Exam boards competing on standards?

Michael Gove has framed his proposals for franchising 14-16 exams provision on a one-board-per-subject basis as part of a wider effort to address the problem of exam boards competing on standards. While there is certainly a case for reform or disposal of the comparability framework (which I think is what the Minister is driving at), his rationale for doing so is unhelpful in the task of increasing public understanding of where the problems lie.

The Perception of ‘Competitive Dumbing Down’

The popular perception, validated by the Secretary of State in his choice of the vocabulary of ‘competitive dumbing down’, is that competition has led the boards to develop qualifications that are easier to do well in, in order to gain market share. This perception extends beyond the allegations made by the Daily Telegraph and others that examiners at teacher support seminars provide compromising information about exams (which were later found to apply to just six GCSE papers out of a hundred in 2012).

Allegations of Lowering Standards

The charge here is that exam boards have deliberately lowered standards by:

1. Requiring less and less of students in terms of skills, knowledge, or understanding.
2. Engaging in ‘grade inflation,’ awarding progressively higher grades to comparable exam submissions over time to attract more schools.

Exam Boards and Their Credibility

Would examining boards deliberately pursue a business strategy that impacts their credibility as guardians of qualification standards? While short-term gains might tempt them, mechanisms exist to deter such behavior and safeguard their brands.

Quality Assurance Mechanisms

Several mechanisms ensure that standards remain consistent:

1. Predictive Projections: Each exam paper’s grade boundaries are projected based on prior attainment. Results deviating by more than 1% undergo rigorous investigation by exam boards, competitors, and Ofqual before being issued.
2. Post-Result Screening: The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) conducts annual reviews to ensure national alignment. Ofqual carries out a similar review every five years.
3. Marketing Restrictions: JCQ protocols forbid the use of performance data for marketing, preventing boards from promoting their exams as ‘easier’ or ‘more generous.’

Misconceptions About Competition and Standards

The perception that competition has led to declining standards is largely unfounded. Standards are set and monitored collectively across committees and boards. The Centre for Education Research and Policy (CERP) stated that a single board cannot manipulate standards for competitive advantage without widespread collusion, which is practically and theoretically impossible.

Do Schools Switch Exam Boards for Easier Exams?

An indicator of competition’s role would be data on schools frequently switching exam boards. However, Ofqual data (Annex A, Figure 2) shows market share has remained stable since 2006. Research into whether schools switch to gain higher grades has found insufficient evidence to support the claim.

Grade Inflation: A Political, Not Competitive, Issue

While there is consensus in the assessment community that ‘grade inflation’ exists, it is not due to competition. Instead, it arises from accumulated cultural assumptions and political pressures. Statistical prediction mechanisms allow for increases of up to a percentage point each year, but this is not a sign of deliberate manipulation by exam boards.

Gove’s Reforms and Their Consequences

Gove’s reforms—such as the EBacc, two-tier O level/CSE system, limitations on vocational learning, and ending modular assessment—may restore ‘rigour’ but at the cost of ‘access.’ These changes could:

• Disadvantage some types of learners.
• Narrow curriculum focus.
• Reduce opportunities for disengaged students.

An Alternative Approach: Market-Driven Assessment

If national qualifications were scrapped, assessment providers could develop alternative qualifications like the IGCSE and Pre-U, designed to better stretch academic students and align with vocational training. This could:

• Improve employer and university engagement.
• Allow greater qualification diversity.
• Shift accountability to parents and students rather than government mandates.

Conclusion

While competition in exam boards is often blamed for declining standards, evidence does not support this claim. The issue lies more in political pressures and systemic limitations. If Gove truly wants to raise standards, trusting the market and allowing qualification diversity might be a more effective approach.