IELTS - quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

IELTS is a big and global business these days, and it goes without saying that strict adherence to standard documentation and procedures is essential for the integrity of the system, and for the confidence of candidates and institutions in the validity of the reported test results. Our correspondent, an IELTS examiner, reports here on a recent case where the British Council evidently selected those rules it would comply with, or not, with consequent serious implications for security.  All this was evidently done with the blessing of the local British Council director. Read an examiner's story here about the unmonitored monitors.

[message begins]

Dear David,

I came across your blog after setting up a Google Alert for "the British Council". I read it with interest and found that it confirmed many of my own 'feelings' and perceptions about the British Council.

One issue I would particularly like to tell you about is the way the British Council administers IELTS, in particular the monitoring of their own Test Centres.

For anybody who isn't too familiar with the exam, let me précis the relevant information. IELTS (International English Language Testing System) is an English Language exam used to assess the ability of candidates wishing to enter Universities (and other academic institutions) and for immigration purposes (as well as for some other reasons e.g. professional) in the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the USA and other English Speaking countries. It is an extremely important exam for many people - their IELTS result can have a huge impact on their future lives and livelihoods. In much of the world IELTS has a monopoly on this type of exam and it is essential candidates’ IELTS results accurately reflect their ability and that the exam is consistent at whichever Test Centre it is taken.

The British Council is one of the IELTS partners (the others are Cambridge ESOL and IDP Australia). They run many IELTS Test Centres around the world and monitor their own and independent IELTS Test Centres. I'll emphasise part of that - they monitor their own IELTS Test Centres.

IELTS has a system of administration, described in an Administration Manual. The procedures therein are not adaptable. I have examined and invigilated at a number of Test Centres and when I examined and invigilated at a new (to me) one I was surprised at the lack of compliance. This was, as you will have guessed, a British Council Test Centre. I spoke to the IELTS Administrator about this and, to her credit, she asked me to comment from my previous experience. I wrote a document that she discussed with the Examinations Centre Director.

Again to the IELTS Administrator's credit, a number of my suggestions were implemented. However, a number were not. Some I (and, according to their documentation, IELTS) consider very important e.g. allowing bags and mobile phones into exam rooms. Remember that these issues were discussed and agreed with the Examinations Centre Director (I was not present).

Later, I discovered that the Test Centre was not pre-registering candidates at a particular off-site test location and therefore not using the registration software until after the exam. According to the Administration Manual this is a big 'No-No' and clearly leaves plenty of scope for administrative errors, not to mention possible abuse. I spoke to the IELTS Administrator about this and she told me that the British Council Area Head (I'm not sure of the correct title) had agreed with the Examinations Centre Director that they could do this. I could see no really good reason for it.

This, together with other issues, made me very concerned about the way IELTS was being administered. I decided that it would be hypocritical of me to continue examining for the British Council and started examining for the only other Test Centre in the country. This Test Centre being independent. Guess what? They managed to follow the 'rules' pretty much to the letter - no bags and mobile phones in their exam rooms.

If the Area Head had agreed that the Test Centre need not pre-register candidates and if the Examinations Centre Director said it was OK to allow bags and mobile phones into exam rooms, I felt I had no option but to take my concerns even higher. Also, because there were other issues that should have been picked up by auditors, I was concerned that the British Council was not monitoring its own Test Centres adequately. (What organisation in its right mind monitors itself?) I would therefore have to bypass the British Council and go direct to the Head of IELTS at Cambridge ESOL.

My first email met with a reply apparently showing serious concern - "the security and integrity of IELTS are paramount". I had emailed him details and told him I wanted feedback as to whether they were justified and, if so, what would be done about it. I later sent further emails asking for feedback. After about 3 months I was told that the Test Centre was about to receive an unannounced audit. Good, I thought, they're doing something about it. Then I heard, through the grapevine, that the Test Centre had been "swooped on". I wanted to know what the result of the audit was so I emailed Cambridge ESOL again. My email was passed to the Head of IELTS at the British Council, London. She denied that the audit had anything to do with me (in which case I'm surprised Cambridge ESOL were even aware of it – and why tell me in reply to my email?). She certainly wasn't going to tell me the result. I wrote again asking for feedback about my concerns as I still wanted to know whether they were justified. Needless to say I was fobbed off. The implication being that they had taken no notice of my concerns - even though the Head of IELTS at Cambridge ESOL claimed to be taking them seriously.

Since then I have emailed twice and not even had the courtesy of a reply. Perhaps this is because I told them what I thought of the effectiveness of the British Council system of monitoring and why it was a waste of time anyone reporting concerns to them.

So much for transparency. And so much for the British Council policy of replying to emails within 3 days. We won’t mention accountability, trust etc. etc.

In my view, the British Council, in their position as accreditors and auditors of language schools and examinations centres, should be beyond reproach. More important than this, I believe that IELTS candidates should be certain their results accurately reflect their ability and are not subject to administrative errors or other outside influences.

Ian Pennington

[message ends]

Comments

[Dr Izhar Babar]

IELTS is misusing its monopoly, when it advises Non-EU citizens and UK citizens to retake IELTS every two years,it destroys 100s of careers and make tens of millions of pounds, by the two year rule, they cant explain to me why they made this rule, other than their record keeping policy.I have asked them whether it was made by a linguist or an accountant they dont answer.

[gembali]

Would like to know the issues of IELTS