Completing GCSE, AS and A-level
Reform
SCORE’s response to the Ofqual consultation
30 July 2014
Page | 1
About SCORE
1. SCORE is a partnership of organisations, which aims to improve science education in UK schools
and colleges by supporting the development and implementation of effective education policy. The
partnership is currently chaired by Professor Julia Buckingham and comprises the Association for
Science Education, Institute of Physics, Royal Society, Royal Society of Chemistry and Society of
Biology.
General comments
2. In responses to previous consultations on qualifications reform, SCORE has argued that there needs
to be a transparent process put in place for the development and regulation of all aspects of
qualifications, including specifications and assessment. The Royal Society’s Vision for Science and
Mathematics Education1, published in June 2014, advocates the establishment of independent
curriculum and assessment bodies in England and Wales, with responsibility for setting out broad
criteria to promote equity and coherence across subjects. This is something SCORE as a whole
supports.
3. It is also important that there is appropriate input from subject experts, as well as oversight at subject
level outside the awarding organisations (AOs). While we are pleased that AOs will be encouraged to
work together in developing criteria, we continue to have concerns about the conflict of interest
inherent in a system that has organisations developing the criteria by which their products will then
be judged. The three subject bodies within SCORE, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of
Chemistry and the Society of Biology, have already established their own curriculum committees
which are working to define appropriate knowledge, understanding and skills at each educational
stage. We would propose that those committees have a formal place in the development of
qualifications.
4. SCORE is also unconvinced by the requirement in the consultation for AOs to consult with subject
experts during the process of defining the criteria. As we know from previous reform, this is often
done in a piecemeal and perfunctory way, with little opportunity for meaningful input, but with AOs
later claiming a significant contribution from those they have spoken to. It could also result in
organisations such as those in SCORE receiving multiple requests for assistance. In the current
system, SCORE recommends that AOs consult together in a coordinated, timely manner, as our
advice to all of them would be the same. In the long-term, SCORE advocates handing responsibility
for the development of criteria to an independent body.
5. SCORE has some concerns about the emphasis placed in the consultation on core content. The
development of understanding and competencies are more important than specifics of content, and
we worry that defining content too rigidly will stifle innovation in qualifications. It also highlights the
extent to which the qualifications system is driven by the existence of competing AOs; as we have
stated in previous consultation responses, a single awarding organisation offering multiple
specifications would remove many of the difficulties associated with regulating this particular market.
6. SCORE is not opposed to the principle of rationalising qualifications provision and is working towards
a position on what the most equitable and appropriate model for a curriculum at key stage 4 looks
like. However, it is important to ensure that if qualifications are removed, there is a proper alternative
in place. SCORE has some concerns that this is not the case for the GCSEs in electronics (for which
Design & Technology (DT): electronic products, is proposed as a replacement). The Electronics
course offers distinct learning outcomes and provides a route to further study of the sciences that will
not be replaced by DT or any other proposed course.
1
The Royal Society, A Vision for Science and Mathematics Education (June 2014), p. 71
Page | 2