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

211

decisions or a criterion-referenced measure of attainment to produce valid,
authentic decisions. Each interpretation offers a different meaning of what
constitutes fair ’ assessment.

(Ecclestone 2002: 74)

A related but again rarely acknowledged factor that complicates the debate - not just
in England - is inherent in the dual purpose the assessments are expected to fulfil.
This dichotomy was highlighted by the distinguished trio whom QCA asked (well
before the autumn grades crisis) to report on A-Ievel standards in 2002:

The differences among the assessment purposes of selection (eg choosing the
best students for university admission) and of certification (eg assigning high
grades to those candidates who achieve the desired standard) have been the
focus of persistent discussion in the literature on educational measurement.

(Baker, McGaw 2002: 8)

Any discussion premised on inherent misunderstandings would be problematic.
However because the GCSE and A-Ievel examinations are of such fundamental
importance in their effect on the lives of English young people, the debate here is
impassioned, with both sides vigorously proclaiming their view and neither side
acknowledging the conflicted basis of that view. The public manifestation of the
debate has been the annual glare of the media spotlight on examination results, with
accusations of ‘grade inflation’ greeting consistently increasing attainment levels
which are celebrated in other quarters. In order to show how changed public
perceptions affected the Boards, it is necessary firstly to set out the issue that has
significantly altered those perceptions about the basis on which grades are awarded.
This misunderstanding has left the examining boards caught between the two sides yet
unable to shed the necessary light on the debate.

The appeal of a truly fair assessment system

Because public examinations had evolved as selection devices '' ...designed to identify
the best rather than identify those who had achieved some defined level or

<<   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   >>

More intriguing information