291
all three Boards fully involved. This is reassuring counter-evidence to my gloomy
scenario of two of them withdrawing from the field.
Were the Boards’ professional expertise to be newly appreciated in these discussions,
they would be fully prepared to contribute that expertise because, despite the
pressures they have endured, they have managed to retain this expertise in the form of
staff stability. I have not collected data to support this observation - this is yet another
area that could provide useful data for subsequent research - but during the years
firstly of my involvement with one Board and then of my research, I have been struck
by the continuity of personnel in all three organisations. This was in marked contrast
to the rapid movement I encountered, certainly at high levels of the DfES and even
more strikingly into and out of QCA. One can only speculate that this is perhaps
because the examining world is a very specialised sector so that the expertise staff
acquire is not easily transferable. My point is that, were the present situation to be
recognised as wasteful of a body of expertise, that expertise remains ready to be called
on.
A small step toward a new direction could be discerned in QCA’s creation in April
2004 of the National Assessment Agency (NAA). Initial alarm that it presaged
nationalisation of examinations was lulled by consulting the Agency’s website. It is
committed to “working closely with the awarding bodies”. Its function, which is
described as “to supervise the delivery and modernisation of GCSE and A level
examinations'”, in fact is confined to the technical mechanisms of the system. Perhaps
this is in effect a recognition by QCA, by the DfEE and by Government, that the role
of the regulator is best fulfilled by ensuring that the technical aspects of the