Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment: consultation analysis

Additional comments about the approach

Q8: Do you have any additional comments about the proposed approach to qualifications and assessment set out in this paper?

CCG discussions

Many of the CCGs were excited by the proposals, although they also felt it was going to be a considerable challenge implementing this degree of change. They especially responded to learners being at the centre of the decisions, which they felt was refreshing to see.

Links with users of qualifications: One group suggested a dedicated coordinator to ensure the development of active links with higher education and employers. This will lead to the strengthening of the credibility of the qualifications.

Motivating parents and learners: One CCG (Informing the Process) said that the new qualifications would need to appeal to both learners and parents/carers: this will help ensure that continuous assessment coursework will be sustained and the value of this method of learning will be recognised.

Artificial intelligence: CCGs commented that AI is increasingly on teachers' minds: they are concerned over its use, especially as the balance of assessment shifts away from formal examinations to include a wider range of options. The model will need to take this into account.

School and college survey

Implementation: Some School and College survey respondents felt that much more information on implementation will be required, as they will be tasked with involving families and communities in the learners' education. Others said they would like further information, including examples, about what the changes will be like in practice. Some asked for a clear plan and timetables from implementation to the end assessment.

Budget and expenditure: A few respondents thought the proposals were designed as a cost cutting exercise, specifically to reduce exam expenditure. However, most felt there will need to be a large investment of time, resources and staff training to deliver the proposed model, and were concerned that settings would not be able to afford the changes.

Disruptive change: Some of the respondents commented that the proposed changes would be substantial and disruptive, and many felt they did not seem realistic. Some suggested there had not been enough research to justify the changes. Some asked that the government rethink the proposals completely, and not implement any of the measures set out in the review.