253
From the perspective of the awarding bodies, while their representatives may have
been behind those closed doors, their misgivings, based on professional judgement
and assessment expertise, were essentially either questioned or ignored. Even non-
partisan advice seemed to carry no weight. A report written in 1998 for QCA by
Roger Porkiss, experienced examiner turned maths consultant who had been
commissioned to design one of OCR’s new specifications, had warned QCA that “the
system would lead to a rise in high grades...'' (The Observer, 22 September 2002: 8).
Although the Boards had been experiencing gradual inroads into their original
independence since the middle of the twentieth century, QCA was now exerting
control of a quite different order from what they had known during the creation of
either GCEs in the late 1940s or even GCSE in the mid 1980s. For the examining
boards, there was to be no question of voluntarism: QCA’s requirements were
compulsory.
The time factor
The process of creating the new qualifications absorbed an inordinate amount of time.
Initially, the Boards had expected a less radical Dearing-based reform to be
implemented in 1999. An official from one board explained how delay and
subsequent changes proved costly to the Boards:
When the decision was made to implement some of [Dearing’s] more radical
suggestions, it was a bit late in the day. Because ...there was intended to be a
‘Curriculum 1999’, although it wasn’t called that. All of the boards were
geared up to producing [that version] and indeed we ,d done most of the work.
Certainly from Edexcel ,s point of view, our expenditure had just about exceeded
£1 million when ministers decided everything would go on hold and be changed
radically for the following year. Interestingly enough, that development cost
was borne entirely by the Boards, and multiplied up by, in fact five, because
Wales and Northern Ireland were all involved. And it did create a large hole in
our budget.
(Edexcel2 2003)