| Summary: | <p>The UK Government’s Resilience Framework aims to ensure the country’s prosperity. A framework approach recognises that key risks and their effects vary by sector; however, any framework requires translation when applied in different contexts, with consideration of the issues in a sector-specific, case-based manner. Using publicly available documents, input from an expert advisory group, and elite interviews with 21 assessment insiders, we investigated the resilience of England’s qualifications system. The 2020 exams crisis created by the pandemic is one focus, but we explored resilience more broadly. To define resilience, we drew upon definitions in other complex, distributed systems (food, healthcare, and power [electrical] supply). Our interview data showed consensus on neither the definition of resilience nor whether the system is resilient. Proposed countermeasures for perceived lack of resilience (teacher assessment, modular examinations, digitalisation) brought risks along with potential benefits. Our data showed that resilience must be defined in relation to specified aims. Many threats to resilience were identified, including political pressure—a feature of the 2020 qualification policies. We conclude that fundamentally redesigning the system for resilience to unlikely catastrophic events would be costly and require solutions that may introduce their own problems. The cause of the recent crisis is best attributed to poor policy—lacking recognition of society’s expectations—rather than system fragility. Where policy values and objectives shift over time, those responsible for the system can find themselves responding to changing or conflicting priorities. We propose that a context-specific definition of resilience is required for its effective management.</p>
|
|---|