A simple tweak to the funding of school exam boards would lead to better standards and more appropriate examinations at lower cost

The grade inflation of the UK A-level exams is well-documented, such that a need to introduce a new A* grade has occurred, following the introduction of an A* grade in GCSEs many years ago. This is another case of treating the symptoms of a problem rather than the causes. The most elegant solution is much easier and cheaper: simply let the universities set the exams.

The current peculiar system requires that schools are the bodies that pay the exam boards, which results in a horrible conflict of interests. Exam boards compete with each other for schools’ custom. Given that schools are rated by parents by the grades that the students each of school achieves, it is natural that firstly that examination standards gradually weaken and secondly that the marking of said exams becomes more lenient over time.

This has two obvious effects: Firstly, the universities are less able to distinguish between the best students due to the more lenient grading. Secondly, the students are educated to a lower standard than their predecessors. For this reason, degree courses now frequently have to extend over four years instead of the traditional three. This is particularly the case with science degrees where I am told by physics lecturers that much of the first year is now spent covering material that 30 years ago would have been covered at A-level.

The simple reform whereby either universities be required to pay the exam boards or else set their own exams would result in the exams being set for the benefit of the universities. Since it is the universities that receive the product of these examinations (the students), rather than the schools, who wave them goodbye at the age of 18, surely this structure would make more sense. Given that exam content would be tailored for subsequent use at universities, this would also make the national curriculum redundant and so remove a large unnecessary cost.

I am confused as to how we were saddled with the current dysfunctional structure. Certainly years ago, universities did set their own exams. For example, in the North of England, the JMB was set up as a de-merged entity responsible for the setting of exams for Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds Universities. This board later took in more universities’ exam-setting capabilities (presumably to reduce costs) and merged with the NEA to form probably the largest board, the NEAB. This does not answer the question though as to how this resulted in the schools being responsible for the payment of the boards. I wonder, does anyone know why this occurred?

This Telegraph article neatly illustrates the issue.