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



168

could in hindsight be described as a series of takeovers and mergers. But they had
proceeded at a decorous pace and above all were instigated by the Boards without any
outside prompting. During the 1990s the pace accelerated rapidly and for those
reluctant to move there was external pressure, if not directly from a Minister, at least
very definitely from one civil servant whose
diktat impressed representatives of two

different Boards:

I can remember when [a senior DfEE official], DfES - or DfEE, rather - came
into a room...to tell us about what was going on and “There’ll be three
[awarding bodies], ” It was in the basement of Sanctuary Buildings ...and he
made this statement. We ,d had a meeting with him, and this was right at the
end. And
[AEB’s Secretary General] then went to [NEAB ,s Director] and said,
“... We ,ve got some serious talking to do!”

(OCR2 2003)

A second version of the incident was equally precise:

...I can ,t remember whether there was any... whether it was ever said that there
had to be a merger of some bodies in order to create those boards, but the
writing was very much on the wall that that sort of coming together was needed.
And I
do recall, and I even recall the date on this: the twelfth of December,
1997, sorry 1996, a meeting in the Department where
[a senior DfEE official]
really made it clear that the expectation would be that there would be only three
unitary awarding bodies.

(AQA2 2003)

The external pressure was therefore made very explicit to the Boards, and although
markets encouraged choice, in this instance there was to be no choice if a board
wanted to continue to be accredited as an English awarding body. Yet there remained
within the regulator the rather naive impression that the mergers were all voluntary on
the part of the Boards:

I think there ,s some sort of educational logic underpinning the linkage between
general and vocational, which was part of the story anyway that led to the
creation of current unitary authorities. I remember - I think I might have even
coined the word ‘unitary’ in that context at the time - and that sort of
stimulated, on the one hand by evolutionary pressures that arose from just
review and reflection on the examining system and how well it was working but
on the other hand political pressures, with ministers having views about what
might constitute an appropriate number of awarding bodies. Then those two
things coming together in a fairly mysterious way to lead to the creation of the
unitary bodies. And that was interesting, because, of course, ministers have no
power to tell the examining boards to do this. They put pressure on, they



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The name is absent
3. Smith and Rawls Share a Room
4. The name is absent
5. Non Linear Contracting and Endogenous Buyer Power between Manufacturers and Retailers: Empirical Evidence on Food Retailing in France
6. Integration, Regional Specialization and Growth Differentials in EU Acceding Countries: Evidence from Hungary
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. The Tangible Contribution of R&D Spending Foreign-Owned Plants to a Host Region: a Plant Level Study of the Irish Manufacturing Sector (1980-1996)
10. The name is absent
11. The name is absent
12. The name is absent
13. The name is absent
14. LIMITS OF PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION
15. Large Scale Studies in den deutschen Sozialwissenschaften:Stand und Perspektiven. Bericht über einen Workshop der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft
16. Apprenticeships in the UK: from the industrial-relation via market-led and social inclusion models
17. The name is absent
18. CAN CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS PREDICT FINANCIAL CRISES? EMPIRICAL STUDY ON EMERGING MARKETS
19. AN ANALYTICAL METHOD TO CALCULATE THE ERGODIC AND DIFFERENCE MATRICES OF THE DISCOUNTED MARKOV DECISION PROCESSES
20. ASSESSMENT OF MARKET RISK IN HOG PRODUCTION USING VALUE-AT-RISK AND EXTREME VALUE THEORY