CRITICISM of the Learning and Skills Council over disasters in funding sixth forms and college building programmes misses the point. The PCS union is right to defend its members, pointing out that, over college buildings, the civil servants at the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills were fully informed. It is too easy for politicians to avoid blame for the disasters. Secretary of State John Denham accepted the resignation of Mark Haysom as chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council over the fiasco when the college buildings project ground to a halt, thus avoiding criticism being directed at him. But what of the role of Denham’s department? When DIUS permanent secretary Ian Watmore became the Football Association’s chief executive in February, was there more to it than a desire to see the Cup Final?
Problems surrounding the DIUS raise doubts about the extent to which ministers know of and control the decisions of their departments. The educational disasters that have engulfed this Government, such as the A-star at A Level controversy, suggest ministers are not always well briefed.
The top universities complained that they were unable to select the best candidates because there were simply too many A grades at A Level. This led to the Government agreeing to bring in a new grade with a dividing line at 90 per cent of marks. The current A grade is 80 per cent. This was controversial, especially as it was predicted to help the public schools and damage comprehensives. Nevertheless, schools minister Jim Knight ploughed ahead with the proposal, with a start date of summer 2010.
Then, in October last year, the National Council for Educational Excellence announced that the A-star was unpredictable and should not be used for university admissions pending a review. In February, universities minister David Lammy endorsed this and advised admissions tutors not use the new grade.
This made no sense. If an aircraft is deemed unfit to fly, it is grounded until all the problems are sorted out. The Government will not ground the A-star, but does not want it to be used. Its decision was flouted immediately by top universities, which announced their intention to use A-star from 2010. Indeed, tutors at Cambridge are demanding a cut off point of 90 per cent from this autumn. They do so despite clear warnings this will increase the numbers of public school admissions. Critics of the Government believe is the real reason behind Lammy’s decision.
It is certainly baffling that a new grade cannot be predicted. Why is a 90 per cent cut-off point harder for schools to predict than the existing 80 per cent mark? Why review it for three years when the debate took years and tests were undertaken by the officials and exam boards without picking up any technical problems?
Given that Jim Knight was told at the Education Select Committee more a year ago that A-star was likely to benefit the public schools, is the current imbroglio an attempt to cover up bad advice to the ministers? Of course, ministers do not write their own policy statements. They rely on the civil servants and advisors to do this. So how much do Knight and Lammy actually know about the problems of A-star?
Sadly, this Government has a history of taking bad educational decisions. In particular, the A-star controversy indicates problems inside education departments. Unlike the funding crises, however, this problem is relatively easy to put right. The A-star should be suspended until proper, open trials are conducted as part of a full review of exams and university admissions. Continuing with the current policy risks disaster.
