HL Deb 29 November 1989 vol 513 cc498-508

8.9 p.m.

Lord Joseph rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have on the general certificate of secondary education (GCSE), with particular reference to standards, the use of differentiated questions and criterion referencing.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships have been debating a very broad range of anxieties about the family. I now ask the House to focus on policies to help meet other anxieties on educational standards.

I believe that we all recognise the need to raise standards in schools for pupils of all abilities for their own sakes. We all recognise that the potential of children varies from subject to subject and in aspects of character development. However, we all want each child to be stretched nearer to his or her potential. Many measures to achieve those purposes have been set in hand. Each will take time to implement fully and I shall not list them. Some are controversial but most are not.

Classroom performance is not the only measure of a child's achievement. We all, I think, want parents and schools to foster the development in each child of reasoning, self-discipline, work habits, consideration, initiative and the flowering of talents and sensitivity. We will, I believe, therefore, all welcome the introduction of records of achievement for each child.

Among the measures to raise standards for children at all levels of ability has been the introduction—for which I take responsibility—of the GCSE. In June 1984, in announcing the decision, I emphasised four essential ingredients: today I refer to two of these—differentiation and criterion-referencing.

I think it is common ground that a single paper in each subject will not stretch each child: the questions will be too hard for the non-academic or some of them, and too easy for the academic, or some of them. So it is central to the GCSE's aim to raise standards at all levels of ability that differentiation should be introduced. I read with much agreement the Minister of State's reference in her speech of 20th September this year on the subject.

Differentiation can be implemented either through separate papers—and I have seen it suggested that a choice out of as many of four would be sensible—or separate questions in papers or questions offering scope for different depths of answers. In one or other such way all can be stretched in both the teaching, the testing and the examining.

I emphasise that both differentiation and the next imperative—criterion-referencing—are intended to benefit pupils of all abilities: they are intended to ensure that the academic and the non-academic are stretched. The aim of criterion-referencing is that each child shall be taught, tested and examined in ways that reflect the widely differing potential of each child more effectively than now. I suppose it might be called educational value added. The mode by which we have examined and do still examine is by norm-referencing—that is, by the relative performance of each candidate compared with the performance of all the other candidates: it is a relative assessment.

Norm-referencing never emerged as a deliberate policy of Ministers of any government; it evolved. It became the custom and practice of examiners to decide that Q per cent. of all candidates should be awarded Grade A; R per cent. Grade B; S per cent. Grade C; and so on down to Grade G. No matter whether the general level of performance was up or down, roughly the same proportion of candidates would be awarded the different grades. Neither candidates nor parents nor teachers nor employers nor the public could tell from the examination results what was happening to school standards.

If GCSE is to achieve its aim examination grades will need to give a clearer picture of each candidate's performance against absolute instead of relative standards. We need, therefore, criteria which will specify for each subject the knowledge, understanding and skills expected for the award of particular grades. The GCSE, of course, embodies varying amounts of course work and the assessment of performance in that exam enters into the awarding of grades; but a timed, unseen and externally assessed written examination is required for each subject from each candidate. Clearly, it will take time to introduce and implement grade-related criteria.

The GCSE results in the first two years were, of course, norm-referenced. Your Lordships will realise that they cannot therefore tell us whether standards have moved and, if so, whether up or down. There is evidence that to some extent motivation of both teachers and pupils has improved; and that we can all welcome. It seems clear, moreover, that teachers have grappled nobly with the changes involved and that, too, we can welcome and applaud. I do not doubt that Ministers are resolved to introduce differentiation and criterion-referencing. My purpose today is to give them the opportunity to tell us where they are in these processes.

Here then are my questions. Will they confirm that it is their aim to develop the present amount of differentiation to a more sophisticated, effective and pervasive level? Will they confirm that the 1988 and 1989 GCSE examinations were norm-referenced? I do not see how they could have been otherwise. There is no question of blame for that. When do they expect to shift to criterion-referencing for the GCSE?

Are we to understand that attainment referencing—mentioned in the national curriculum publications—is replacing criterion-referencing; and what, if any, is the difference between them?

Will the Government confirm that under either name—attainment referencing or criterion— referencing—the referencing will try to specify the complex and interlocking requirements in knowledge, understanding, skills and ability to write required in each subject for each grade?

The new attainment or criterion referenced grades will be numbered whereas norm-referenced grades are lettered. Is it true that, as I hope, Grade 10—the top grade under the new referencing—will be more demanding than Grade A, the existing top grade in norm-referencing? Has the idea of star, or merit, awards for those who get, say, five or more top grades been dropped?

My final question is this. Since we all, I think, want the non-classroom performance and development of children to be stimulated and encouraged, when do Ministers hope that records of achievement will be fully introduced in schools? I very strongly hope that the Government's education measures succeed in raising standards for children at every level—academic and non-academic—of ability. I believe that the questions I have asked are relevant to that purpose.

8.17 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, introduced the new GCSE exam, he took a great step towards correcting one of the fundamental errors in our secondary education system—the old two-tier system of CSE and O-level. The O-level tended—certainly in art subjects—to be far too much a case of regurgitating a series of facts and the CSE exam was quite simply a sop exam for those who were not quite so good academically. The fact that everybody will now be marked or assessed on the one exam is definitely a step in the right direction and one that I wholeheartedly support.

The noble Lord raised a variety of points, many relating to standards as a whole. Differential questions could prove to be a minefield for the simple reason that if we have differential papers there is a danger that, unless we are very careful, we could go some way back towards the old O-level/CSE situation. There must be very careful consideration of when we introduce these papers. For instance, I hope there will be no question of the type of paper somebody sits being recorded on the final examination result. This was certainly a problem with the old CSE where, though the higher grade was supposed to be equivalent to an O-level, one still did not get the prestige for it even if it was a high grade because it was a CSE exam. I hope that there will be absolutely no question of that in the new GCSE.

When it comes to criterion-referencing, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. It is absolutely absurd that if somebody can attain a certain level in an academic or even a non-academic field in which they are examined they do not get the relevant exam grade as a reward. Anybody who is a borderline candidate certainly deserves to know exactly what they have to do to gain what is regarded as a pass mark because ultimately we should not forget that what people regard as a pass mark will be very important in all these secondary exams. Regardless of the educational ethos involved, people, especially employers and institutes of further and higher education, will certainly want some kind of benchmark by which they can judge what somebody has achieved thus far.

There are other questions raised by the institution of the GCSE within the structure of the national curriculum; namely, what is done with pupils if they take examinations early and attain the required pass mark, whatever that becomes. What is to be done with them regarding the GCSE if they are still to be educated to the age of 16? In the old O-level system in the subject of English, for example, it was normal that a pupil would take the language exam and then go on to take the literature exam in succeeding years. If we are closely co-ordinating GCSE with the national curriculum subjects, that might cause problems. If a pupil is being educated to the age of 16 regarding one series of exams, what is to be done if the pupil passes the exams before the age of 16?

I hope that the newly announced proposals for further education to replace A-levels or to supplement them will take this factor into account and will enable people to learn, for example, communication skills with more of the advanced technology that we are now using. That can be worked more into a syllabus for those who have the time available. Indeed, a new intermediate level exam might be something that people can take later on.

There are problems in connection with the idea of continuous assessment for certain sectors within the education system, primarily those with special educational needs. On many occasions I have bored your Lordships' House with the subject of dyslexia. I have had dyslexia, and one of the problems with that and numerous other special educational needs is that there are children who have great difficulty with writing and who produce simple written symbols on paper. If continuous assessment becomes, as the old CSE exam very often was, merely a case of compiling a given number of pieces of work in a given number of subjects, those pupils will suffer, and their exam grades will also suffer. I hope that the GCSE will not go down this path in merely producing a number of pieces of work within a given period of time.

Finally, I wish to say something about the level of attainment that we are called upon to provide and the relationship between that and the national curriculum which is something that is not very far away from the question of the GCSE. The new exam should be very closely tied in with the national curriculum. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, will be in agreement with me when I say that the core curriculum is tight and that the whole national curriculum is rigid. It definitely has a potential for restricting people when it comes to the way in which their exams are developed.

8.23 p.m.

Lord Peston

My Lords, as always, may I welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in all matters of education policy. I begin by saying something about standards. We must raise standards. I am not one who tends to argue from the position that our standards are too low. In other words, I wish not to be negative. My own view is that our standards simply should be higher, and that is the point.

As regards standards—and though the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, did not mention it, I do not believe that he will disagree—I always want to point out the importance of teachers in setting them. My own view is that if we are to achieve higher standards, it is the teachers in the first place who must want that to happen. That seems to be central to the problem. It is not my view that one can somehow get round that issue by examinations and that kind of measure. If we are to have greater achievement by our young people, teachers have to want to improve standards. Equally of course the young people themselves must want to improve them.

My next point covers the setting and measuring of standards. I speak as a lay person more than as an expert. I have never understood the opposition between so-called norm referencing and criterion referencing. I cannot understand why we cannot have both. I raise the point for the noble Lord as a parent and in the form of a couple of questions regarding one of my children. I am certainly interested in knowing what he or she can do. For example, I wish to know what he or she can read, what functions they can differentiate and how well can they translate.

I always wanted to know what the other children were doing of the same age, which is norm referencing. I do not believe that either question is uninteresting. One is interested to know how the child stands according to objective criteria, which the noble Lord is pressing; but I would not go so far as to say that it is uninteresting to ask, almost as a check, what other children are doing.

In my experience one raises standards. Most of my experience is in higher education, and I have no doubt that I am teaching to a very much higher level than I was ever taught. Therefore, my criteria have themselves to be raised through time. But in order to give myself some check on that, I have to ask: what are the students typically doing? I do not go to the other extreme which I found when I was an A-level examiner in my younger days and needed the money. There was great pressure on me, as the noble Lord said, to give x per cent. or y per cent. If my curve of results differed too much from the "norm" then it was queried. I then had to say that I did not believe the examinees to be a particularly good bunch that year, but that did not carry very much weight. Therefore, I am with the noble Lord regarding the worry concerning norm referencing. However, I do not go to the other extreme by saying that if the numbers differ somewhat then maybe we have got it wrong and we have ignored a norm that should be there.

I am not for one moment seeking to undermine his concern with absolute standards, but I put the point to the noble Viscount who is replying and through him to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that relative standards are not uninteresting. I was most attracted, as I always have been, by the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, that all our pupils are important. I have always despaired of some teachers who really think that the education system exists for the most able pupils and no one else. I was, with several other noble Lords, one of the most able pupils; but we are not the most important people. It is wrong that we should be sent out into the world believing that we are.

My view is exactly the one put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. What matters is educational value added. The concern is that, given the child when it starts its education, how much does it progress? The bright child might still be the brightest at the end but may not have progressed very much. I am very impressed by the less than bright child who does progress. Therefore I totally support the noble Lord's view that our examination and assessment system must apply to pupils of all abilities and must actually recognise what they achieve relative to what they might do rather than saying that only the clever boys and girls matter. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph—I have no reason to believe that the Government disagree—with the importance of non-classroom performance. After all, in the previous debate this evening we were partly discussing the family and people as individuals in society. They are very important in education.

I am aware of the problem of differentiation as the noble Lord has indicated, and it is not a problem that is easily solved. I am not convinced myself that we will ever have other than an imperfect solution. I look forward to hearing what the noble Viscount has to say.

I am a great believer in records of achievement. I believe in them as being public documents. I also believe in all our children having such records. I am aware of the problems of dyslexia and also of the fact that a great deal of course work is not serious work at all, but simply a way of passing the time.

But one must not be pessimistic and assume that is all that will happen. In the special needs area we must fine-tune our assessment procedures to take account of those matters and I am not persuaded that it cannot be done.

I repeat my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for raising these points. I do not wish to get between him and the Minister in replying so I shall sit down immediately.

8.30 p.m.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, debating about the GCSE examination with my noble friend Lord Joseph is rather like taking on the founding fathers on the interpretation of the American constitution. In a very real sense my noble friend is the father of the GCSE. Although these new examinations were offered for the first time only in 1988, it was on the initiative of my noble friend when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science that the GCSE was launched.

It is altogether appropriate therefore that my noble friend should now initiate this very important debate. The Government greatly welcome the opportunity which it provides to review the progress of the GCSE and to look forward to its future evolution. I apologise to the House if my speech is slightly longer than I originally intended. I feel that the matter is of sufficient importance to make that point now.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate attests that the examination has increased the motivation of children and has improved the quality of both teaching and learning. The fruits of this are to be seen in the record numbers of children staying on in education last year and, it appears, again this year. Indeed, 49 per cent. of all 16 year-olds continued with some form of education in 1988—the first year of the GCSE—compared with 46 per cent. the year before. That is a great tribute to the dedication of the teaching profession. It is also a measure of the enthusiasm which the GCSE has generated and of the remarkable acceptance it has gained throughout the education service in only two years.

The reasons for the success of the GCSE are to be found in certain key features of the examination itself. First, and perhaps most important, the GCSE is an examination for almost the full ability range. Both the brightest and the less able pupils follow GCSE syllabuses. Roughly 90 per cent. of all school-leavers now achieve at least one GCSE and three-quarters achieve five or more GCSEs. These are record levels of attainment.

Secondly, the GCSE not only tests the recall of facts but also pupils' ability to reason and to solve problems and the practical skills which go with this. These requirements are built into GCSE syllabuses in all subjects. This means that teaching and learning in our secondary schools are now better geared to equipping children with the knowledge, skills and understanding they will need for adult life. The third key attribute contributing to the GCSE's success has been the establishment of clear national criteria with which all GCSE syllabuses must comply. Such criteria are in place in 20 mainstream subjects and are supplemented by general criteria of universal application.

These criteria specify the core objectives to be covered by all syllabuses in the mainstream subjects and set common standards of assessment and reporting. They are the basis on which the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) exercises its statutory power to approve all GCSE syllabuses. As such, they ensure quality and consistency.

The Government are determined to build on the success of the GCSE. We have accordingly made clear that the GCSE will be the chief means of assessing attainment under the national curriculum at the age of 16. GCSE syllabuses will have to be aligned with the requirements of the national curriculum at key stage 4. The Government expect that in future all pupils will sit for GCSEs in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science. A large and increasing majority of children will also undertake GCSEs in most of the other foundation subjects.

Assessment at 16 will rest substantially on existing GCSE methods and maintain a balance—characteristic of most GCSE syllabuses now—between course work and a terminal examination. Pupils' GCSE results will, however, in future be reported on the national curriculum 10 level scale. I can confirm to my noble friend that level 10 will demand a higher standard than a grade A now and will stretch the brightest pupils further than at present. Accordingly, the Government are not at present pursuing the idea of merit awards whose rationale was similar. Level 4 on the national curriculum scale equates to an existing grade G and will continue to represent the minimum standard for GCSE certification.

These decisions represent a vote of confidence in the GCSE. But they also mean that we cannot afford to be complacent about the examination. We must be honest about its weaknesses and seek to remedy them. That is why the debate we are having today is so timely and so important.

My noble friend Lord Joseph has identified two areas in which the GCSE currently falls short of what was intended and where improvement is needed. The first is the need for adequate differentiation of assessment. I said that the GCSE was for almost the full ability range. It must acccordingly stretch pupils of all abilities to the utmost and enable them to show what they can do. While the GCSE has certainly improved the motivation of the majority of children—particularly those in the middle of the ability range—I think all those involved with the examination would agree that, at the extremes of ability, the problem of differentiation has not been fully resolved. Less able pupils are sometimes afforded too little opportunity to demonstrate positive achievement; bright pupils are not consistently made to think enough.

Related to this is the need for greater objectivity in the setting of assessment criteria. As my noble friend reminded us, a cardinal aim of the GCSE is to specify levels of attainment in more objective terms. This is vital if we are to recognise and reward pupils' actual achievements and not simply to place them in rank order relative to their peers.

Some progress has been made in this direction. Descriptions of the attainments expected at particular grades are now embodied in the GCSE national criteria which I mentioned just now. But they do not cover the full range of grades and, with some exceptions, are couched in general, non-specific terms. The Government, in conjuction with SEAC and the GCSE examining groups, are actively seeking improvement in both these areas.

The Government have already taken steps to improve differentiation by accepting SEAC's advice that GCSE results should in future be reported on the national curriculum scale. As I have already indicated, the attainments required to achieve the top level—level 10—will in fact be more demanding than those required for a grade A now. The effect will be to give the brightest pupils something more to aim for and to stretch them further. Meanwhile SEAC, at the Government's request, is looking at the technical side of developing assessment methods which differentiate adequately. This is highly complex.

The use of common papers is one possibility. But it is no easy matter to set questions which are accessible to pupils of all abilities. On the other hand, setting questions of increasing difficulty within the framework of a common paper means that some questions are out of reach of the less able and some present no challenge to the brightest. An alternative way forward is to differentiate the papers themselves. But there is then the risk that pupils will be entered at the wrong level. And consistency of grading can be compromised by the observed tendency of examiners to demand higher standards on harder papers. There is no obvious right way to proceed. It may be that different approaches are justified in different subjects. The Government await with interest the outcome of SEAC's work and research.

The national curriculum itself will contribute to the sharpening of attainment objectives in the foundation subjects. The statutory attainment targets, and their supporting statements of attainment, are in effect performance criteria, specifying what pupils should know, understand and be able to do, and linking attainments to particular levels on the grading scale. In future these statutory attainment targets will be embodied in the relevant GCSE national criteria with which all syllabuses must comply. As a result, all GCSE candidates following syllabuses in the foundation subjects will be assessed against the statutory targets and have their attainments reported in relation to them on the national curriculum 10 level scale. Pupils, parents and employers will then be able to relate the grades achieved directly to the knowledge, skills and understanding which they denote. This will be a substantial advance on the current state of affairs.

It would be misleading, however, to imply that this will amount to full criterion-referencing, or even that such an objective is realistically achievable. Neither the statutory attainment targets, nor even, within them, the statements of attainment, are, or ever could be, framed with such precise objectivity as to allow no room for doubt about whether a pupil had or had not achieved them. No objective measure could, for example, ever be devised of qualities such as cogency, fluency and sense of style which necessarily have a place in the proposed attainment targets for English.

We are not concerned here with the fulfilment of easily verifiable mechanical tasks but with complex—I think my noble friend used the word "interlocking"—skills and understandings. Seen in this light, grading will always involve the exercise of judgment and can never aspire to be an absolute science. But what is important is that grading should take place within the framework of clear procedures which reinforce common standards. We look to SEAC to see to it that such procedures are in place and that they are complied with.

Finally, my noble friend asked about the Government's approach to records of achievement. Schools are not at present required to report to parents; and many do not. The Government believe that parents are entitled to receive information about their child's progress. This is a vital component of raising standards through the national curriculum.

The Government accordingly support the effective use of records of achievement as a means of reporting pupils' progress and are aware of much good work in this area, stimulated in part by the initiatives of my noble friend. We are not however persuaded that the way forward is to regulate records of achievement schemes. The Government have therefore proposed the introduction of regulations requiring schools to report annually to parents on pupil achievement within the national curriculum and GCSE in other subjects. Schools will remain free, as now, to report on wider achievement but will not be required to do so.

The Government will shortly publish draft regulations and a circular for public consultation. The intention is that the mandatory requirements should be phased in from the summer of 1991.

It will, I hope, be apparent from what I have said that the GCSE has got off to a good start and has an assured place in the Government's plans. But we are by no means complacent that everything has now been got right. On the contrary, the fact that the GCSE will have a central role to play in the delivery of the national curriculum requires frankness about its continuing weaknesses and resolute action to tackle them.

That action is in hand. The School Examinations and Assessment Council is, at the Government's request, now engaged on an ambitious programme of work to see to it that the GCSE is aligned with the national curriculum. That will entail the revision of the existing national criteria, the consequential adaption of syllabuses and a thorough review of methods of differentiation and grading.

Lord Joseph

My Lords, before the Minister sits down I should like to ask him a question. I am grateful for the answers he has given thus far, but it was not clear to me whether he was able to say when he hopes that the technique will shift to criterion-referencing. Granted that the system will always be imperfect, is there a date as regards records of achievement or are we—as would be understandable—simply to expect that this will be introduced as soon as is possible?

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I think that the answer to my noble friend's question is the latter. However, if I am wrong I shall furnish him with the relevant information in writing to him on the matter.

This has been a stimulating debate and one which has made a thoroughly useful contribution to the process of review. I am most grateful to my noble friend for tabling the Question. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Addington, for their contributions.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes before nine o'clock.