By Sammy Wright, Social Mobility Commissioner for Schools and Higher Education

The government has published a broadly sensible proposal for exams in 2021, with one glaring error.

To look at how we calculate grades without looking at learning loss and catch up at the same time leaves young people at risk of catastrophic unfairness.

The cancellation of examinations this summer is not because the pandemic makes them impossible to sit – the BTECs that went ahead last week are proof of this – but rather because the unequal impact of the pandemic makes it impossible for them to be fair.

Not on a level playing field

This is for the simple fact that disadvantaged students have had less digital access and schooling, resulting in higher learning loss than their more advantaged peers. They will not be on a level playing field.

As such, qualifications for 2021 can never be an objective measure of performance in the way we are used to, no matter how much we might wish it.

And if, as the proposal suggests, we ask teachers to ignore lost learning and attempt ‘objectivity’ while simultaneously suggesting that the grades they award should match the inflated profile of 2020 results, we are heading for a worse disaster than last year.

The destinations gap between the disadvantaged students most impacted by COVID-19 and their peers will yawn wider than ever.

Correct bias and ensure parity

Once we accept that these judgements must inevitably include some measure of a student’s potential, the government is right in saying we need to use assessment evidence – probably based on the cancelled exams – to inform teacher judgement, help correct bias and ensure parity.

But this evidence must only be a guide and a check. We also need to give teachers the opportunity to show how far a student currently is from their true potential.

For students who might have the ability to progress on to the next stage, but have high levels of lost learning, we must ensure that they are offered proper support and catch up at the start of the next phase of their education.

One solution is a fully funded extra year of education, for example expanding and covering tuition fees for the Foundation year that many universities already offer and adding a year of free post-16 provision.

Alternatively, we could provide an extra term on all post-16 and higher education (HE) courses. This could be made possible by increasing the funding of post-16 providers to enable them to provide more hours of teaching per week, and by adjusting course completion dates for HE.

The government’s proposals make several important and useful suggestions:

• Grades and assessments – The consultation is absolutely right to say that we must ensure that learning continues right to the end of the academic year. Grades are only an indicator. To progress, students must have, as far as possible, the education the grades represent. As such, we whole-heartedly welcome the proposal that grades should be linked to school-based assessments in the summer – without which many young people would disengage. But we caution that to simply make this a direct link, with students effectively given mock exam grades, would be the worst of both worlds and would open the door to systemic inequality.

• Ensuring clearing happens after appeals: It is also right to propose that we must have a robust system of appeals, designed in such a way that schools can submit their own evidence in good time to ensure everyone has a verified grade before the traditional results day. At all costs we must avoid the chaos of clearing in 2020 – and as such, we again call on UCAS and universities to ensure that clearing does not happen until all appeals have been responded to.

• Vocational education is important: The proposals for vocational and other qualifications are sensible in outline and rightly reflect the huge variety in these courses and the uses to which they are put, as well as the range of evidence already gathered and the skills of centres in assessing this. Getting the detail right will be essential, as will ensuring that students who elected not to sit BTECs in the confusion of the lockdown announcement are not penalised for this decision.

• Opportunity to sit exams: The consultation is right to make special provision for private entrants. Exam boards have already been planning an extra, one-off alternative exam in July for students who miss the main series. Given the proposed early release of grades to students, there seems little justification for not allowing any other student the option to sit this exam if they are not happy with the grade awarded by their institution and feel they have no grounds for appeal.

We cannot lose sight of the most important fact that lies at the heart of this. Ofqual must work closely with DfE to address policy, concurrently dealing with qualifications and learning loss.

No matter how grades are awarded, many students will be embarking on courses in September 2021 at a lower level than they may have done in a normal year. We must have a bold and comprehensive plan to enable the most disadvantaged groups to catch up with their more advantaged peers. It needs to be part of a long-term strategy, fully funded, planned by educationalists with cross party consensus, that looks forward for the next five years to support those most impacted by COVID-19 over their educational lifetime.

Many of us have been calling for this since the start of the pandemic. Now it is time for action.

Residents will be protected through the establishment of a national regulator which will ensure materials used to build homes will be made safer, the Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick has announced today (19 January 2021).

The regulator for construction products will have the power to remove any product from the market that presents a significant safety risk and prosecute any companies who flout the rules on product safety.

This follows recent testimony to the Grenfell Inquiry that shone a light on the dishonest practice by some manufacturers of construction products, including deliberate attempts to game the system and rig the results of safety tests.

The regulator will have strong enforcement powers including the ability to conduct its own product-testing when investigating concerns. Businesses must ensure that their products are safe before being sold in addition to testing products against safety standards.

This marks the next major chapter in the government’s fundamental overhaul of regulatory systems. The progress on regulatory reform includes the publication of an ambitious draft Building Safety Bill, representing the biggest improvements to regulations in 40 years, and a new Building Safety Regulator that is already up and running in shadow form.

Housing Secretary Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP said:

The Grenfell Inquiry has heard deeply disturbing allegations of malpractice by some construction product manufacturers and their employees, and of the weaknesses of the present product testing regime.

We are establishing a national regulator to address these concerns and a review into testing to ensure our national approach is fit for purpose. We will continue to listen to the evidence emerging in the Inquiry, and await the judge’s ultimate recommendation – but it is already clear that action is required now and that is what we are doing.

Business Minister and Minister for London Paul Scully said:

We all remember the tragic scenes at Grenfell Tower, and the entirely justified anger which so many of us in London and throughout the UK continue to feel at the failings it exposed.

This must never happen again, which is why we are launching a new authority to test and regulate the safety of construction materials, informed by the expertise that already exists within the Office for Product Safety and Standards.

Chair of the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety Dame Judith Hackitt said:

This is another really important step in delivering the new regulatory system for building safety. The evidence of poor practice and lack of enforcement in the past has been laid bare. As the industry itself starts to address its shortcomings I see a real opportunity to make great progress in conjunction with the national regulator.

The regulator will operate within the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) which will be expanded and given up to £10 million in funding to establish the new function. It will work with the Building Safety Regulator and Trading Standards to encourage and enforce compliance.

The government has also commissioned an independent review to examine weaknesses in previous testing  regimes for construction products, and to recommend how abuse of the testing system can be prevented.

It will be led by a panel of experts with regulatory, technical and construction industry experience and will report later this year with recommendations.

• The announcement follows recommendations in the Dame Judith Hackitt Review that industry and government must ensure that construction products are properly tested, certified, labelled and marketed.
• In July 2020, the government published in draft the Building Safety Bill. The Bill set out the biggest reforms to building safety regulation for a generation, and included provisions to strengthen and extend the scope of the powers available to government to regulate construction products.
• Together, the Fire Safety Bill, Fire Safety Order and the Building Safety Bill will revolutionise safety and oversight for residents in all buildings.
• The government has published an update of the progress and steps being taken since the Grenfell fire.