‘It wasn't an error': Ofqual boss defends regulator after withdrawn data row
In his first interview with a national media organisation since his permanent appointment as head of Ofqual, and just weeks after the data was dramatically pulled, Sir Ian Bauckham said there had been no error in the figures, blaming instead the way they had been interpreted.
He also denied that the data 'misunderstanding', which comes five years after Ofqual's disastrous attempt during Covid to award GCSE and A-level grades by algorithm, had further undermined confidence in the organisation, saying: 'We've got a qualification system in this country to be proud of.'
In an interview with the Guardian, the chief regulator also addressed the debate surrounding the government's curriculum and assessment review, warning against any wholesale move from exams to coursework because of concerns about students' growing use of AI.
He also urged caution over the introduction of digital exams, saying that any assessment innovation must be secure and deliverable, and should not disadvantage poorer students who may not have had the same access to digital devices and software as their wealthier peers.
Ofqual, which was set up in 2010 to regulate qualifications in England, shocked the education sector when it announced on 17 July that it was withdrawing official statistics for special access arrangements for exams going back to 2014, because they 'significantly overstated' the number of students.
Access arrangements are adjustments to exams for students with special needs, disabilities or injuries, with 25% extra time being the most common. In 2012-13, 107,000 students in England were granted extra time, but in 2024 Ofqual said it was nearly 420,000 students, an increase of nearly 300%.
The data appeared to show that 30% of students had been granted 25% extra time last year, with particularly high rates in private schools where nearly 42% of students received adjustments. Ofqual now thinks the actual rate is far lower.
Bauckham said the confusion had arisen because, rather than showing access arrangements solely for students entered for GCSEs and A-levels in one particular year, the data includes a much broader list of access arrangements.
Each access arrangement lasts two years. There can be duplicate applications for the same student, and the list may include pupils with special arrangements in place who did not sit exams that year at all.
'It wasn't an error, because the published data only ever claimed to be the long list of approved access arrangements,' Bauckham said. 'It never claimed to be that data mapped against actual exam entries, but it was interpreted as that.
'I've been clear that moving forward … we need to publish actual granted access arrangements that relate to actual entries in the year in question.'
He said the final figure is likely to be much more in line with the proportion of pupils in England with special education needs and disabilities (Send), which according to the most recent official statistics stands at 19.5%, including those with education, health and care plans
'Just because this figure is significantly lower, doesn't mean that there may not have been a rising trend,' Bauckham added. 'I would be very surprised indeed if the final data, when we're able to pinpoint it, doesn't indicate a rising trend. So I don't think it takes away the problem, but it alters the scale of what we're thinking about.'
On what appeared to be a growing gap between the use of access arrangements between private and state schools, he said: 'Of course in independent schools there is a slightly higher proportion of Send than there is in state-funded schools.
'I don't think it's unreasonable to hypothesise that there will still be a difference between state-funded schools and independent schools, not least because of that higher Send figure, but I'm absolutely clear that we must have data that informs the public debate on this issue.'
Bauckham, who after a year as interim chief regulator was permanently appointed in February, said Ofqual had moved on a long way from the chaos of Covid when exams were cancelled and grades calculated using an algorithm had to be scrapped. 'Five years later, we've moved back to examinations which are widely trusted as the fairest way to accredit and assess what students know, understand and can do,' he added.
On the government's curriculum and assessment review, due to report later this year, the Ofqual chief acknowledged concerns about the volume of exams pupils currently face, but he warned against reducing assessment to a single paper per subject. Students 'really value the opportunity to have at least two bites at the cherry, by which I mean two opportunities in two separate exam papers in the same subject',' he said.
He is in favour of AI being used to support teaching and students' learning. 'But I would be very concerned about moving wholesale to a system where exams were replaced by extended writing coursework, because that would, in current circumstances, be open to malpractice.'
'I'm not worried about the future of qualifications,' Bauckham said. 'I think qualifications are going to be needed more than ever in the future, but I think in education, we've got to be clear that students still need rigorous intellectual training. They still need mastery of key knowledge.
'We still need to set our sights high for them and we mustn't succumb to the confused thinking that says, because AI will enable future workplaces, we don't need students to know, understand and be able to do skills and demonstrate knowledge at a high level, because I think the opposite is true.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Integration classes and complaints offices: South Korea charts a path to a cohesive multicultural future
Russian words echo through the corridors of Gonjiam middle school as a woman from Uzbekistan addresses a classroom of teenagers still grappling with the Korean language. 'How do you speak with Korean friends?' she asks. The responses are halting. Some use translation apps. Others rely on classmates who speak better Korean to navigate school life. They are ethnic Korean children, mainly from former Soviet republics, caught between cultures in a country to which their parents moved for work and stability. Their instructor, Luiza Sakhabutdinova, an assistant professor who came to South Korea 17 years ago, is one of 39 mentors from 21 countries deployed in programmes nationwide to foster social cohesion. The sessions, part of a government-led programme in the city of Gwangju near Seoul, offer a glimpse into the country's approach to multiculturalism, where integration is not unfolding organically but is being carefully managed. Aleksei Niu, a 17-year-old from Russia placed two years below his grade level, is still struggling with the Korean language but appreciates the support he receives. 'I wish there were more lessons like this.' Hwang Byung-tae, the school's head teacher, points to success stories, including a former foreign student turned teacher at the school, as well as those who progressed all the way to university. 'Many foreign students who come here adapt well and succeed,' he says proudly. South Korea has traditionally been cautious toward immigration, priding itself on ethnic homogeneity. However, the country is edging toward a demographic milestone. With 2.11 million foreign residents as of June, accounting for 4.1% of the population, South Korea is nearing the 5% threshold that experts use to define a multicultural society. Economic reality is driving this shift. South Korea's fertility rate has fallen to 0.75, the lowest in the world, and its working-age population is projected to halve by 2070. Young Koreans, meanwhile, increasingly avoid jobs in manufacturing, agriculture, and construction – sectors now kept afloat by migrant labour. South Korea is trying to actively shape these changes in its demographic makeup. Its approach, using services and outreach, promotes the country's desire for cohesion, predictability and cultural unity. 'We want migrant children to have equal opportunities in Korean society,' says Park Chang-hyun from the justice ministry's immigration integration division. 'We want them to adapt well into society and be culturally comfortable so they can showcase their capabilities and talents.' In schools like Gonjiam's, this approach is evident in language support, after-school mentoring, and localised intervention. Nationwide, the government designates certain areas as 'multicultural zones' and integration programmes target specific groups, primarily ethnic Koreans from abroad, women from south-east Asia who marry Korean men and labourers in designated sectors. Nowhere is this approach clearer than in Ansan, an industrial city 25km southwest of Seoul that has become the government's de facto multicultural laboratory. Home to the Banwol and Sihwa industrial complexes, Ansan has long attracted migrant workers, similar to other cities like Gwangju, albeit on a far larger scale. Today, 14% of the city's population are foreign nationals from 117 countries, the highest proportion in the country. In the Wongok-dong neighbourhood, the figure rises to 84%. At Hope365, a nonprofit support centre, early adaptation courses run in 18 languages, covering everything from opening bank accounts and navigating healthcare to understanding Korean values and basic laws. Volunteers cook for immigrant children and provide after-school tutoring. Kim Myeong-soon, a Chinese Korean mother, has enrolled her child at the Hope365 centre. 'My kid really loves it and is getting a lot of help,' she says. 'The children here come from diverse backgrounds – Persian, Korean, Chinese, and despite some language barriers, they share different cultures and get along well together.' Just down the road, the foreign resident support centre offers Korean language classes, community services, and a multilingual library, part of the city's substantial investment in immigration infrastructure. Yet even here, where multiculturalism seems most advanced, well-intentioned efforts confront deeper structural challenges. The 'employment permit system', which governs most foreign labourers, gives employers outsized power over their staff, making it difficult for workers to escape exploitation or switch jobs. Critics argue that South Korea's approach still treats foreign workers primarily as labour units rather than as people seeking to build lives in the country, with many workers often enduring mistreatment including physical violence, and poor working conditions. A lithium battery plant fire in 2024 killed 23 workers, mostly Chinese nationals, underscoring the disproportionate risks foreign workers face, activists say. More recently, a video showing a foreign worker tied to bricks and lifted by a forklift at a factory prompted president Lee Jae Myung to condemn what he called a 'blatant violation of human rights.' In Ansan, the same support centre that hosts integration classes also doubles as a complaint office, handling a steady stream of cases involving wage theft, threats from employers, and workplace abuses. A 2024 survey by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs (KIHASA) found that over 61% of Koreans now consider having foreign residents in their neighbourhood normal. Yet acceptance varies sharply by context and migrant type. While 79.7% support child allowances for permanent residents, only 45.3% back such benefits for migrant workers. Koreans also show higher acceptance in public spheres like workplaces than in private relationships. Concerns about public spending, crime, and job competition persist. Many migrant residents still face discrimination in daily interactions and sectors like banking. They have little recourse, as the country has never enacted comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. A recent high-profile case in the south-eastern city of Daegu, where vehement opposition to the reconstruction of a small mosque included pigs' heads left at the site, highlighted tensions. According to KIHASA's YoonKyung Kwak, current integration efforts are 'fundamentally one-sided' as they focus on educating migrants, not the host society. 'What truly matters is whether Koreans see migrants as equal members of society – not merely as temporary workers or economic tools,' she said. 'Moving beyond an instrumental perspective toward a genuine sense of shared community is the next critical step for meaningful integration.'
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Donald Trump's war on statistics is an authoritarian attack on democracy and countries like Australia should call it out
Whether it be the judicial system, universities, or health organisations, Donald Trump cannot abide by anything that does not confirm his world view. So it was not a shock when late last week he came for statistics – or, more pointedly, the person in charge of the economic statistics. On Friday, the US's Bureau of Labor Studies released the July US employment figures. They were not good. Just 73,000 non-farm jobs were added and annual employment growth was the worst it has been since the GFC years (excluding the pandemic): If the graph does not display click here In response, Trump did what any autocrat would do when told bad news: he shot the messenger – at least only figuratively. Trump argued that Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of labor statistics, had faked bad figures purely to hurt him. And so he fired her. But this should not be dismissed as 'oh that's just Trump', nor should we just sigh and say we have been in a fact-free era for nearly a decade. Reality might be hanging on to the political debate for dear life, but this move threatens to fling it off the cliff. The BLS data is vital for understanding not just what is going on in the USA but to guide other nations – like here in Australia. For example, Australia is doing very well compared with the US. Unlike the US, our employment rate is higher now than it was before the pandemic: If the graph does not display click here These comparisons can influence future policies. For example, we did very well during the GFC; the US did not. We also did much better during the pandemic than the US. They also give insight into the future. The US is still the world's biggest economy and – as we have seen with inflation – what happens there, often happens here, in Australia: If the graph does not display click here If Trump doesn't like weak employment growth numbers, you think he'll be happy with inflation data that shows his tariffs are causing higher prices? And this is not just some academic exercise. US welfare payments are indexed to inflation, so the official data vitally affects the livelihood of many people. Trump thinks when he closes his eyes the rest of the world disappears. But not measuring inflation or unemployment or global temperatures doesn't disappear the problems. And loss of trust in official data will affect business investment decisions, borrowing costs and – as with all attacks on institutions – faith in democracy. For example, in Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has revealed that in the past year the cost of living for all households except 'self-funded' retirees rose faster than did inflation: If the graph does not display click here This is not the greatest news for the Australian government – no politician likes data that says things might be worse than what they previously argued. Cost of living, unlike inflation, includes mortgage repayments. Despite falling interest rates, repaying a mortgage is still around 4.4% higher than it was a year ago, and since March 2022 mortgage repayments have accounted for nearly half of the increase in cost of living: If the graph does not display click here Does it help the Australian government for the ABS to reveal this? Not really. It could blame our Reserve Bank, but generally governments are blamed for high interest rates. It certainly doesn't help the government for the ABS to release figures that some journalist like me can use to show that the value of wages are 8.6% lower than they were in March 2021 when you use cost of living rather than CPI: If the graph does not display click here That type of information makes life hard for the government – but so it should! In a democracy you have to face your critics, argue your case and convince voters you have the best plans and way forward. Political parties are already working hard to make you question reality. But at least till now, even in the US, where Trump would like there to be a new kind of maths where prices can fall by more than 100% (1,000%, 1,100, 1,200, 1,300!!), reality has been counted and presented. The end of impartial economic data would not just be another case of Trump 'flooding the zone'. It would be a fundamental attack on democracy, designed to ensure those who are suffering from his polices are not able to demonstrate that things are worse – either for them or for the nation. They are the actions usually associated with authoritarian regimes, and we should not shy away from making that clear. Greg Jericho is a Guardian columnist and policy director at the Centre for Future Work
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
A long-term plan is needed to get the country out of its financial hole
SIR – Whether by raising income tax rates, a wealth tax or through less overt measures, the Government will try to extract more money from the people that it serves ('Reeves facing £50bn black hole as tax pressure mounts ', report, August 6). However, such measures risk being self-defeating. Those who are unable or unwilling to leave the country will bear the brunt of the tax rises. That includes standard and higher-rate taxpayers. Every pound the Government extracts from their bank accounts is a pound that cannot be spent on businesses that provide goods and services. Thus, businesses will take another hit which, in turn, will reduce their tax payments. Since the failure of the Truss administration, there has been no long-term plan to get the country out of its financial hole. Eventually, there will have to be one and it will likely involve curbing the insatiable appetite of government to control and spend. When such a plan sees the light of day we may be surprised at the boost it gives to confidence and investment. David Porter Plymouth, Devon SIR – Labour dug itself a financial hole when it pledged not to increase National Insurance (NI), VAT or income tax rates. Instead of imposing VAT on private schools and possibly even on private health, a simple 1 or 2 per cent rise on NI and/or the basic rate of income tax would have solved the Chancellor's problems. Now she is having to cast her net wider – and creating more problems as a result. John Tilsiter Radlett, Hertfordshire SIR – Taxing jobs and taxing capital is not going to result in economic growth. Is it too much to expect a former Bank of England economist to grasp this? Patrick Loxdale Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SIR – There is a limit to which any economy can be taxed. The UK is at that limit. The British public understands this. It is plain that public sector expenditure must be cut to balance the books. Given the Government throws billions around like confetti – on the Chagos Islands, the immigration fiasco, welfare, public sector pay rises, excessive numbers of civil servants – there is much low-hanging fruit. The economy is being badly managed as never before. Enough is enough. Please can we have some economic sanity. Stuart Moore Bramham, West Yorkshire SIR – Having continually criticised the Conservatives for the last 12 months for creating a £22bn black hole in the public finances, I trust Labour will now be constantly criticising itself for doubling the deficit. Paul Webster Dyserth, Denbighshire
