EXAM OFFICERS


In the


exams office


The results of a recent survey of exams office staff shows


that they feel like they are working between a rock and a hard place. Andrew Harland explains


I


N A recent article in SecEd, Professor Mick Waters discussed how much pressure the education and exam system is under from all sides (Exam howlers, SecEd issue 303, Thursday, January 5, 2012). The Examination Officers’ Association (EOA) was set up in 2000 to represent the


exams office community and the vital role it plays in helping to deliver students successfully through the exam system. In an EOA member survey, published in


December 2011, it was quite clear that despite the importance of this role to a successful exam system there are still problems in how this community is expected to operate against a back-drop of constant policy change, over-elaborate and onerous individual awarding body procedures, and sometimes a cultural wall of indifference towards exams office support staff. The survey showed that for the majority of exam


office staff, “being valued for what you do is much more important than any financial reward”. Average salaries nationally have moved up from around £15,000 to between £18,000 and £20,000 for exam officers – who deal with the second biggest budget in schools and colleges, after salaries. For those exam office staff in exam delivery, which


links the internal activities of teaching and learning in schools (managed by teaching staff) with the external public exam system (managed by awarding bodies), they have a crucial role to play. When students enter an exam room to take public


exams, exams office staff must ensure nothing goes wrong. One can liken a “live” exam situation to a theatre performance where there is no rewind button. Like a theatre performance, everything has got to be set up correctly otherwise the whole outcome could be catastrophic. All the good work by teaching staff could be lost in


a moment. No retrospective practices or procedures by awarding bodies can bring back for those students their opportunity to excel.


SecEd • February 2 2012 However, at times, exams office staff feel they


have to operate “between a rock and a hard place”, with the background pressures of league tables and an exam system that seems to be creaking under a lack of confidence. As our survey points out, the majority of exam office staff state that despite some positive experiences, there still seems to be very little “real cultural change” at exam centre level. More than 75 per cent of established and experienced


exam office staff, which make up the core of the EOA membership, consider CPD as essential for delivering an effective exam system, but only 370 centres out of more than 6,000 have embraced targeted CPD training. While government agencies focus on new


exams office staff through their excellent induction programmes, the majority remain disenfranchised by having to rely too heavily on the goodwill of individual product and service-driven programmes run by the awarding bodies. Also, while the exams office community accepts


that these are hard times and that there may be a need to cut budgets, reorganise resources and even embrace redundancies, we are concerned about what happens when cuts are made directly to exam office staff. As the survey showed, nearly 60 per cent of


exam centres have no back-up plan, putting students’ exams at risk. If redundancies are made and stretched exam office staff get exam procedures wrong before, during or after the exam period then the costs to an already cash-strapped exam centre are critical, as is the potential damage to students’ performances and results. The message from exams office staff is clear – it


is not about money, either from government or their centres, but more about the cultural practices that seem to persist within exam centres – related to attitudes from academic staff and senior management. Add this experience to the indifference which many


exam office staff feel from awarding bodies, as they appear to “dump” more and more activity and expense onto already stretched exam centres, then one might get some idea of how difficult this role is. This government seeks a more effective and cost-


efficient exam system and the EOA welcomes any activity or development that will help to fulfil this objective, but not at the expense of undermining key support services, key relationships, and a viable environment for exams office staff to function in. We have stated on many occasions that the


relationship between exam centres and awarding bodies is vital in maintaining a sustainable, secure exam system. However, that relationship, some officers feel, still remains very one-sided with the exam office community feeling it can no longer keep up with all the demands being imposed upon them from awarding bodies. If we are to persist with multiple systems and


practices which are driven by individual awarding body products and services then there does need to be a review of future provision as the community into which these services are being directed is reaching breaking point.


With our survey showing an eight per cent swing


towards less exam office staff wanting to stay in post, that breaking point may already have been reached for many.


SecEd


• Andrew Harland is chief executive of the Examination Officers’ Association, an independent organisation which supports the professional development of exam office personnel across the UK. Visit www.examofficers.org.uk


The drawbacks of extended hours Psycho babble


IN MY last column we looked at the potential for longer school days to improve results and hypothetically provide opportunities and sanctuary for those who live in unsupportive, “chaotic” homes. While there are some clear benefits to a longer school day, there are also many drawbacks, and these are equally important. The first is that preparing our students for “work”


by encouraging them to adopt longer school hours is possibly a step in the wrong direction. Our culture is rife with stress, unhappiness, a poor work/ life balance and disenchantment. Taxing students with long hours


may end up creating physical and emotional fatigue, which undermines the theory that they will leave school with a clutch of great results and a “go-get-em” attitude to work. In fact, more than any other country, our over- tested students feel the need for a break (such as a gap year) before going on to further education or the workplace. We aren’t providing students with a balanced approach to work and family; with this scheme, we are telling them that working long hours is all that really matters. Second, adolescence is a time for


much more than “work”. It is a period of huge physical and emotional growth in which downtime, reflection, sleep, parental interaction, relaxation, the pursuit of and experimentation with interests and talents, and socialising play an important role in health and wellbeing. Similarly, while teachers may often be the


best role models for children from difficult home environments, they are not parents and nor should they be dumped with the responsibility for parenting. It is an absolute truth that we need to address


the culture of inadequate parenting and poverty, to provide a sense of community and responsibility, to offer children opportunities within their community for personal growth and development out of school hours, and to address the inequality that currently exists in our society.


Gang culture and broken homes are not the result


of shorter school hours and it would be a mistake to think that temporarily pulling children out of unhealthy environments will address a deeper issue. More generally, students will never learn to


manage their own time if their academic efforts are fully supervised; while homework may be a source of discontent for many students, it does force them to organise themselves and their time, and provides them the opportunity to work within a more elastic timeframe. Learning involves much more than sitting in


a classroom; it also involves exploration and the opportunity to absorb, amalgamate and consolidate information by applying it to real life through extra-curricular pursuits, curiosity, interaction and, importantly, time to dream, experiment, follow enthusiasms, and develop as a person. Our aim as educators is to provide students with the tools they need to embrace learning


– a lifelong pursuit and the foundation upon which healthy, valuable futures can be created; it is not to keep them off the street or to prepare them for working long, unhappy hours in the workplace. We must not ensure better results by


compromising their childhoods. Longer school hours also create difficult conditions for teachers, who often enter the profession because it allows them to fulfil their


dream of teaching alongside maintaining their own family lives. For the record, over half of the teachers involved in pilot schemes in the US leave schools each year because of long school days. This should come as no surprise. Our students are often challenging; keeping attention can be a nigh-on impossible task at times; and giving up a well- rounded work/life balance is unacceptable. Think very carefully before going down this


route; if it’s results you are after, you may come up trumps. But what would the cost be?


• Karen Sullivan is a bestselling author, psychologist and childcare expert. She returns after half-term.


7


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16