Email newsletter

HR news and jobs direct to your inbox

Get your ticket for the RMAs

Tables and single tickets available at the CIPD Recruitment Marketing Awards - book yours today!

Jobs - HR job search

International HR jobs
HR manager jobs
HR director jobs

Site map

Search and Subject Links

Quick links to subjects:

Search People Management

This site is the online magazine for the CIPD Opens in a new window

Home > All site sections > HR blogs and comment > HR blogs > Specialists' blog

Exposé of cheat’s charter?

Comment

Comment on the blogs

Become a member

Iain Mackinnon

12 Dec 2011 | 10:15

Forward to a colleague

Colleague’s email address

Your name

Your email address

Personal message
(Maximum of 120 characters)

Articles more than one month old can be viewed only by CIPD members or PM Subscribers.

When I stood for election as a student representative on my faculty board, a central plank in my ‘manifesto’ was that examiners’ reports should be open to all students. I had discovered that they did a report every year and their comments included helpful advice on what candidates had misunderstood. Given that the university was in the learning business, I thought this was information that would be helpful to us all, students and teachers. (The faculty board chairman deftly pre-empted what he, no doubt, knew would be an unpredictable discussion and put the reports in the library anyway: very much a ‘quick win’ for me, and a lesson learned about managing change!)

It’s with the same logic that Ofqual, the examinations regulator, requires exam boards to run feedback events. It is in everyone’s interests for the system to be open and fair, and for everyone to have the chance to learn and improve.

So, I don’t read the recent allegations in the Daily Telegraph of malpractice in the exam system as evidence of collusion by examiners in nudging up standards. Feedback is not collusion. If some individuals have gone too far, broken their contractual obligations and given hints about future exams, that’s cheating, not feedback and they should be dealt with severely. I’m confident they will be.

I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Pearson Education, which runs the Edexcel exam board. In taking up my role, I attended a number of briefing sessions in which managers explained, in detail, how the board was run, and the processes in place to ensure that our exams are managed rigorously and fairly.

I think many commentators would be amazed at the trouble taken by Edexcel – and the cost incurred in doing so – to meet standards we set ourselves which comfortably exceed those required of us by the regulator. So, far from fearing the enquiry that Michael Gove has announced, I welcome it. An honest, open, enquiry will show the doubters just how impressively things are done.

Comments

1. At 17:16 on 12 Dec 2011, Bill wrote:

I agree with Iain. As a trainer in commercial conflict management - for such organisations as the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, College of Estate Management and the Robert Gordon University - I stress that every script (which are all marked then moderated, then finally marked by a 'chief' examiner - all 'blind') receives good feedback and that examined scripts are if at all possible also returned to their writers with whatever comments are on them.
I cannot see why the highest degree feasible of transparency should apply at all levels, both as to the examination process and the students. It is, in the end, all for them.
Report this post

Member only - this article is archived for CIPD members & PM subscribers. Read the latest HR news without logging in, or log in below to continue reading.