266
regard to the marks...did vary across the three boards.” OCR had made more radical
alterations to bring grades into line with previous norms. His wider conclusions were
that the roots of the problem lay “z’n decisions made by the DfES and QCA"' and, as
cited above, “zz longstanding misunderstanding of the difference between maintaining
a standard and the proportion of candidates meeting that standard" (Tomlinson
2002a).
The Boards were required to reconsider all instances of borderline grades, and
ultimately “1,945 candidates received higher overall AS and A grades” (Tomlinson
2002b: para 10). Estelle Morris dismissed the truculent Sir William Stubbs
immediately and resigned herself later in October, both casualties of the affair.
However, it is the position of the Boards that is of concern here: as the crisis
progressed, their role altered perceptibly from that of actor responsible for wronging
students to that of victim of others’ decisions. In what was intended as a political slur
on the government, the Daily Mail perhaps inadvertently summed up their position:
Given this impossible position, where the QCA has responsibility without
power, it is no surprise that it presided over the persistent watering down of
exam standards, allowing successive ministers to claim success for their
education policy. At the same time, it has tightened its grip on the supposedly
independent exam boards, who are frightened of losing their licences and do as
they are told.
{Daily Mail 21 September 2002: 7)
Damaging fallout from the crisis
The Boards’ reputation was, of course, severely tarnished by the whole episode.
Tomlinson’s Interim Report had absolved them of culpability, but had qualified this
general exoneration with the words:
I am, however, concerned that the OCR AO (Accountable Officer, ie Chief
Executive) judged that his duty to maintain the standard made it necessary to