German Brewing Industry