---

SATs Testing

May I first of all thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for finding time before we break up for this statement? I also thank the Secretary of State for taking the opportunity to update us today on the latest twists in this terrible fiasco. I wish to underline our sympathy for the pupils, parents, heads and teachers whose summer has been blighted by the chaos surrounding the marking of the key stage 2 and key stage 3 tests. Under the American contractor ETS, there have been chronic delays in getting all papers marked, the marking itself has been flawed, with reports of teenagers and cocktail waitresses being approached to help meet deadlines, and papers of widely differing quality being given the same mark. The Secretary of State says that it is no worse than every year. Does not that just underline the incompetence at the heart of this Government when it comes to education? The Secretary of State rightly acknowledges that this situation is unacceptable, but what parents and teachers want to know is whether he will take responsibility. He has consistently argued that responsibility for this affair rests in hands other than his—at arm's length. But can he confirm that civil servants from his Department—specifically, the director general of schools—were there at the meeting when the contract was awarded to ETS? Can the Secretary of State tell us what, if anything, civil servants told him about that procurement process? Can he tell us what action, if any, he then took to ensure the safe delivery of testing? When I informed the Secretary of State in the House on 19 May that ETS had a record of missed deadlines and mistaken marking in the US, he confessed he had ““no knowledge”” of their record—even though he is accountable to Parliament for the testing regime. How could the Secretary of State have known so little about the company to which we were entrusting a multi-million pound contract when his own director general of schools was there when the contract was awarded? The chief executive of the QCA says that he is entirely satisfied with the process that awarded ETS this contract. Is the Secretary of State? I note what the Secretary of State says about the ongoing contractual negotiations, but does he not agree that when companies with public sector contracts fail to live up to their promises they should not be bailed out by the taxpayer? Does he not agree that any contract signed with a company that means we have to pay them to escape is a contract that could only have been signed by a Government who are neither prudent nor competent? As soon as ETS took up its contract, examiners started to register their concerns. The standardisation process, which ensures consistent marking, was flawed, with highly experienced markers being failed and other, much weaker candidates, being passed despite registering a worryingly high number of mistakes. Worse, the failsafe system to deal with bad marking—the borderline process which allows for papers to be remarked—was scrapped. Given the high number of complaints of inconsistent and error-strewn marking in this year's tests, how can the Secretary of State have confidence in the quality of marking? Can he give an absolute guarantee that full key stage 2 results will be published on 5 August and key stage 3 results on 12 August? And can he give an absolute guarantee that heads and teachers can be confident that the results generated by ETS will be robust enough to guarantee accurate pupil scores and reliable league tables? In assessing the credibility of everything that has been said today, it is crucial that we also know just what action Ministers took when the flaws in ETS's operation became impossible to ignore. When was the Secretary of State first made aware that there were major problems with this year's marking and what actions did he take? In March, the chief executive of the QCA warned the Secretary of State that the introduction of ““new IT”” by ETS carried risks. What steps did the Secretary of State take to reduce those risks? On 14 May this year, the head of the new exams watchdog Ofqual wrote to the Secretary of State to outline her priorities. In his reply, the Secretary of State said nothing about the importance of getting this year's SATs right, and instead said that the new single-level testing and the diploma programme were the priorities. Why, when teachers and examiners were already warning of problems with the tests, did the Secretary of State not ask the regulator specifically to address those concerns? On 19 May, I and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) again raised the concerns being voiced by teachers and examiners. The Secretary of State said that he would monitor the situation closely. Then on 4 July, Ministers had to acknowledge that the problems with marking were so great that the publication of results would have to be delayed. Can the Secretary of State tell us what specific steps he took after 19 May to get SATs testing back on track, what meetings he had, which interventions he authorised and which officials he pursued? Or did he, like an exam candidate who has not done his homework, just cross his fingers, hope for the best and pray that he would not be asked any tough questions? We all await Lord Sutherland's report with interest, but when the Secretary of State's predecessor Estelle Morris ran into trouble with a marking fiasco, she commissioned a former chief inspector to issue an interim report within a week. Why is the Secretary of State not insisting on similar urgency even now? Is he afraid of the results? Has not his behaviour throughout this affair been characterised by indifference, high-handedness and inattention? Is it not the case that his Department failed to ensure that contracts had been awarded properly, failed to heed warning signs and failed to act quickly to avert a fiasco that every teacher in the land could see coming? Do not pupils, parents and teachers deserve better than a Secretary of State who fails the most basic test of all—competence in office? ... What?