Nick Seaton: Who will solve our schools’ exam problem?

These ill-considered views were published on Ms Nesbit’s last day as head of Ofqual, the quango charged with maintaining standards and integrity in school qualifications.

For those who don’t care much about standards, Ms Nesbit’s proposal has many attractions. Computers and the wide-ranging technology that has developed from them are brilliant aids to communication. For the purposes of collecting and manipulating information, they have transformed our lives. But can they yet replace human dexterity or the human brain?

Ms Nesbit, apparently, thinks they can. She approves the trend towards greater use of computers in schools and doesn’t believe that GCSE exams or A-levels have become easier.

It’s doubtful that she has objective research proving that heavy use of computers in schools raises standards – it doesn’t seem to exist. And does she ever ask parents, university staff or employers, what they think about standards? How can flitting from page to page on the internet replace the face-to-face interaction between a good teacher and his or her pupil? Or regular contact with good books?

Computerised testing makes sense for multiple-choice exams requiring only “tick-box” answers, or for exams requiring only low levels of knowledge that can be demonstrated with figures or very few words.

But is this all we should expect from national qualifications by which the performance of schools, and the knowledge and abilities of 16- and 18-year-olds are measured?

In any event, computerised exams would require thousands of new computers in schools and colleges, all needing regular updating to guarantee they all operated at the same speed. Cheating would be easier and hand-writing, which is already at a low ebb, would be seriously undermined. Serious essay questions would almost certainly disappear.

What about our beautiful English language, renowned for its subtlety of expression? Unlike many other languages, English may have half-a-dozen words to describe something – all with slightly different meanings and implications. Is this huge bonus to be lost to future generations?

A computer-based exam system would create other problems, too, especially when the public sector’s poor record on computer technology is considered. Computerisation would make it easy to blame “the system” when things go wrong. It would also alleviate the recruitment of thousands of qualified exam markers year after year. These would be bonuses for the system, but damaging for everyone else.

Exams do need improvement, but less-disruptive options are open to Ms Nisbet’s successor at Ofqual, if he or she wishes to use them. The clue lies in the new English Baccalaureate or “EBac” proposed by Ministers. This uses five key subjects as a general measure of knowledge and performance: English, maths, science, history or geography and a foreign language.

Why doesn’t Ofqual follow this lead and approve fewer, more rigorous, exams? Does it make sense to offer youngsters below the age of 16 the opportunity to spend valuable lesson time on any of seven or more different science exams? Why give approval to (constantly changing) information technology, plus seven different design and technology exams? Or communication studies, media/film/TV studies or even sociology?

Why has Ofqual accredited around 90 AS and A-levels (almost all triplicated as there are three exam boards), including critical thinking, performing/expressive arts, psychology, and political studies?

Wouldn’t the time at school be better spent on ensuring high standards in essential subjects for everyone and leaving dubious, specialised subjects for the higher education sector, if there is demand?

There could certainly be debate about which subjects should and should not offer qualifications with government-accredited approval in schools. But who, apart from bureaucrats in the bloated educational establishment, benefits from so many options?

In theory, the exam boards are commercial organisations, but the market in which they operate is distorted by over-dependence on the taxpayers’ money that pays for exam entries. And, of course, the temptation to offer easier, more “user-friendly” exams to steal a march on their equally dependent competitors.

Ofqual has helped to create a systemic problem, which is becoming difficult to manage. Instead of offering half-baked solutions, it’s time for Ofqual to solve it.

Nick Seaton, from York, is chairman of the Campaign for Real Education.