Please explain exam boards to me: why so many? Why doesn't the DofE do it?

[ParentOfOne]

This is going to sound a very banal question, but can someone please explain the concept of exam boards?

In many other countries, it's the Department of Education that sets the national curriculum and prepares the national exams (GCSE, A-levels and equivalents).

• Why do we have various boards in the UK?
• Are they all private entities?
• Who pays for them?
• Has it always been like this, or was there a time when it was all done by the Department of Education?
• How meaningful are the differences between exam boards? Eg how much of a difference is there between Edexcel maths and AQA maths?
• Is each secondary school free to choose which exam board to follow?
• How comparable are the programs and the difficulty? Does this create an unfair advantage, if getting a high score is easier with one board than another?
• If there are no meaningful differences, why do we have multiple exam boards?

I have seen that Wikipedia provides some history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_boards_in_the_United_Kingdom but doesn't address the main questions

The highly centralised education system of Ireland, with a national curriculum and exams developed by committees of teachers and civil servants, seems to work pretty well.

In Scotland, the exam syllabus is influenced by the Scottish government’s independence agenda.

And that statement alone has given me the biggest reason for England to keep operating with multiple private exam boards.

Scotgov have made a mess of Scottish Education

🎯

For example? It's a genuine question, I am not trying to challenge you: I am not familiar with the Scottish system

The topics covered, the texts chosen….it has been politicised.

There is a lot of history and identity in the English education system that has grown organically. It has been explained as regards exam boards. As regards faith and grammar schools too, a lot of them have roots going back hundreds of years and with that comes a strong sense of ethos and identity and pride and a value system. It really is not worth destroying for some fad, nor is it actually in tune with the way the current political wind is blowing. Would be more political suicide to go against stuff that works and has done for many years. It is complex and piecemeal the English education system as a whole and can be difficult to understand, but most of it works extremely successfully. There are just the parts that need sorting out which I have highlighted again and again.

@mathanxiety

apologies I think I may have been less than clear.

i was describing the setting up of the (National) department for education in Victorian times, which was in 1856.

in 1856 there would definitely have been an attitude of “it’s working why mess with it” towards the exam boards and a reluctance to let government get involved (with anything!) sometimes known as “laissez-faire”.

that’s certainly not my personal attitude towards education these days! As said, I left teaching two years ago and like many ex teachers I have a lot of strong opinions on many aspects of the education system!

Treating everyone the same way, avoiding discrimination based on political or religious views, and not funding social services which discriminate based on political or religious views are not "some fad" -- they are fundamental principles of democracy and fairness - in fact explicitly enshrined in many Constitutions, but, hey, we don't even have a written Constitution. That some people may have the audacity to call it a "fad" leaves me speechless. However, it is clear that the morally bankrupt, out of touch individuals who think it's a fad will never be convinced. It is no different from explaining to a Taliban that a woman has equal rights to a man.

I am well aware that it is not politically realistic to change that in the short term. But this doesn't make it any less wrong or any less morally repugnant.

It is not politically feasible to respect women's rights in Iran - so what? This doesn't make the theocratic regime any less morally repugnant.

A combination of historical reasons, religious interpretations, sense of identity and misguided moral sense has always been used to justify all kinds of injustices. From slavery to racial segregation to preventing women from voting etc etc. those who in the past defended these things used very similar arguments. Maybe women shouldn't vote because historical reasons ethos identity etc etc? It's no hyperbole - those were exactly the arguments used at the time. That's why I say today's children will one day realise these parents were on the wrong side of history.

People talk about "choice" as if we didn't have freedom of worship in this country.
Free choice means that you are allowed to worship whatever deity you wish to worship, and you are allowed to teach your children whatever religion you want to teach. Which you absolutely are.

Using everyone's money to fund a crucial social service which discriminates based on religion is not "choice", is discrimination.

It is also laughable that people talk about how important this would be for some families, when Christians are a minority in the country (46% at the last census), and, within that 46%, those who truly care and who truly think it is important for their kids to go to a religious school are an even smaller minority. It is well known that many families stop attending Church as soon as little Johnny gets in.

Wow, that is a bit of a rant. What have social services got to do with education?

As for faith schools, you are aware that non-faith schools are actually Non-denominational Christian schools?

OP is just using this to push their agenda. It was never really about AOs

@twistyizzy Yes, my agenda is equality of treatment for all.
My agenda is that crucial services paid for by everyone's taxation should not discriminate based on religion.

Such a dodgy agenda!
Such a conspiracy!
Such hidden ulterior motives!

It is obvious that only morally bankrupt individuals could want to avoid discrimination, right? That's self-evident...

And, for the record, the discussion got derailed when someone asked what I thought other priorities would be, since I said from the beginning that I do not consider exam boards a priority

@Wherehasthecatgone Social services was the wrong word. I should have said something like crucial services paid for with everyone's tax money (like schools and hospitals)

you are aware that non-faith schools are actually Non-denominational Christian schools?

Yes, I am. So what? That's wrong, too. But at least those schools do not discriminate based on religion, and many schools de facto ignore that, luckily.

I fail to see your thought process. Can you explain it to me? Surely you didn't mean that faith schools are justified in using everyone's tax money but discriminating based on religion because... non-faith schools are non-denominational Christian? What's the link? I fail to see it. Can you explain?

What has that got to do with exam boards?

In Ireland, there are a little under 370,000 people between the ages of 15 and 19. In the UK, there are 4.1 million. What works for a relatively modest population would be monstrously complicated for a much bigger demographic.

@ParentOfOne - your posts are unnecessary hyperbole and somewhat hysteric, calm down.
We do not have a constitution, but we have the common law and a very sophisticated judiciary and Parliament and a complex interplay between the two and plenty of us are proud of that and think it is superior to a Constitution!
We have loads of sophisticated legislation protecting protected characteristics. I am proud of our legal and education system.

Exactly @twistyizzy more crappy agenda trying to reinvent the wheel. The most sophisticated thinkers address the real underlying problems in a sophisticated and efficient way. Nobody knows best and more than hundreds of years of tried and tested history and culture.

Yes, the whole system is a complete farce in the UK and why teachers end up re-inventing the wheel at every school or college they work in.

It needs thoroughly overhauling and centralising with all teachers having access to the same shared resources in the same way that other successful modern countries operate their education systems.

However, that will cost a significant sum of money and take time to implement and Labour don’t have any spare cash and the Tory’s who are in favour of a two tier education system prefer to leave everything to the profiteering private sector, so it’s not going to happen any time soon! 🤷🏻‍♀️

I do think it’s something that the Unions should push for though as the workload for teachers with a centralised system would reduce significantly.
Just ask any teacher that’s worked in the UK system and abroad which they prefer!

However, that will cost a significant sum of money and take time to implement and Labour don’t have any spare cash and the Tory’s who are in favour of a two tier education system prefer to leave everything to the profiteering private sector, so it’s not going to happen any time soon! 🤷🏻‍♀️

The Academy system, removing schools from LA control and letting them be run by private consortia, was introduced by Labour

Hysteric? I would not have expected to see that word used on mumsnet, given how its etymology is rooted in misogyny https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2012/mar/08/mind-your-language-feminisation-madness

Nobody knows best and more than hundreds of years of tried and tested history and culture

What is this supposed to mean? That traditions are always right and nothing should ever change?

Corporal punishment was only banned in 1986 in state schools and in 1998 in private schools. By your logic, should we still have corporal punishment because hundreds of years of tried and tested history and culture etc etc??

Gay marriage was only legalised in England in 2013. Should it still be illegal because hundreds of years of tested history and culture etc etc?

"Promotion of homosexuality" was illegal till 2003. Should it still be illegal because hundreds of years of tested history and culture etc etc?

Marital rape became a crime only in 1991, when the House of Lords overturned a centuries old legal tradition that the wife's consent was always assumed. Should marital rape still be legal? How did we dare overturn centuries of tradition history culture etc??

Maybe now you see how nonsensical the argument about history and culture is??

By the way, the unelected Anglican bishops in the house of lords voted against gay marriage. I am not proud of a constitutional arrangement that gives unelected priests the right to block legislation based on an outdated moral sense not shared by most of the population. But you do you, of course.

What has that got to do with exam boards?

Nothing. Like I have said multiple times, I got carried away when someone asked what I thought the priorities were, because I agree that exam boards are not a priority

Agree
One board so there’s a clear link across all grades seems to make more sense
As long as the exams ask questions in a wide variety of ways to suit all students strengths.

@Wherehasthecatgone The Academy system, removing schools from LA control and letting them be run by private consortia, was introduced by Labour

Yes, this is often forgotten. A good summary is here: www.education-uk.org/articles/25academies.html

I think we have gone from one excess to the other: from a system where schools had too little autonomy because of too much control from local authorities, to one where they have too much autonomy because they are not accountable to anyone and not even the Education Secretary can overturn a school's decision. And of course we did that with the worst of privatisation, by having unaccountable private trusts running our schools with everyone's tax money.

Yes
on reflection this is a good point

I am very happy with my DCs schools and all are now academies! We do not have big problems and if parents do not like it, they can vote with their feet and pull their kids out and send them to another school. They are accountable to parents, parental opinion locally matters hugely. Parents, en masse, being dissatisfied is terrible news for schools so most do care. Also, there is plenty of resource sharing across year groups and across the whole trust. I feel sorry for teachers in schools left on their own having to invent from scratch. That is not the case in our schools. Our primary makes sure every single new teacher is given a smooth handover and loads of resources and work books from the previous year and is specifically handheld by the head and deputy and the KS leaders. Same in secondary by the way. That is what good schools do, they value their staff. We also have low attrition of staff as a result and a happy parent group overall. It is far from a bleak picture everywhere. If people want changes they need to ask those running the good schools what works rather than screaming doom and gloom. I trust teachers and leaders of good schools any day over politicians and policy makers.

And frankly if anyone is worried about Reform, the last thing you would want is to hand them a homogeneous centrally controlled education system on a plate!

@Araminta1003 I am very happy with my DCs schools and all are now academies! We do not have big problems and if parents do not like it, they can vote with their feet and pull their kids out and send them to another school.

If you mean that parents can move their kids to non-academies, no, most families cannot do that. Most state secondary schools are academies. There are many parts of the country where the percentage ranges from 80 to 100%.

Regardless, I am not sure that "I have never had a problem myself, so those who did can get lost" is a reasonable or fair approach.

They are accountable to parents, parental opinion locally matters hugely. Parents, en masse, being dissatisfied is terrible news for schools so most do care.

How are they accountable, exactly? They are not. They are only accountable very indirectly, to the extent that, if a school becomes undersubscribed, it loses funding. But there are many parts of the country where the demographics are such that most schools are oversubscribed and will continue to remain so.

Are you familiar with what's happened at Holland Park school and Mossbourne?
Both rated outstanding. Both oversubscribed. Both had excellent results on paper. But, under the surface, both enabled a climate of fear, bullying and emotional abuse

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61325597

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czjd383z9lyo

Creating a hostile climate towards special needs children is one way to achieve this, but not the only one. Those two schools have done much worse.

Are all academies like this? Of course not.

But the academy model means that academies mark their own homework. They investigate their own complaints. Not even the Education secretary can overturn an academy's decision (look up their complaints policy).

Take Mossbourne: hundreds of people come forward with accusations of bullying and emotional abuse, of seminars on how to instil fear in children, etc. And what happens? Nothing. The school commissioned its own investigation (the suspect paying someone else to investigate it!!!), whose results will not even be disclosed.

Are you happy that your tax money is being used this way? I am most certainly not.

Would you accept a system where, if you complain to your GP, the GP investigates the complaint, and no external authority or body could tell the GP practice they were wrong???