AIBU that we must accept many teachers do not have the appropriate professional judgment regarding what students need to achieve for A-Levels?

[darkwader]

There is no reason to suggest that nationally this year’s students are different significantly to previous years – certainly not as demonstrated by GCSE results.

Unclear why, but exam boards have been generous in this years results in all categories, showing higher results than last year, but needing to downgrade almost 40% of teacher assessed grade to remotely be a normal year.

Despite what teachers are claiming, it must be the case that 40% of grades were inflated by teachers – even if the individual students who had these inflated grades are hard to determine. The number of A/A*’s would not jump by 10%.

If every teacher had correctly provided grades, then the national mix would match previous years and no downgrading would have occurred. – so although maybe not the teacher who is specifically involved with a set of students; overall teachers are responsible for the disappointment because of poor grade assessment in the first place in aggregate.

Given that teachers have been predicting grades for university entrance for years and marking coursework in some cases – this shows the unfairness of such a system, as they are incapable of doing so to any degree of accuracy or potentially without bias towards those they know.

Students across this country are now being affected by this incompetence – even if not the students own teacher, the professional standards are to blame.

AIBU to now understand that this professional judgment does not exists for many, many teachers and they need to be evaluated each year before being allowed to be involved in marking and grading?

If AIBU - what am I missing?

I understand where you're coming from OP. Obviously some will be disappointed, and that's what appeals and option to actually sit the exams later this year are there for.

However, it's been reported that this year's A-level results are the strongest for 10 years, and that's after all the downgrading. If all students are just awarded predictions that means this year's cohort must be utter geniuses, which is pretty hard to believe IME

Overall this situation is down to these teachers without that good judgement, and is my AIBIU. No. The situation is down to a global pandemic and decades of politicking in the education system.

Most teachers will know to within a half grade what most students will achieve. That can mean they could all be a grade out, either way, depending on grade boundary shifts.

Some students will do jack shit all year and then pull out some serious revision in the immediate run up to the exam.

Others will work hard all year and fall to pieces under exam pressure.

Some schools have stringent statistical "corrections" that are made to predicted grades - it depends on what the political goal of the year is.

All schools and teachers are measured against GCSE grades, your value added number is a very large stick to be beaten with.

So, whilst yes, there are some teachers whose predicted grades are pointless, their opinion isn't the only thing that makes a predicted grade.

YABVU because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Have you read any of the replies?

Also the system is very variable. Subjects with very few students seem to be getting their teacher assessments whereas those with large numbers are subjected to this statistical analysis. Why are my predictions trust worthy for my small further maths class but not for my larger maths classes? This will benefit schools with small 6th forms and some smaller cohort subjects disproportionately. Are some of my grades going down because they had to use over inflated teacher predictions from schools with fewer entrants? I’ve no idea. I don’t think anyone does. It is an inherently unfair system. You certainly can’t use this fiasco to claim teachers are unprofessional. Though perhaps you could claim that for the DfE right now...

@CuckooCuckooClock

I realise that - but the assumption is with 10k+ students, the variation is not the national cohort, but the difficulty of the paper; and that grades boundaries are used to correct for that - both the standard and there national cohort ability remain the same.

I understand up to 1986 a completely cohort relative scheme was used, and since then the standard was set rather than measuring relative to other students - so cohorts don't matter in this case and neither do paper corrections as no papers were set.

If all students are just awarded predictions that means this year's cohort must be utter geniuses, which is pretty hard to believe IME Again... when the difference between one grade and the next can be about 6 exam marks and raw marks and UMS conversions always change according to the exam board set level of difficulty... a teacher can be accurate to within half a grade with relative ease. But in the exam that half grade could be 3 marks, maiing it very easy for the student to under/over achieve by a whole grade.

That's why usually teachers spend a few days combing that sessions grade boundaries and UMS data to see if it is worth asking for a re-mark!

You’re over-simplifying and makings assumptions for which you have no basis and insulting the professionalism of me and my colleagues.

Cuckoo I suspect any further responses will be as much a waste of time! OP doesn't seem to want to re-evaluation their assumption!

@CuriousaboutSamphire

If it was truly the case of half a mark either way, then we'd see that the number of grade changes in both directions were around the same.

But nationally, that doesn't explain the positive bias for 40% of results.

It could do if every teacher in assessing those grades gave the higher grade rather than setting the grades lower where appropriate. Reading the comments, I suspect this is the case.

The comment above about 'A' grade student likely to get a 'B' in the exam I found interesting. The aim is to predict what the exam would have achieved, so unclear why an 'A;' was predicted if poor at exam technique.

You're making it way too simple OP. It's not a case of this pupil will get a C and the teacher has taken the piss and awarded them an A. In all likelihood that pupil will have got a range of different marks across different assessments before lockdown. If for example they got a mixture of Ds, Cs and Bs. Which is perfectly possible as many subjects have different elements, some which they may excel in and others they may not. We don't know how the exam would have been set out, it could have been favourable to the areas they found easier and they may have done really well in their exams and got a B. They also may have done worse than they usually do and got a D. As a teacher I would have given them the B. Why wouldn't I? It's not my place to disadvantage that student in the future on what might have happened. If they had had a good day and had taken revision seriously they could have got that grade and it's not my place to decide they aren't entitled to it because of a pandemic.

@CuckooCuckooClock

How?

If the grades nationally based on teacher predicted grades would have shown huge grade inflation, then its not an insult, but a fact that this group of students are either have a step change in ability to such an extent that we will need to redefine the whole qualifications system and/or teachers (as a whole) must have many members unable to reasonably predict grades without a positive bias.

I rarely get grade predictions wrong. It is pretty much predictable from the October half term of year 10/12 what someone will get at the end. Things which cause grades to be ‘off’ are life issues such as the death of a relative close to exams, being unwell on the exam day etc. None of which happened this year so not really surprising, in my opinion, that grades came in higher than usual because life didn’t happen to skew off the results.

There is a wonderful example of the bollox that has happened today. A student predicted A in both maths and further maths getting C in maths and the A in further maths remaining. That demonstrates way better than anything teachers here could try and argue with people who have no clue whatsoever just what a fucking shit show this has been. That is not teacher error or over-enthusiasm.

@qlwjendm

I think you've indicated exactly the problem - a range of grades D,C,B and you would give a B. You wouldn't;'t do that because of professional standards.

I expect you’re right curious
I don’t quite know why I’m bothering but I’m feeling rather strange and emotional today and it’s too early to drink!

At our school we did not award the grades we thought the students would get in the exams if they sat them. We awarded grades according to what we had evidence for. Hard evidence, not teacher judgement. Some students will have been given higher CAG than they would have got in normal times. There are loads of complex, subtle reasons for this. None of those reasons are to do with teacher incompetence.

Overall this situation is down to these teachers without that good judgement, and is my AIBIU.

Criticising everyone is easy, politicians and teachers are the universal punchbags but how would you have done it, considering that we are in the midst of a unique situation? For University entry there needs to be grades, there will be some disappointed people, there will be some unfair results, there are every year, even with exams.

The problem isn't the teachers per se, it's the fact that moderation was meant to mimic exam performance. And teachers cannot predict exam performance at individual level - for instance they had no way of knowing that come the exam, David who had got A grades in every exam he'd ever taken, would have been so devastated by his girlfriend dumping him the week before, that he only would have managed a C.

They can predict ability yes, but they weren't asked to do that. That's why so many have been downgraded.

[quote darkwader]@qlwjendm

I think you've indicated exactly the problem - a range of grades D,C,B and you would give a B. You wouldn't;'t do that because of professional standards.[/quote]
But if the pupil could achieve the B grade why aren't they entitled to it?

Maybe there was only a 20% chance they could get the B, but they still might have done.

You’re talking as if a grade is a concrete, unmoveable standard which teachers should know with pin-point accuracy, but it isn’t. You couldn’t take a piece of work from a student and say with 100% confidence that it was an A-grade piece of work, for example. All you can say is that, in your professional opinion, based on previous years’ work and previous grade boundaries, it would probably be from an A grade student. But the next year that same piece of work in an exam situation might be part of a B or an A* student’s answer. That’s not incompetence - in fact the incompetent teacher would be the one who said securely they COULD grade based on individual pieces of work. Even mock papers or a whole series of them are still never 100% accurate. You could be the best marker in the whole country and if you predicted 100 grades some of them would still be wrong.

If everyone had done what you suggested OP and gone with a negative bias rather than a positive one there would have been a load of people moaning that grades had to be upgraded and teachers were to blame etc. Basically if you're a teacher you can win 😂

Yanbu. The grades submitted by the teachers must have been inflated, unless this year is full of geniuses.

Every year, you get students who could get (eg) an A, if they perform well on the day (the right questions, the effect of nerves, effectiveness of revision etc). Usually, some do, some don't. When you are asked to assess them (as in CAGs), you are more likely to give them all the benefit if the doubt, because the effect of those factors on individuals is harder to assess than whether they are capable of working at that level in general.

Sorry, but unless secondary is wildly different to primary, you're full of shit.
Teachers don't take a random stab at what they think a student's attainment is. There are highly detailed descriptors for grades and levels, you need to provide considerable evidence that they have demonstrated the skills and knowledge for the descriptor and this is moderated internally, externally, on an announced basis, unnanounced...
If grades are changed afterwards it will be to serve some sort of government agenda, not because a highly inspected/moderated/all graduate workforce can't do their job.

@darkwader
Your arguments relies on the assumption that what would be an A in 2017 would also be an A in 2018, 2019 and 2020. That isn't the case.

Grades are awarded as a percentage of that year's cohort. If the cohort nationally is stronger, the boundaries for grades move upwards. If they are weaker, they are moved down. What might be an A in 2017 could be a B in 2018 and then an A* in 2019.

Exam boards do this privately before the results ever arrive and so there isn't the same level of public scrutiny and known "downgrading" as there has been this year.

At our school we did not award the grades we thought the students would get in the exams if they sat them.

Then your school did it wrong. Did they not read the guidance from ofqual?

[quote darkwader]@qlwjendm

I think you've indicated exactly the problem - a range of grades D,C,B and you would give a B. You wouldn't;'t do that because of professional standards.[/quote]
You've mentioned "professional standards." What do you mean by this? And I would say that it absolutely would be right in most circumstances to give the student you've described a B.

I remember my GCSE year. I got a D in my history mock in November. Other results in January were Cs and Bs, with an A or two. I learnt from all of this and got an A*.

No reason that someone getting D C B in exams in February should be predicted less than a B, as teachers should assume continued progress.

I do think teachers probably are guilty of "looking on the bright side" for our students, which probably has led to inflated grades.

Also, i don't understand your title. Of course a level teachers know what is required to get a grade. They have to teach it...