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



256

Structural weaknesses: building in grade inflation

There were myriad minor disputes which reinforced the powerless status of the
Boards. One Board official detected the influence of a strong hand during the process
of approving the new syllabuses - henceforth to be known as specifications'':

We had countless very small but accumulated [changes]. They aggregated to
become something big. Small influences: for example, the approval of
syllabuses. The detail and the changes forced on us which in truth have made
assessment difficult. And in some cases Stupidl They were telling the experts,
‘This is what you ,ve got to do. ’ That ,s not regulation; that ,s government
stipulation. Well, and then I’m not even sure that...it’s Government. I can’t
believe the politicians...are the ones doing it. It’s a group of people who are
acting under some sort of aegis that they believe that they got for themselves
that other people find difficult to challenge. Now challenge you could do, until it
[regulation] became statutory. But once you ,ve made them statutory, challenges
become very difficult, because there ,s no appeal mechanism.

(0CR2 2003)

There were apparently minor issues the Boards tried in vain to raise as needing more
reflection:

Things like re-sit rules, things like requirements for synoptic assessment, et
cetera
were all a bit poorly thought through. And also the ‘one size fits all’
model, in other words all subjects go into six modules, was a backward step;
some of the more successful modular syllabuses had been four rather than six.
(Edexcel2 20003)

This is clear evidence that in matters involving assessment expertise the Boards were
no longer able to win arguments. Control had passed out of their hands and had now
effectively moved to government agencies, if not to Government itself

From at least one viewpoint on the regulatory side, it appeared that a parallel process
was inhibiting regulatory decisions: in this case, it seemed that policy ruled regardless
of findings based on evidence. Even here it seemed that important decisions were
being made elsewhere:

It doesn 't matter what you ,ve found; if it ,s not comfortable with the policy, it
doesn’t matter. So there were elements of that. I suppose it’s always that
interesting thing in those policy-geared places like QCA that there is the buzz of
policy - but there ,s also the total frustration it dictates. It doesn't matter what
you’ve found, if it’s not comfortable with the policy it doesn’t matter. And that
whole fascinating thing about how decisions are made - and rarely are they



More intriguing information

1. Are combination forecasts of S&P 500 volatility statistically superior?
2. Gender stereotyping and wage discrimination among Italian graduates
3. The Global Dimension to Fiscal Sustainability
4. SAEA EDITOR'S REPORT, FEBRUARY 1988
5. The name is absent
6. Critical Race Theory and Education: Racism and antiracism in educational theory and praxis David Gillborn*
7. Pupils’ attitudes towards art teaching in primary school: an evaluation tool
8. The Impact of Minimum Wages on Wage Inequality and Employment in the Formal and Informal Sector in Costa Rica
9. Income Mobility of Owners of Small Businesses when Boundaries between Occupations are Vague
10. Income Growth and Mobility of Rural Households in Kenya: Role of Education and Historical Patterns in Poverty Reduction
11. Inhimillinen pääoma ja palkat Suomessa: Paluu perusmalliin
12. Reversal of Fortune: Macroeconomic Policy, International Finance, and Banking in Japan
13. The name is absent
14. Permanent and Transitory Policy Shocks in an Empirical Macro Model with Asymmetric Information
15. The name is absent
16. The name is absent
17. Meat Slaughter and Processing Plants’ Traceability Levels Evidence From Iowa
18. Does Presenting Patients’ BMI Increase Documentation of Obesity?
19. Text of a letter
20. Biologically inspired distributed machine cognition: a new formal approach to hyperparallel computation