224
official at QCA suggested that this may have been because they had existed for so
long as “secure, bureaucratic organisations” where staff “would expect you could be
there for life, because the function is a maintenance one more than anything else”
(QCA2 2003). Now as the 1990s ended they were having to adapt to increased
competition, mergers with former competitors, and increasing central regulation. The
individuals - whether staff or trustees - who were faced with these major changes
were for the most part ill equipped for developing strategies to respond to the forces
around them. With few exceptions, they came from what had been the sheltered world
of education and had little experience of the cut and thrust of the marketplace. They
were understandably preoccupied by the various internal problems because the nature
of the examining business brooks no delays; problems must be solved immediately in
order to meet inflexible deadlines. Whatever the reason, they failed to organise
serious opposition to the increasing central control which they were experiencing.
Their national forum, the Joint Council for General Qualifications, dealt with matters
like standardising entry forms and agreeing the examination timetable; in no way did
it fulfil the role of a lobbying body. They had never demonstrated the impulse towards
group solidarity, so when circumstances required it they failed to join forces to
preserve their independence. An official from one board identified this weakness:
[Finding a new role] is not easy, as is demonstrated by the difficulties which the
JCGQ has run into, where independent bodies find it very difficult to perceive
the need to work collaboratively and cooperatively - particularly in this
competitive arena....
(AQA2 2003)
Instead they continued to look inward to deal with the undoubted problems they
faced.
Indications of internal problems began to appear gradually following the various
mergers after 1996. Well before the volcano erupted in September 2002, each of the