Civitas
+44 (0)20 7799 6677

Autonomy for standards

Anastasia De Waal, 1 May 2009

Ken Boston, former head of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), may not be the man we look to for wisdom on running independent exam watchdogs. Boston famously resigned from his job of overseeing exam boards and qualifications, for the QCA’s lax role in the primary school Sats tests which came to a head last summer.


Nevertheless, Boston’s remarks at this week’s Children, Families and Schools Select Committee on National Curriculum tests usefully highlighted the compromised position which the newly established exams and qualifications regulator, Ofqual, potentially faces.


Ofqual, the Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator, was set up in April 2008, essentially to end the chorus of criticism around the dumbing down of exam standards. It was designed to take up the regulatory functions of the QCA as a statutorily independent body. Meaning, therefore, that it would be better able to monitor and maintain standards. Yet from the outset there have been concerns about whether Ofqual will be sufficiently divorced from government pressure to be effective.


Ken Boston’s response to the Select Committee reiterated these concerns. Boston expressed the view that Ofqual’s policy of allowing government officials to attend meetings was compromising its integrity. Ofqual’s response, the Times Educational Supplement reports, was that it is compelled to allow government observers to attend meetings because the exam watchdog is not yet independent (legislation has not yet been passed to this effect), and continues to be under the wing of the QCA. Boston told the Committee that Ofqual was in danger of ‘being cynically out-manoeuvred’ by the government and the it was precisely the ‘formality of the relationship’ between government officials and the QCA that had undermined its credibility as a watchdog, by undermining its authority in the face of government pressure:
‘The appointment of the DCSF observers to the QCA board and other QCA bodies has undercut the authority of the QCA and will undercut the authority of Ofqual…’
‘[Government] Observers advise on committees and boards that ministers are “minded to” or “not minded to” agree with this or that proposal. Or that ministers would be “content to” or “not content to” agree a recommendation, or even: “If I put that idea to the minister it would be laughed out of court”.’
The independent ‘watchdog’ which is in fact a quango has been a problem which Ofsted, the inspectorate, has also faced, leading to accusations that it enforced government diktat in schools when it should have been judging  it. All sorts of distortions have crept into the exam and qualifications system, due predominantly to their capture by government targets and agendas. There is therefore absolutely no point in millions being spent on a qualifications regulator if it is not wholly impartial from government influence. Clearly the first step to take in ensuring Ofqual’s independence is to remove government influence, by removing government officials from its board.

Newsletter

Keep up-to-date with all of our latest publications

Sign Up Here