Stakeholder Meeting 6th December 2011Stakeholder Workshop Feedback on Examination Delivery – 6 / 12 / 2011
1. Introduction:
1.1 I would first like to thank everyone for attending the event at the University of Reading. This was a first of its kind and while some who have already responded might have thought it was a rather ambitious programme, the main objective for the EOA was to raise and identify as many issues as possible with our stakeholders so one can set up future meetings, activities, focus groups, surveys or what is necessary to target specific needs and concerns for the exam office community.
1.2 Attached to this report is the final attendee list. The limitation on numbers was purely restricted to the number of people one could fit comfortably into the board room at the university. We did try to get a representative from every facet of the exam office community with state and independent schools, academies and colleges all being represented on the day along side unions, MIS providers and both general and vocational awarding body representation and government.
1.3 As mentioned in the days introduction one could divide up the stakeholder community into three groups which have direct influence on the exams office community. Government, awarding bodies and exam centres. By getting representatives from all those groups the EOA wanted to demonstrate the interrelationships between different parties and how their actions may or may not be as effective given this knock on affect in the system. For too long the education environment and the exam system have functioned almost as separate entities, with each part working in isolation or even competing with each other.
2. Why do we (the exams stakeholder community) need a review now?
2.1 This government seeks a more effective and cost efficient exam system and the EOA welcome any activity or development that will help to fulfill that objective but not at the expense of undermining key support services, key relationships and a viable environment for exams office staff to function in. The EOA seek a more joined up approach on future education/exam developments to avoid many of the issues associated with exam delivery which affect the exams office and are a direct consequence of changes in education policy further up the education chain.
2.2 The EOA have stated on many occasions that the relationship between exam centres and awarding bodies is vital in maintaining a sustainable secure exam system. However, that relationship many feel, remains very one sided with the exam office community feeling it can no longer keep up with all the demands being imposed upon them from awarding bodies. If we are to persist with multiple systems and practices which are driven by individual awarding body products and services then there does need to be a review of future provision as the community into which these services are being directed are reaching breaking point.
2.3 Part of the objective behind the day was to expose the exam office community. Some attendees have mentioned that they came away with a feeling that exam office staff were being portrayed as victims of the whole process. It was clearly stated at the beginning of the day that’s exactly what the EOA wanted to get away from. We accept things are difficult for everyone including exams office staff but the EOA seek to clarify just want are the real problems and issues, by referring to specific targeted data on the community and how it functions and get away from the anecdotal moans that seem to predominate from certain quarters which dent any positive change and development being proposed.
2.4 Everyone’s contribution has an impact on that exam office role but no one provider of services can work in isolation and these workshops were set up to explore some of those relationships and contributions. By looking more closely at the ‘interrelationships’ or their lack of ‘linkage’ in certain areas, between the different parts of the stakeholder community we could unpick various influences both positive and negative which underpin our exam community and its ability or inability to function successfully at present and in the future.
2.5 The following report attempts to capture all the main themes and discussions of the day while acknowledging that not all items on the original agenda were fully covered to the same depth. As mentioned in the introduction this day was more about how we as a community must move forward if we are to maintain a sustainable exam system with all key stakeholders are fully committed to in the interests of the student community we all service.
3. Defining the exams office community:
3.1 The objective behind this section was to firstly clarify the role and activity of the EOA and how it has tried to function over the last ten years and what contribution it can make based up its limited resources. The EOA also took this opportunity to review its relationships with many of its stakeholders by referencing what each had said historically about the EOA and what they felt its contribution was to the exam community.
There are three parts to the EOA provision;
3.2 The second objective was to outline from the recent EOA survey for the academic year 2010/11 and preceding surveys the present working environment for this community. The following points were picked out and discussed briefly against the growing workload being imposed on exam office staff by the exam system.
3.2.1 Staff often work short days; are on term time contracts; reduction in overtime all which result in members being squeezed when trying to complete a full time job in many centres. 3.2.2 As a consequence of how people are employed and profiled its not surprising mistakes take place, communications and key activity are less effective and issues like late fees result. However, many centres still survive and make it all work but the question is even they are finding it all too much. 3.2.3 These issues referenced above become more extreme in the majority of schools with one member of staff to run everything. 3.2.4 While the good news was that the majority of EOA members who provide a core of very experienced and established exam office community are going to stay in post for the foreseeable future (especially in areas were jobs are hard to come by) the system will be faced with having to provide additional support for the broader community which overstressed, overstretched and in some eyes viewed as an underperforming workforce. 3.2.5 This section demonstrates that to avoid appropriate action from within centres and by some awarding body practices these issues may not be addressed.
3.3 In view of these findings which have been brought to the community’s attention over the last ten years the exam system has to consider a number of options. If the exam office community remain in its present position, despite the aspirations of the EOA to develop a more professional workforce which we feel will provide a more flexible and sustainable environment for developments and change to succeed at reduced costs, the government and awarding bodies will need to invest more direct support into centres to help maintain and rescue existing services.
3.4 Clearly, this is not going to be the case. This government has stated that there will be no additional external support forthcoming of this kind anymore apart from the EDSU contribution. As referenced on the day by various awarding body representatives their offer will continue to be individualistic and focused on their own products and services which may or may not service the whole community. This leaves one to conclude that there is an even greater need to further develop grass roots peer support in centres and encourage a more self-supportive centre based community that needs to take a greater ownership of its activities in order to reduce costs while still maintaining a secure exam system.
3.5 If however, the exam system and its stakeholder community both inside and outside exam centres continue to deal with exams office staff as purely functionaries with no investment in those grass-root objectives then the system must expect to see and feel that they are dealing with a growing poorly motivated, trained and ineffective workforce whose shortcomings will need to financially supported in the long run. The EOA solution is to provide support at source which is more self-driven; is low cost and will provide a more accountable system within centres which they have greater ownership of.
4. Discussion workshops:
The following workshops took place and were chaired by an EOA Board of Trustee and minutes were taken by another board member.
4.1 Title – ‘CPD and Training for the exam office community’
Starting question – Does the stakeholder community support the idea that CPD needs to be more effectively addressed for the exam the office community?
4.2 Review & evaluate the EOA strategy on CPD and training which (includes invigilators) and is linked to the new MEOY exams management tool
Title – ‘Centres working with Awarding Bodies’ 1. The difficulties of policing ones centre on behalf of Awarding bodies 2. Can the exam community utilize other methods apart from JCQ inspections to monitor exams centres successfully, especially on security? 3. The results process is seen as the pinnacle of the whole exam experience but is it how being devalued by recent trends towards electronic processes. 4. Is the provision for Access arrangements in centres becoming farcical?
Title – ‘Centres working with government / agencies’
Summary discussion and outcome from the above list of topics:
4.2 Title – ‘CPD and Training for the exam office community’ A question was posed at the beginning of this section which asked if all the stakeholder representatives did actually support the EOA strategy that all exams office staff should have access to CPD to develop a more professional workforce.
The following conclusions were made;
4.2.1 EDSU will provide an induction programme for only new exams office staff with a focus on general qualifications. 4.2.2 Awarding body training will continue to focus on their products and services, apart from supporting the more generic EDSU induction programme. 4.2.3 Both options above ignore the important role of IT in exam delivery and this why the EOA have invested a lot time and energy working with Capita SIMS (a major MIS provider in schools) to get better and more wide spread IT training across the community. 4.2.4 In answer to the above question no one really made any definitive statement to support the EOA’s on going lobby for more CPD style approach and especially for more experienced exams office staff. 4.2.5 Therefore with no real joined up approach to CPD the EOA cannot see there being any dramatic change in this area with the EOA having to find possibility resources from outside the existing stakeholder community to fulfill this aim. 4.2.6 Our discussions with Edexcel are ongoing on the future of BTECs but a more universal approach from the whole stakeholder community needs to be taken on board if the system expects more from its exam office staff. 4.2.7 The only alternative at present is the provision of the EOA BTEC courses through Edexcel but many have stated that its beyond their centre budgets. Considering that these people deal with the second biggest budget outside salaries its such a valuable long term investment. 4.2.8 However, in many centres there is no provision of funds for CPD for support staff in the first place and that cultural change has to be addressed first. 4.2.9 The EOA already provide CPD for over 370 members and that is growing every day with some members directly benefiting from that experience financially but these numbers are still very small against a 5-6000 centre community. 4.2.9 With funds being squeezed in centres the onus is redirected back to some form of external help. Both government and awarding bodies have committed budgets to some form of training. What the EOA are asking for is that some of that funding could be redirected into a more long term grass- roots CPD programme which will be more sustainable and provide a better long term investment. 4.2.10 The EOA proposal is to support all the existing provision but add a more basic generic CPD programme which extends from the EDSU style induction programme for experienced exam office staff and links more easily with the individualistic awarding offers through our desk top driven ‘MEOY’ Management Tool - ‘My exam Office Year’ will link all the various provision in one place so no one, member or non-member misses out. 4.2.11 The EOA are therefore seeking the cooperation from all stakeholders to make this Management Tool work by agreeing to help support links to their various services, documents etc on their websites.
4.3 Title – ‘Centres working with Awarding Bodies’
The second workshop session covered off a number of topics but these can be summarized in the following way. The topics were all are related to the growing demands being made on exams office staff by both internal and external pressures.
4.3.1 Exams office staff are employed and have to work on a day-to-day basis in their centre but they find themselves sometimes at odds with their academic colleagues, especially over the implementation of various rules and regulations which have been drawn up by government and awarding bodies. 4.3.2 There should be no conflict of interest when trying to service the exam system on behalf of all students in centres but all practices being implemented should be formulated against the community who have to deliver it and in the context of the educational environment in which people work alongside their teaching colleagues. 4.3.3 Exam office staff is being asked to therefore implement someone else’s external rules and regulations while they themselves have no say in their creation. The EOA have been involved in editing the JCQ booklets only once in ten years and on that one occasion had its contribution accepted. 4.3.4 A greater level of consultancy on these JCQ documents would we feel eliminate much of the difficulties being experienced by exams office staff and allow them to carry out their role more effectively in centres. 4.3.5 Recent issues raised by members over security of paper in centres again is driven externally by the JCQ rule book. The EOA has suggested that if the wording of such documents were changed to mirror the experiences in centres, exams office staff would feel more at home with what is being asked of them and awarding bodies would feel more confident about rules and regulations being adhered to successfully. 4.3.6 While JCQ inspections provide some cover for the exam system but they are primarily an instrument of the awarding bodies check on centres to see if they are complying with their external orchestrated systems and practices. 4.3.7 Adding the ‘exam office’ to the Ofsted inspection process would, at last include the pivotal link between teaching and learning and assessment and fully reflect all aspects of the education process that delivers a student. 4.3.8 Historically until the arrival of just electronic results, without hard copies, awarding bodies made it clear that the relationship was between them and their customer, the student, especially over results. This statement I believe came about when certain staff and centres refused to hand over results to students who had not paid fees or for some other problem or issue, so dragging the awarding body into a debate they had no control over. 4.3.9 Electronic results have changed all that with centres, at their own cost and with their integrity on the line, having to print off their own results. The EOA support the move over to electronic results but advocate that better consultation with its exam office community from awarding bodies when implementing change which has nothing to do with government policy, would avoid so much confusion and stress in the system in future. 4.3.10 The final topic referred to the mushrooming of requests for access arrangements but this time the pressure on the exam office community is from within by academic staff, pupils and parents. 4.3.11 No exams office, unless they are a trained SEN or appointed specialist teacher in their centre, should operate any system where they make these decisions about access arrangements. While it’s their duty to implement anything they are asked to do, it’s not their decision to suggest it needs controlling or reducing because of the increased work burden. 4.3.12 The access arrangements issue is driven by the education system which in turn many state is driven by the need to attain high scores for league tables. Originally it was the JCQ who managed this process much more closely but like so many things more and more is being pushed back into centres. 4.3.13 Again as one goes through a period of change not surprisingly a lack of consistency throws up more problems than this present system was designed to solve. And lets not forget that while permission to appoint its own specialist teachers for access arrangements by heads has been out there for a few years, the turnover of staff will have an affect on outcomes.
4.4 Title – ‘Centres working with government / agencies’
The final set of topics straddles both government and awarding body influence.
4.4.1 Controlled assessment was introduced to offset excessive help some students were being given on projects and course work. 4.4.2 Exams office staff were then told by awarding bodies that this has nothing to do with them as it is focused within the classroom. 4.4.3 However, controlled assessment has excluded lots of external students from following courses at main stream centres and exams office staff (as part of the exam system) have being drawn in to manage controlled assessment. 4.4.4 Like Curriculum 2000, ETS, the demise of KS3 IT and the diploma, greater consultation with the exam office community who have to deliver part of the education system would help in avoiding problems and save the tax payer a lot of money. 4.4.5 For ten years the EOA has lobbied for one tracking data system to be implemented which would pull all the awarding body and MIS systems together saving money, time and effort. Students could go anywhere, do any course, with any awarding body and still be tracked successfully. 4.4.6 The Learner Record Service leads the way on this and with projects like the A2C which will replace the existing EDI systems coming on stream everyone needs to get behind this type of change now. 4.4.7 Each year only a handful of appeals reach the Examination Appeals Board (EAB) but thousands, at a lower level are dealt with by awarding bodies internally. While once again it’s another process which must be offered to students and parents by the exams office some feel the system does not really serve students effectively enough as the allowance for additional marks to be issued are so small. Certainly the recent issues over exam paper errors do prompt a review of the system to be much more proactive in securing the system up front and not over-rely on retrospective activity and , practices. 4.4.8 The final topic on ‘who’s exam system was it anyway?’ was just touched on but this theme was referenced throughout the days programme, in terms of the approach which kicked off the day by defining the three main groups involved in exam delivery. Government, awarding bodies and exam centres With so many interested parties, from an outsiders point of view - who’s exam system is it? We all reference students as the customer of the services we provide but the EOA poses the question ‘do we as a stakeholder community provide a genuine system that truly serves their needs under the present setup?
5. Summary of actions:
As a result of some pretty heated debate on various topics it was not possible due to time constraints, to have a full round up of definitive actions to be take forward from this meeting. However, the meeting did help to provide an ongoing agenda for the EOA and how it must engage with the rest of the stakeholder community.
Despite the rush at the end and based upon feedback from attendees the following points were made:
5.1 All attendees welcomed the opportunity to review the exam office landscape and how they may need to react in future to its needs and concerns
5.2 Most welcomed the mix of attendees which represented many facets of the exam office community from all sides
5.3 However, a request for more exam office representation at future events was mentioned and this could be accommodated in future meetings of this style given more time, fewer topics and an appropriate accommodation to meet these needs
5.4 In addition requests for a broader range of awarding bodies, especially on the vocational side was mentioned and again could be accommodated under a more developed programme
5.5 The full impact of introducing ULNs , the A2C project and IT development in general needed a much greater period of time. However, this event did provide an appropriate forum to discuss debate and evaluate all these development as they evolve. The advantage of this style of forum is that any developments which impact on the exam office community are dealt with in context to the community most affected. Additional focus groups, forums etc can feed into this style of workshop meeting.
5.6 It was suggested that the EOA as an independent organization might want to undertake this sort of activity again on an annual basis, (consider having an event in the north and south) which brings all stakeholders to the table and ensures that all aspects of exam delivery and the impact of policy and practice are clearly defined to enhance a more effective and efficient exam system.
5.7 Along side other stakeholders the EOA is committed to supporting the present EDSU induction programme and the various other support services that are being proposed under the new Teaching Agency remit.
5.8 The EOA will be engaged with all members of the stakeholder community on the future of CPD and training for both ongoing new and experienced exam office staff over this forthcoming year. This will include developing a base level CPD and are already negotiating with Edge Hill University to support a level 5 qualification. The EOA objective is to provide a more holistic approval for the exam office community taking them job application through to career development which will benefit all the education community and not just exams. These resourceful people need to attracted to stay within education
5.9 The EOA will be enhancing its website Network facility to help and support all network groups (from awarding bodies, old QCDA groups, independents and new EOA promoted groups) across the country
5.10 Our members seek greater consultation with awarding bodies especially through the JCQ to help encourage greater cooperation on developing and maintaining future practices in all types of exam centres
5.11 A change in culture within centres, the EOA feels, at very little cost, will and can help to elevate many of the problems and issues facing members and non-members today. The EOA will work closely with unions, SLTs and the AoC to support its community appropriately in the interests of the students they serve.
5.12 In conclusion the EOA promoted this meeting as a ‘wake up call’ for all our stakeholder community as we approach a new year of activity.
Report: Fran Atkinson & Andrew Harland (EOA) 12 / 12 / 2011
|
