243
Yet at the same time, the rising costs of examinations to schools were a growing
source of complaint. The Secondary Heads Association claimed that “the exam bill of
an average secondary school of 1200 students had doubled [as a result of Curriculum
2000] to around £100 000 in the past three years" (Smithers 2002).
Despite such complaints from those who had to pay examination fees, the Boards had
never been profligate. Throughout their existence, the presence as Trustees of a
number of practising educationists, who kept a weather eye on the budgetary
constraints within which the sector functioned, had ensured a prudent financial
regime. A clear example of such prudence was the decision of AQA’s Trustees in July
2000 to hold the fees for the new Curriculum 2000 AS level examinations at £15
rather than increase the rate to cover the very considerable development costs. The
likely consequences to AQA’s balance sheet were predicted in clear terms by the
Director ofResources. However, practising professionals among the Trustees pointed
out that the post-16 sector was facing the costs of the entire year 12 cohort sitting
three AS modules in four subjects without receiving additional government funding. It
seemed only fair that the costs of the new scheme be shared by the Board rather than
bome only by the institutions it served. In terms of the market, which had always to
be bome in mind, this was not an appropriate time to alienate ‘clients’ by raising the
price of qualifications.
As predicted, by summer 2002 AQA was facing a serious deficit. Because this is
illegal under the rules of the Charities Commission, the Trustees agreed to a rise in
fees for the following year. Rather than asking for full financial information to justify
the fees, QCA officials resorted to reminders that fee-capping was a power the
minister now held. (AQA 2002) This unwillingness to analyse the true costs of the