This report from the Education Committee looks at the administration of examinations for 15-19 year olds in England. The Committee expresses serious concerns about incentives in the exam system and about competition on syllabus content. Incentives in the system should be changed so the downward pressure through the competition of exam boards is mitigated. The Committee considers a number of options to change incentives, including: (i) A single board. This offers a simpler system, with no risk of competition, but the Committee believes the cost, risk and disruption outweigh the benefits; (ii) Franchising of subjects to exam boards. This removes syllabus competition, but again has downsides; (3) Or the current system of multiple boards. The Committee sees no benefit in competition on syllabus content, but the setting and marking of exams and associated administration, if properly regulated, could generate incentives and drive quality up, offering value for money to schools and colleges.The Committee also recommends the development of national syllabuses, accredited by Ofqual. The syllabuses would be developed by exam boards in conjunction with learned bodies and employer organisations and could therefore retain the benefits of competition on quality and the incentive for exam boards to innovate.

Additional written evidence is contained in Volume 3, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/educom

The Government's plans for replacing GCSEs with new English Baccalaureate Certificates in some subjects is trying to do too much, too fast. Introducing several fundamental changes at the same time and to a tight timetable will jeopardise the quality of the reforms and may threaten the stability of the wider exam system. GCSEs need "significant improvements" in order to restore public confidence in the exam system, but the Government still needs to make the case that the GCSE brand is so discredited that it is beyond repair. MPs are also concerned about the impact of the changes on subjects outside the English Baccalaureate, where students will be taking GCSEs for some time to come, according to the Government's plans. The report also questions how well the Government's proposals will serve lower attaining pupils, who are often the most disadvantaged. There is no evidence that the proposed changes will help to tackle under-achievement or narrow the attainment gap between the richest and poorest students any more effectively than GCSEs. The Government is also called upon to re-think its plans for a Statement of Achievement specifically for lower attaining pupils. MPs agree that changes are needed to the way in which exams are run, but they raise serious concerns about franchising subjects to exam boards. The report is critical of the Government's decision to abolish some GCSEs before publishing the outcomes of the National Curriculum Review and its proposed changes to the school accountability system. MPs also note the wide-ranging stakeholder opposition to many of the Government's proposals.

On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees. On title page: Returns to orders of the House of Commons dated 14 May 2013 (the Chairman of Ways and Means)

The Committee has summarised and evaluated it's work during the current Parliament in a short film entitled 'Closing the gap', available on the Committee's website. This report is intended to supplement the film and provide an overview of their work in different policy areas during the Parliament. Earlier summaries of their work in individual sessions of this Parliament are available on the website of the Liaison Committee. Based on discussions with key players in the fields of education and children's services the Committee decided that their future focus would be on the long tail of underachievement in education. This theme informed their work for the remainder of the Parliament as they sought to recommend changes to close the gap between disadvantaged children and young people, and their peers

Britain’s two recent referenda - on Brexit (2016) and on Scottish independence (2014) - have raised in the public mind fundamental questions about the future of the UK. It seems that for the first time, the public, the media and the political elite have woken up to the fact that in different parts of the UK, there are different histories, different aspirations and different imagined futures in relation to a whole range of vitally important political issues. But what the public debate often fails to recognise is that in many areas of public life – perhaps especially education – the UK is already a federal state and in key respects has been so for many years. The aim of this volume is therefore to take stock: to try and capture what the current state of educational policy and practice is across the whole of the UK. This has been achieved by commissioning two different papers from each of the four countries – Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. The first is an overview, exploring the distinctive history, principles and current policies of each country. The second paper has been specifically chosen as a case study of a key policy that highlights the distinctiveness of each country – the Foundation Phase for Wales, assessment policy in Scotland, ‘shared education’ initiatives in Northern Ireland and higher education policy in England. Taken together these eight papers give an important insight into the complexities of educational policy and practice across the whole of the UK today. This volume was originally published as a special issue of Oxford Review of Education.

The 2012 GCSE English results prompted significant controversy, which ultimately resulted in an application for judicial review. This report sets out the background to these events and identifies lessons to be learned. The problems with GCSE English can be traced back to the 2007-09 development phase of the qualification- in particular the turbulence which resulted from the shift away from a mostly linear to a modular system, combined with a high proportion of controlled assessment and generous marking tolerances. Exam board experts raised concerns at the time, but these were not acted upon by the regulator (the then-interim Ofqual). Further difficulties arose because of pressures from the school accountability system. The problems experienced with GCSE English in 2012 highlighted serious weaknesses in the moderation of speaking and listening, with consequences for grade awarding. The current status of Ofqual, as an independent regulator accountable to Parliament, is the right one. However, the Coalition Government is bringing in wholesale changes to GCSEs and A levels, to a tight timetable and at the same time. Ofqual must have systems in place. The Committee is also concerned that there is a rush towards separate exam systems for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, without careful reflection on what might be lost, or consensus that this is the right thing to do.