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

I believe that these sociologists’ consensus on the significance of examinations
supports my case for the importance of a study of the unique constellation of English
examining boards as the providers of those examinations which carry such influence.
Michael Young, in his 1971 reflections on the lack of sociological analysis of the
curriculum, noted that the Boards - regularly accused of controlling the curriculum -
had also been overlooked:

The ‘guiding interests ’ of the examining boards have so far remained outside
the field of sociological enquiry.

(Young 1971: 21)

I suggest that the neglect of the Boards in academic research is linked to that which
Young identified regarding the curriculum:

Perhaps the organization of knowledge implicit in our own curricula is so much
part of our taken-for-granted world that we are unable to conceive of
alternatives.

(Young 1971:40-41)

A similar passive acceptance of the examining boards, which were long perceived to
control the secondary curriculum through their examination syllabuses, may have
quenched academic inquiry into the whole area. Yet when, following James
Callaghan’s 1976 speech at Ruskin College, the curriculum became the focus of
intense interest, that interest did not spill over to include the Boards. They continued
to function outside any serious analysis.

Although unconsidered within the academy, they have featured increasingly in the
nation’s media. When an examination-related problem arises, as in January 2002, it is
not only the Secretary of State for Education - '‘Minister’s fury at exam board’s
blunder in maths paper” (The Guardian, 21 January 2002), but the Prime Minister -
"Blair slams ‘sloppy’ exam board error” (Evening Standard 22, January 2002) - who
join the accusing media chorus directed at the qualification providers. Many similar

<<   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >>

More intriguing information