Colleges have “nothing to fear” about being brought into public ownership, the head of their membership organisation told MPs today as he refused to give a straight answer on whether he supports the potential move.

Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes was one of a number of witnesses to be quizzed by the education select committee this morning about the upcoming FE White Paper, which education secretary Gavin Williamson claims will be “revolutionary”.

One hot topic that led to a tense exchange between Hughes and committee chair Robert Halfon was the issue of whether colleges in England should be brought back into public ownership – an option that is being considered by the Department for Education, as revealed by FE Week in May.

After Halfon asked for a “yes or no” answer on whether he supports this option, Hughes said: “I don’t think it is a straight yes or no answer. Sorry I’m going to be a politician on this. I think what we need is the right relationship. We need the freedoms and flexibilities. We need to get them as strategic players.”

The chair insisted that this is an important issue which will make a difference to college autonomy, control and funding and that the head of the AoC “should be able to give a view on”.

Hughes insisted that he is “agnostic”, stating that this is a decision to be made “at the end of the white paper by the ONS [Office for National Statistics] not a front decision”, adding that it “might be that they [colleges] become public sector” as they are “public ethos institutions”.

The AoC boss later said that in Scotland and Northern Ireland, colleges are in the public sector and they are “thriving and doing well” so there is “nothing to fear about it”.

“The thing is about the right investment and right relationship,” he continued. “That might mean they get designated public sector, I think that is fine but what we mustn’t lose is their ability to gain investment from employers.”

Colleges were technically brought out of public ownership nine years ago by the ONS when the Education Act 2011 was introduced.

This legislation removed the need for colleges to seek consent before borrowing from banks and limited government powers to intervene where a college is being mismanaged or is performing poorly.

Other witnesses to be asked for their opinion on colleges being brought back into public ownership included Kirstie Donnelly, chief executive of the City and Guilds Group, and Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association.

Donnelly said her “stance is that they [colleges] need to be more owned by the employer…the employer has to have more say in what colleges deliver”.

Watkin said sixth form colleges, which have had the option of converting to academy status and therefore becoming publicly owned since 2015, have had a “positive experience” of the change.

But he stressed it is “good to give colleges a choice about whether to join the public sector or not because local context can be really important in the decision”.

The FE White Paper is due to be published this autumn.

 

Full exchange between Hughes and Halfon during today’s hearing:

Halfon: On the public ownership issue. I don’t feel you gave me a straight answer on it. Yes or no should FE colleges be brought back into the public sector?

 

Hughes: I don’t think it is a straight yes or no answer. Sorry I’m going to be a politician on this. I think what we need is the right relationship. We need the freedoms and flexibilities. We need to get them as strategic players.

 

Halfon: That doesn’t mean anything. It is a big thing and it is being talked about. The head of the AoC should be able to give a view on it surely.

 

Hughes: The ONS will decide whether they are public or private – the relationship is what we want to focus on and then the ONS make that decision.

I am agnostic I’m sorry. It is the end of the white paper decision by the ONS not a front decision. It might be that they become public sector. They are public ethos institutions.

 

Halfon: I don’t accept it won’t make any difference because there will be issues of autonomy and control and funding and all kinds of things.

David I have to say I don’t think you should duck this. As head of the AoC you must have a view on it either way you can’t be agnostic on something as fundamental as whether or not all colleges should be brought back into the public sector.

 

Hughes: I’ll do another political answer – in Scotland and Northern Ireland they are public sector, they are thriving and they are doing well. There is nothing to fear about it. The thing is about the right investment and right relationship. That might mean they get designated public sector, I think that is fine but what we mustn’t lose is their ability to gain investment from employers.

A lack of funding is holding colleges back from hiring “specific business innovation account managers” to help initiate an “innovation revolution”, a new survey has suggested.

The Association of Colleges has today published research into the college sector’s role in supporting the development of new and existing businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Of the 65 colleges that responded, 78 per cent (51) said they currently offer support through “dedicated account managers who work with or offer growth support to specific local businesses and/or SMEs”.

However, half of those colleges providing account managers said the roles did not provide “specific industry sector technical level support”.

According to the survey, one college indicated that the business develop co-ordinators they employ are “not qualified or experienced enough to offer high level technical support or growth and that the salary level required for someone qualified to undertake the necessary level of consultancy would be untenable for the college when based on return on investment”.

Meanwhile, more than 90 per cent of the responding colleges said they did not offer “innovation zones” for local businesses, while 60 per cent do not provide any space for SMEs to “engage with each other and stimulate innovation and business ideas”.

When asked to consider which barriers would have to be removed in order for them to consider increasing support for business innovation, 72 per cent of colleges (47) said there was a “lack of financial support to fund specific business innovation account managers” and 75 per cent (49) cited a lack of capital funding to develop business innovation spaces.

The AoC’s report said: “Some colleges recognise that they could do more with additional sector specific, technical staff to provide direct technical support for SMEs and to support innovation and development activity. Lack of funding and limited resources impact on what can be offered.”

The association has now called on the government to “provide support in capital and revenue funding and set out a national remit for colleges to lead in this space to initiate a place-based business and skills innovation revolution”.

AoC chief executive David Hughes said: “Colleges want to do more to support SMEs to develop their innovation, business and skills strategies and help attract inward investment. Their work with businesses is a key priority and it brings important knowledge exchange to help inform curriculum and offer students real-life experiences.  With the right tailored support from the government and national recognition, colleges could do so much more in this space.

“The foundations are there to build on. With stronger partnerships and sufficient funding and time, colleges could play a greater role in providing innovation support to local businesses and SMEs.”

He added that he would “urge” the Department for Education to use the upcoming FE white paper to “make the case for business innovation and a real turning point for colleges.

“We could quickly create a system that allows colleges to lead the way in a business innovation and skills revolution as the economy recovers.”

The DfE was approached for comment.

Ofqual has ruled out the use of calculated grades to award vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs) again.

Following this year’s exams fiasco, the regulator ran a consultation on how to grade BTEC and other vocational learners next year should Covid-19 continue to disrupt normal assessments.

The outcome has been published today and states that rather than using centre-assessed grades, awarding bodies will instead be given the freedom to adapt their assessment arrangements to mitigate any impact of the pandemic.

This could include, according to Ofqual, “widening assessment windows to provide greater flexibility, streamlining assessments to free up time for teaching and learning, or changing some assessment requirements to deal with the impact of any ongoing social distancing measures, such as group performances”.

However, Ofqual has made clear that if VTQs can progress as normal, their assessments should not be adapted.

The approach announced today only applies to VTQs, not GCSEs or A-levels.

Centre-assessed grades were introduced for some VTQ learners this year to replace exams and assessments which had been cancelled owing to the Covid-19 outbreak.

Others were allowed to have their assessments adapted by, for example, using online tests, while the rest had their assessments delayed.

Dame Glenys Stacey (pictured), acting chief regulator at Ofqual, said: “In many cases, awarding organisations will be able to deliver VTQs as normal, but where this is not possible it is important that any changes continue to deliver qualifications that are a valid and reliable indication of knowledge, understanding, skills or practical competence.

“We will continue to work with awarding organisations to support their decision-making on when adaptations are necessary and what adaptations are appropriate for different qualifications. The work we are already doing to facilitate the development of common approaches across similar sectors and types of qualifications will also continue.”

Ofqual is currently working up a plan B for awarding GCSE and A-levels next year, which could include online tests if traditional exams cannot be sat.

The regulator said there was a “high level of agreement” to the proposals in its consultation for awarding VTQs in 2020/21, and that all of its recommendations (click here) will now be implemented in full.

Ofqual’s second draft extended extraordinary regulatory framework, on which it has launched a new consultation today, sets out the “regulatory arrangements and guidance with which awarding organisations must comply when adapting their qualifications”.

The regulator said it is important that schools, colleges and training providers receive information about VTQ adaptations in a “timely and consistent way” and they are working with stakeholders to “agree deadlines by when awarding organisations will provide qualification specific information to their centres”.

Principals have been urged to stop students and staff with a sore throat or headache from getting unnecessary coronavirus tests to prevent a surge in demand that could threaten the government’s testing capacity, health officials have warned.

Demand for testing in Scotland saw a “huge increase” from people without coronavirus symptoms as schools went back last month.

Schools and colleges in England, which mostly start to reopen this week, have now been told that a similar rise must be avoided to ensure testing capacity is prioritised for those with symptoms, and to avoid children and their families “self-isolating unnecessarily”.

A letter to schools and colleges from Public Health England and the NHS Test and Trace states: “Crucial to our overall support for schools and colleges is ensuring that everyone with coronavirus symptoms has access to a test as soon as they develop those symptoms.

“It is vital that we learn from the recent Scottish experience, where the return of schools saw a huge increase in demand for tests from people without coronavirus symptoms.

“We want to avoid a similar surge in test demand as England’s schools and colleges return to ensure that we continue to prioritise our testing capacity for those with symptoms and to avoid children, students and their families self-isolating unnecessarily.”

The letter states students and staff should only be tested if they develop one or more of the main coronavirus symptoms, or if instructed to by a healthcare provider. The three main symptoms are a high temperature, a new, continuous cough, or a loss of taste or smell.

There is also “no need” for full households to also have a test, unless they are also symptomatic, the guidance states.

The letter adds: “As schools and colleges across England return, pupils and students may feel unwell for example with a sore throat, stomach upset or a headache.

“These pupils and students don’t need to book a test but may need to stay off school or college and seek medical advice through their GP or pharmacist as usual. Please do communicate this to the parents of the children at your school and the students at your college; we know that they listen to you and trust your advice.”

It adds that directors of Public Health and local PHE Health Protection teams are “on hand to support you on this most vital mission to get our children and students back to school and college, learning happily and safely”.

The letters also clarifies that students and staff who were on the shielding list can now be welcomed back, unless they are in a lockdown area with specific shielding requirements, have been advised to self-isolate or have recently been advised to remain off school or college – for instance with a new serious diagnosis such as active cancer.

The letter is signed by Yvonne Doyle, director of health protection at PHE and Susan Hopkins, interim chief medical adviser of NHS Test and Trace.

 

Ofqual has confirmed exams will go ahead next year come what may, saying that it is looking at online tests as a ‘plan B’ incase of lockdown disruption.

The regulator was quizzed on what the 2021 exam series will look like for year 13 students during an education select committee hearing this morning, particularly in cases where students may not be able to sit the traditional exams planned for next year.

Roger Taylor, Ofqual’s chair, said it was “absolutely essential that students are themselves able to take part in some kind of fair, comparative test that gives them the ability on a level playing field to demonstrate their skills and knowledge and to be able to influence their own future.”

When pressed how this would work in case of local lockdowns, he added: “There are mechanisms including, for example, using online tests. We feel we have enough time come up with a solution to that problem.”

Since June, Ofqual has been considering whether to delay exams next year. Taylor said he is “very conscious of the enormous benefit from delays and recognise the value in trying to make this work”.

But Julie Swan, the regulator’s executive director for general qualifications, said that while this is not Ofqual’s decision to make alone, they are aiming to publish their conclusion with the Department for Education in the coming weeks rather than months.

“We absolutely recognise the need for some certainty,” she added.

However Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “This sounds very difficult to manage at any scale, and it would surely be prudent to have a contingency plan in place based on some form of assessment in the autumn and spring term which could be used to reliably inform grades in the event that students are unable to sit exams.

“We are very concerned that there is no such back-up plan, and that time is fast slipping away in which to put such a strategy in place.”

However another year of using some form of centre assessed grades does not look likely.

“We have argued that traditional exams would be, we should be trying to make those happen,” Taylor told MPs.

“We do not think that there is a sensible mechanism whereby you can take highly variable evidence from a range of different circumstances and attempt to construct something that is a trustworthy way of discriminating between students on the base of their knowledge and skills.”

Senior staff from the exams regulator were hauled infront of the education select committee today where they were grilled on this year’s results fiasco.

Ofqual has been criticised for keeping quiet while chaos reigned on their now infamous grades-awarded-by-mutant-algorithm system, while ministers pushed blame their way. But the Ofqual team’s accounts seem to have shifted that blame squarely back onto ministers.

There was a hell of a lot to cover, but here are some of the key points:

 

1. Williamson’s claims he was unaware of problems look like bunkum

One of the more interesting developments post the exams fallout was the continued insistence from ministers, mostly education secretary Gavin Williamson, that he first knew there were issues with calculated grades a couple of days AFTER pupils got results.

MPs were told today that Ofqual was meeting with ministers on a weekly basis throughout the period. The exams regulator’s first advice to ministers was also it would be “challenging if not impossible to attempt to moderate estimates in a way that is fair for all students”.

They also briefed Number 10 on August 7^th in a paper that was “very alert to the risks” the results posed to disadvantaged, outlier students, centre expecting improved grades and those with lower entry cohorts (who were actually advantaged by the algorithm).

 

2. Ofqual advised against calculated grades back in March

Interestingly, Taylor also revealed Ofqual’s initial recommendations to Williamson at the outset in March was to, first of all, try to hold exams in a socially distanced manner.

The second option was  to delay exams, and the third option was to look at some form of calculated grade, but Taylor suggested this should be some form of teacher certificate, rather than attempting to replicate exam grades.

However, Taylor said the decision soon came, from Williamson, to scrap exams and award calculated grades – without any further consultation with Ofqual.

 

3. How the 11^th hour ‘mock appeal’ announcement started the downfall

Following the outcry in Scotland over their calculated results, Williamson announced his ill-fated “triple lock” appeals route – allowing pupils to appeal a grade if they had a mock that was higher.

It appears this was a key first link in a chain of chaos that led to pupils being awarded CAGs.

Up until this stage, it seemed Ofqual – while knowing its algorithm had flaws – was confident it could deal with the fallout. Its approach was thus: a system to contact schools and colleges who had pupils with “outlier” grade changes to make sure they knew they had a “good” case to appeal, and also the autumn resits (with universities holding open students’ places).

Taylor said he told Williamson he was “not confident” the new mocks appeals route “could be delivered … to ensure valid and trustworthy grades were issued”.

Nonetheless, Ofqual decided it should find a way to implement this, and after getting agreement from the DfE and Williamson’s office, published the guidance on Saturday afternoon.

But Ofqual was contacted by Williamson on Saturday evening at around 8pm saying this guidance wasn’t in line with government policy (and the guidance was swiftly removed).

A hastily-convened Ofqual board, meeting at 10pm that evening, then realised the situation was “rapidly getting out of control”, Taylor said, with policies “we felt would not be consistent with our legal duties”. (He said the mock appeals route would have led to around 85 per cent of pupils receiving their CAG, and a small number not receiving them – but this would have also taken an age to happen).

By Sunday evening, the opinion from Ofqual was there was no way to carry on “in an orderly manner” and the “only way out” was to move towards awarding CAGs.

 

4. Lessons learnt? Don’t try to replicate grades

As we’ve covered here, Ofqual has now admitted it was a “fundamental mistake” to believe that calculated grades would ever be accepted by the public – and said tweaks to the algorithm wouldn’t have made it any better.

Elaborating on this, Taylor said one of the lessons learned was “if you can’t replicate normal grades, don’t pretend you can” – pointing out that the objective was actually to enable progress for students onto their next step (rather than award GCSE grades) and that’s what seemed to have got lost in all this.

Note: this is important for decisions made for next year’s exam series – and it looks like any form of CAGs is totally off the table, with the focus instead on finding ways to deliver tests come what may.

 

5. College ‘concerns’ over ‘ill-equipped’ students

Julie Swan, Ofqual’s executive director, told MPs that the regulator is now hearing “some concern” from general FE colleges and sixth form colleges over students which received their teacher-assessed grades from schools that were over “optimistic” about what they would have realistically achieved in an exam.

The centre assessed grades now “indicate a level of ability that isn’t actually very accurate”.

“There are concerns that they [students] might progress onto a course for which they are now ill-equipped for,” she added.

 

6. Delaying exams next year has ‘enormous benefits’

Currently, government is proposing exams go ahead with some tweaks to assessments in some subjects.

But what about local lockdowns throwing this off-course? Swan said having an extra set of papers for pupils that may be ill, for instance, is something being considered.

Taylor also said another plan b could be using online tests.

The government has been consulting on plans to delay exams since June. While Taylor said there would be “enormous benefit” to delays, Ofqual still won’t commit to a date for when schools, colleges and pupils will have clarity. All they would say was a decision would be “weeks, rather than a period of months” away.

 

7. A whole new (transparent) world?

One of the big criticisms of Ofqual has been its secrecy over how the algorithm will work. This was touched upon a few times during the hearing.

Taylor said the “primary constraints” on transparency was not to publish information on how the system would work that could influence how teachers made their grades.

They also held onto publishing full details of the algorithm because that could lead to pupils identifying what grades they got before results day.

Michelle Meadows, executive director for strategy, added: “Our aim throughout has been to be transparent about the limitations of the model, and that’s why we did publish those metrics on results day so people could understand the limitations of what’s possible with statistical moderation like this.”

Meanwhile, Ian Mearns MP called for “deep, forensic” analysis on the CAGs submitted by schools and colleges to work out, for instance, how many schools and colleges “were gaming it”.

Taylor said he wouldn’t publish the full data – as it involves confidential informaiton – but said it’s “absolutely essential that independent researchers have access to this, in a secure way, so lessons can be learnt”.

And Taylor also committed to publishing Ofqual board minutes (the last of which was published in September last year).

 

8. But will Ofqual survive?

Committee chair Robert Halfon ended the hearing by asking whether Ofqual was still fit for purpose amid rumours the body could have a similar ending to Public Health England.

One of Halfon’s big issues was over a lack of communication from the regulator during the chaos (or “hiding away in the Ofqual attic”, as he put it). He highlighted Ofqual’s communications team included 11 people, with a job advert out for another comms person on £80,000.

Dame Glenys Stacey, who has stepped in as acting chief regulator after Sally Collier stepped down, said she has a “strong interest” in communications capacity, and that structure was “under active review”.

But she claimed the whole debacle had “shown the importance of an independent regulator”.

“We do have very important, very rare skills and expertise .. yes we’ve had an enormously difficult year… but we do have an important job to do,” she added.

Taylor said there had been a “major blow to confidence in Ofqual”, but claimed the regulator had a good track record over the previous decade on, for instance, delivering new GCSEs.

When asked about reform, Stacey added: “Yes I will look at the way Ofqual works, of course I will, and if changes are needed I’ll put those in play.”

Ofsted has today published further details about how their “interim visits” of FE providers will work this autumn.

The watchdog stressed these will not be routine inspections and will not result in a judgement grade.

The guidance follows an announcement in July that Ofsted would use a phased return to routine inspections, following a pause to this activity as result of Covid-19. The full inspection regime is planned to resume in January 2021.

Some monitoring visit activity of new providers will also resume from this month.

Here is what providers need to know…

 

When will the interim visits begin?

September 28 to the end of December 2020.

 

The purpose of interim visits which could trigger a full inspection

Ofsted states that the interim visits are to help learners, parents, employers and government “understand how providers are meeting the needs of students and apprentices in this period, including learners with high needs and those with special educational needs and disabilities”.

While existing Ofsted grades will not change as a result of the visit, the watchdog will publish the outcomes of the visits in a “brief report to share what steps are being taken to enable learners to resume a full programme of education or training”.

However, “significant concerns” identified on an interim visit could trigger an early full inspection or a monitoring visit.

 

How long will the visits last and what will Ofsted explore?

Each interim visit will last two working and days and inspectors will explore three themes:

1. What actions are leaders taking to ensure that they provide an appropriate curriculum that meets the reasonable needs of learners and stakeholders and adapts to changed circumstances?
2. What steps are leaders, managers and staff taking to ensure that the approaches used for building knowledge and skills are appropriate to meet the reasonable needs of learners?
3. How are leaders ensuring that learners are safe and well informed about potential risks, including from online sources?

Leaders “do not need to prepare anything for the visit, beyond what is part of normal business for the provider”.

Inspectors will try to work on site at the provider’s premises “wherever possible”, but recognise it may be necessary to carry out some meetings, discussions or aspects of the visit remotely.

Conversations with senior leaders will be the “main source of evidence”. Inspectors will want to “discuss the impact of Covid-19 and identify any barriers that the provider is facing in managing the return to full education and training for all learners”.

Inspectors will talk to staff and learners “if it is safe and appropriate to do so” and they may also speak to subcontractors, employers and other stakeholders.

Ofsted made clear they will not carry out “deep dives” or directly observe teaching or training. However, they may look at the provider’s records, especially on safeguarding.

 

Providers will be given at least 2 days’ notice, but can request a deferral

The watchdog said they will normally notify a provider of an interim visit up to two working days before the on-site stage of the visit, but this could be extended to four working days if the provider or college is particularly large.

A provider may request a deferral of an interim visit but it will be for Ofsted to decide whether a deferral should be granted “in accordance with our deferral policy”.

 

Which providers will be chosen for autumn visits?

Ofsted will prioritise providers with an ‘inadequate’ or ‘requires improvement’ inspection grade, providers that the watchdog has identified “risks and concerns” about, as well as a sample of ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ providers and newly merged colleges.

 

Letters will be published within 38 working days of a visit

Ofsted says it will write to the provider within 18 working days of the end of the visit, setting out in a draft report what inspectors found.

The provider will then have five working days to comment on the draft report, inspection process and findings. Ofsted will “consider all comments and we will respond to the comments when we share the final report with the provider” within 30 working days after the visit.

If the provider wishes to submit a formal complaint, it will have until the end of the fifth working day after receiving the final report to do so.

Ofsted will normally publish the report on its website within 38 working days of the end of the visit, but this could be delayed if a complaint is being investigated.

The watchdog said it may share the provisional findings, before a report is published, with the FE Commissioner, ESFA, DfE, Ofqual, Office for Students or devolved authorities.

 

New provider monitoring visits to continue

From September 28, Ofsted will resume monitoring visits to new providers if they were judged to be making ‘insufficient progress’ against one or more themes at their previous early monitoring visit and would have been due their full inspection up to or during this interim phase but have not received it because of the suspension of routine inspections

Both of the above factors must apply.

The “fundamental mistake” made by Ofqual throughout this year’s exams debacle was to believe that its calculated grades “would ever be acceptable to the public”, the regulator’s chair has said.

Roger Taylor appeared in front of the education select committee this morning to answer for the errors made in deciding GCSE and A-level grades this summer, namely the “mutant algorithm” as described by prime minister Boris Johnson.

He lifted on the lid on the internal battle between Ofqual and the education secretary Gavin Williamson – stating that policies such as the last minute decision to use mock grades were getting “out of control”.

He also revealed that the regulator’s “first choice” at the beginning of lockdown was to hold socially distanced exams this summer – but Williamson opted to cancel them and use standardised grades without consultation.

In a statement provided to the committee by Taylor, published during the hearing, he said: “The blame lies with us collectively – all of us who failed to design a mechanism for awarding grades that was acceptable to the public and met the secretary of state’s policy intent of ensuring grades were awarded in a way consistent with the previous year.”

Delivering calculated grades was ‘impossible task’

But he said it was an “impossible task”, adding a “better” algorithm would not have made outcomes more acceptable, nor that “more effective communications effort would have overcome this”.

He added that with “hindsight it appears unlikely that we could ever have delivered this policy successfully” and during the hearing stated that “the fundamental mistake was to believe that this would ever be acceptable to the public”.

Taylor told the committee of MPs that Ofqual’s “initial advice” to Williamson was that the “best way to handle this [lockdown] was to try and hold exams in a socially distanced manner, that our second option was to delay exams but the third option if neither of these were acceptable would be to have to try and look at some form of calculated grade”.

But it was Williamson who then “subsequently took the decision and announced without further consultation with Ofqual that exams were to be cancelled and a system of calculated grades were to be implemented”.

Ofqual could have rejected the government’s demand for such a system – but said it didn’t because it was “decided that this was in the best interests of students, so that they could progress to their next stage of education, training or work”.

DfE was ‘fully informed’ of the risks

Taylor also said the DfE was “fully informed about the work we were doing and the approach we intended to take to qualifications, the risks and impact on results as they emerged. However, we are ultimately responsible for the decisions that fall to us as the regulator.”

This explicitly contradicts claims by Williamson that he was unaware of problems with the results until after they were delivered to pupils.

On August 11 the Department for Education announced eleventh hour plans to give students the choice to use mock grades instead of standardised grades before telling Ofqual, according to Taylor.

The chair said the regulator’s advice to the education secretary at this point was that “we could not be confident that this could be delivered within the statutory duties of Ofqual to ensure that valid and trustworthy grades were being issued”.

But the “secretary of state as he is entitled to do nonetheless announced that that was the policy of the government”.

Taylor claimed Ofqual was “very concerned that this idea of a valid mock exam had no real credible meaning but we consulted very rapidly and developed an approach that we felt would be consistent with awarding valid qualifications”.

They then agreed that “with the DfE and with our understanding with the secretary of state’s office” and published this on the August 15.

Taylor said Ofqual was then contacted by Williamson later that evening and was “informed that this was in fact not to his mind in line with government policy”.

The Ofqual board was pulled together late that evening and they “realised we were in a situation that was rapidly getting out of control, that there were policies being recommended and strongly advocated by the secretary of state that we felt would not be consistent with our legal duties and that there was a growing risk around delivering any form of mock appeals result in a way that would be acceptable as a reasonable way to award grades”.