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

254

However a less obvious cost was in time. The protracted discussions and debates left
insufficient time for the proper processes of development, because, ‘for most of us
there is a two-year lead time to preparing an exam paper'' (Edexcel2 2003) Yet
essential decisions could not be taken by Board staff because it was clear that the
power to make final decisions lay elsewhere. The same official expressed this feeling:

Throughout the whole, we thought there was considerable political interference
in both the pace of curriculum development and some of the decisions that
needed to be made. Many of the decisions were allegedly ‘with ministers which
is code for the ‘civil servants ’ normally.

(Edexcel2 2003)

As time was passing and QCA was still withholding approval of many of the new
subject specifications, the Boards suggested postponing the implementation of the
new system for another year. They were aware that schools and colleges recruit in the
autumn for the following year’s intake to post-16 courses. Those institutions were
understandably keen to be clearer about the courses for which they were recruiting;
yet it was not until 19 March 1999 that a letter went out to Heads and Principals from
the DfEE informing them that “QCA will be sending you a briefing document on the
details behind the reforms early next month” (DfEE 1999). The understandable
frustration of the institutions at such a delay was directed toward the awarding bodies,
who were perceived to be slow at producing their new specifications.

As the first year of the new all-modular structure proceeded, a dawning realisation of
some consequent pressures were surfacing in the education press:

<<   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   >>

More intriguing information