277
actually reflects on very much at all" (QCA3 2004). Ecclestone’s research detected
this tendency of many policy-makers to accept “the apparent irrationality and
messiness of ‘policy on the hoof [as] neutral and rational" (Ecclestone 2002: 80) It
seems that my early assumption of a coherent and consciously constructed policy is
best adjusted to acknowledge that it was probably more a case of benignly muddling
through.
I do, however, maintain that the perceived need to mend the system resulted at least in
part from a major difference of opinion regarding the basis on which grades are
awarded. This led to widespread criticism of the Boards regarding the reliability and
comparability of their assessments. It was not until after the crisis of September 2002
that Mike Tomlinson explained the fundamental confusion that had developed
between norm and criterion referencing. While I have attempted to delineate the
confusion that has grown around this issue, I have given only brief consideration to
what I believe to be a deep-rooted misunderstanding amongst different sections of
society. It seems to me to be an important area where further research could well
assist in achieving Mike Tomlinson’s long-term aim:
Finally, I believe it to be vital that there is greater public understanding of the
examination process and that as a consequence there is an end to the annual
argument about A level results. The standard has not been lowered if an
increased proportion of students meet it as a consequence of improved teaching
and hard work.
(Tomlinson 2002b: 4)
As a result of the undermining of confidence in the Boards’ professional expertise, by
the time Curriculum 2000 was being planned, their ability to avert problems in the
assessment pattern had been severely curtailed - a situation which contributed
significantly, I contend, to the crisis of September 2002.