Ministers and 'troublesome priests'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/education/8017388.stm

Version 0 of 1.

By Mike Baker Ken Boston is angry at the turn of events

It is rare that we get a real peek inside the working relationship between ministers and their education advisers.

But this week we were given a revealing glimpse when the former head of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), Dr Ken Boston, angrily spilled the beans at a Parliamentary hearing.

He exposed the extent to which ministers have more control than ever before over what is taught in schools and how it is tested.

Although the headlines focused on a row between Dr Boston and England's Schools Minister Jim Knight over who was responsible for the chaos of last year's national tests, there was a deeper story.

It exposed how little independence is allowed to those responsible for advising the government on school standards.

There are worrying implications for the two new bodies that are replacing the QCA.

No discretion

But first, let's see how the government dealt with Dr Boston. Although he was the fall guy for last year's school test problems, he says he had very little influence over them.

He pointed out that ministers determined the nature of the tests, the pupils and subjects to be tested, how and when children should be tested, the timescale and cost of the marking, and how the results were collated and distributed.

On all these core aspects of the tests the government's chief curriculum and assessment adviser had no discretion.

This might come as a surprise to those who heard the Schools Secretary, Ed Balls, tell the same Parliamentary committee earlier this year that the government operated school testing at "arm's length".

Dr Boston's description of events did not sound like an "arm's length" relationship.

Indeed, he revealed that back in 2006 he had urged the government to move from manual marking to the on-screen marking used by the independent awarding bodies which mark GCSEs and A-levels.

His advice was rejected. Now, three years later, the Sutherland inquiry has recommended on-screen marking.

'Not a good start'

Dr Boston also argued that the new exams watchdog, Ofqual, had failed in the first test of its independence. Instead of asking Ofqual to oversee the inquiry into the 2008 tests, ministers turned to Lord Sutherland instead.

It was ministers, not Ofqual, who set the remit for the inquiry. It was asked to look at the roles of the QCA and the marking company, ETS, but not the role played by government.

Lord Sutherland was told to report to ministers not to Ofqual or to Parliament.

As Dr Boston put it, for Ofqual "the runes are not propitious".

He also revealed how the government reduced the "arm's length" relationship with the QCA by putting ministry observers on to the quango's board meetings.

These observers, he said, would indicate which matters ministers were, or were not, likely to agree to, thus influencing the board's decisions.

Dr Boston suggested the education ministry had regarded the QCA as too independent, claiming it had "clipped" its wings with the current changes to dismantle the QCA.

Its successor body, the QCDA (the D is for development), will become "an arm of the department for schools", so government might just as well take it over altogether.

Evolution

Of course, it can be argued that government governs and advisers advise, so ministers should decide what is taught and tested in schools.

Indeed, we are now very used to the idea that England's schools are run from Westminster. But it was not always so.

In the past there was much greater trust vested in the teaching profession, in local education authorities and advisory bodies.

Back in 1944, when the Conservative minister RA Butler created the modern system of primary and secondary schools, the only power the government took over the curriculum and testing was to require that all schools taught religious education.

In the mid-1960s, the Conservative education minister Sir David Eccles - frustrated that government had no key to the "secret garden of the curriculum" - created a Curriculum Study Group within the ministry.

This was the first step towards ministerial involvement in setting the curriculum.

A few years later the government stepped back, creating the Schools Council for the Curriculum and Examinations. Although this included ministry officials, teachers were in a majority.

But with the arrival of Mrs Thatcher's government in 1979, government grabbed the reins. The Schools Council was abolished and two quangos, one to run the curriculum and one to oversee testing, were established. They were the forerunners of the QCA.

Since 1979, power has steadily moved to the centre, particularly after the creation of the national curriculum and its associated tests in England and Wales.

Not trusted

Indeed, we have become so accustomed to ministers' deciding what happens in schools that perhaps we should not be surprised by Dr Boston's revelations.

Yet, in the past, there were great curriculum reformers in charge of local education authorities.

The teaching profession, too, played a major role in suggesting and developing curriculum and assessment changes. Now only government and its chosen advisers play this role.

And, according to Dr Boston, even the advisers are expected to give the answers that ministers want to hear.

If this seems too strong, then consider the current review of the primary curriculum.

The QCA, the government's curriculum adviser, was not trusted with the review. Instead it was given to an individual, Sir Jim Rose. His remit was narrowly set by ministers to exclude the role of testing in primary schools.

Dr Boston says he came to be viewed by the government as "a troublesome priest".

The new heads of Ofqual and QCDA will, no doubt, have taken note of what happened to Dr Boston.

But, for the health of education in England, it must be hoped that ministers will allow their advisers to be independent, outspoken, and to call things as they see them despite the presence of ministry "observers".

<hr/>

We welcome your comments:

<a name="say"></a>

The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/">Terms & Conditions</a>