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?

2020 data won't be included in league tables. There is no progress 8 in 2020.

There needs to be some adjustment to give grade parity with other years.

@itsgettingweird I totally agree on the individual level but on the national level I struggle. However, the entire situation is appalling, university experience is likely to be less than what they would have hoped for and future employment opportunities may well be significantly affected so I am inclined to be leaning towards allowing teachers predictions to stand and ignore 2020 as an anomaly.

The statistician in me struggles with large cohort anomalies ... but I could let it go, like NS did.

However, that would raise huge problems if exams cannot go ahead next year either!!

@noblegiraffe

Understood, but this is the point - it's not a prediction of the expected grade, it's an over-estimate. And hence, will need moderating down - and so no student should be expecting these grades.

This means that there is no downgrading, just that the estimates were overestimates on average. It also means (as I've indicated above), that whilst teachers may be able to judge the right grade, they actually overinflated it (on average) - so the student shouldn't; expect it.

One grade over estimated (given the benfit) in 3 a-levekls is a 33% over-estimation of grades.

I've understood reading this that many teachers do have the judgement, but they are not actually giving the answer asked for, but an over-estimate. The model takes this into account, but students are disappointed because they expect the over-estimate to be real.

It's not an over estimate because we don't know how to estimate. It's because we can't predict which student will have the good day and which will have the bad day.

A change of 2 grades based on an algorithm is wrong. Capping a centres grades because of their past data is wrong. The distribution of grades countrywide should be the same. Some schools with good prior attainment will benefit from that even if their students this year weren't as good.

Taking and exam means you know exactly who had a bad day and who didn't (assuming the marking is accurate which in English and History is questionable). Sending CAGs to ofqual you send what you think the student is capable of. It's not unusual to get a student who you think would get a B, get an A on the day, or get a C on the day.

Would it help if I told you I don't believe I over estimated a single grade? I think Ofqual underestimate my teaching and my students.

Because 12% of my students now got an A that looks like massive grade inflation : but it's one student.

There are a shitload of students who are right on the borderline of (last years, because that’s all we have to go on) grade boundaries.

You can fall back a whole grade because of one mark.

We’re not fucking Mystic Meg.

Because 12% of my students now got an A that looks like massive grade inflation : but it's one student.

This is it in a nutshell.

@Hercwasonaroll

I get it, but you are providing a fair estimate - i.e the student may get an A or a C. Earlier in the thread it was stated with DCB as past indc atop and only a 20% chance of a B the estimate would be a B.

You don't need to predict who will have a bad day. If there are 7 people who may get an A, but statically only 5 will, just choose the top 5 and regrade the bottom 2 - as that is the real expectation. It's no different to any other selection such as recruitment or redundancy.

I think the issue is the messaging that has been given. People are being told they are getting results they deserve. If the message had been

'As you've not had the opportunity to take the exam you shouldn't really have any grade until you do, but as a fallback we'll provide you a 'free' baseline grade that may be lower than you are expecting, but can be used to progress without taking the exam if you choose to do so. It will be based on your centre's historical pattern, so won't reflect your own likely personal achievement. If you want to show your full potential and get a true personalised grade then you can sit the exam at the next sitting and be assured we won't take the baseline grade away from you.'

then maybe people wouldn't be so annoyed.

My take from what I have read today is twofold- firstly that exam nerves may not have been taken into account, and secondly that borderline grades were given the higher of the two.

So I don't think most teachers are to blame at all.

You don't need to predict who will have a bad day. If there are 7 people who may get an A, but statically only 5 will, just choose the top 5 and regrade the bottom 2 - as that is the real expectation. It's no different to any other selection such as recruitment or redundancy.

This falls down in a class of 6 though. That's why the kid range classes have lost out.

DCB may be CAG as a B. If D was start of y12 and on a small assessment, C was end of year 12 mock on half the course, and B was January of year 13 and a full mock. How could you say a CAG is fair there?

This means that there is no downgrading, just that the estimates were overestimates on average.

No, it means that there are two competing models.

1. what the teachers think that the student is capable of. Not what they will definitely achieve, but what they are capable of.

2. what Ofqual needs results to be to ensure roughly comparative outcomes with previous years.

It is a philosophical/political decision as to which model is more important at this moment in time in the middle of a global pandemic.

Neither are the definitively right answer. Scotland have belatedly gone for the first.

What is definitely not the right answer is to throw a bombshell 3rd option in at the last possible moment.

3. Ofqual’s statistical model amended by using the mythical ‘valid mock result’.

If there are 7 people who may get an A, but statically only 5 will, just choose the top 5 and regrade the bottom 2 - as that is the real expectation.

And this is what I had already done...

4 students who might have got a C. I gave one a D already, none a B.

The algorithm decided to give another one a D and then give me my C back by bringing one of my Bs down to a C. Then there weren't enough Bs, so they brought my A down to a B. Oh,a nd then my A* to an A. Then they were happy.

[quote darkwader]@Hercwasonaroll

I get it, but you are providing a fair estimate - i.e the student may get an A or a C. Earlier in the thread it was stated with DCB as past indc atop and only a 20% chance of a B the estimate would be a B.

You don't need to predict who will have a bad day. If there are 7 people who may get an A, but statically only 5 will, just choose the top 5 and regrade the bottom 2 - as that is the real expectation. It's no different to any other selection such as recruitment or redundancy.

I think the issue is the messaging that has been given. People are being told they are getting results they deserve. If the message had been

'As you've not had the opportunity to take the exam you shouldn't really have any grade until you do, but as a fallback we'll provide you a 'free' baseline grade that may be lower than you are expecting, but can be used to progress without taking the exam if you choose to do so. It will be based on your centre's historical pattern, so won't reflect your own likely personal achievement. If you want to show your full potential and get a true personalised grade then you can sit the exam at the next sitting and be assured we won't take the baseline grade away from you.'

then maybe people wouldn't be so annoyed.[/quote]
And you think that this is within the remit of teachers to do this? Or even head teachers?
No.
You are demonstrating an admirable knowledge of the algorithm used but nothing about the context.
You have now conceded that teachers are perfectly capable of professional judgement, but in this case have had to use it in a pretty imperfect system.
Now re-read the title of your post. Replace the profession of teacher' with another profession and imagine how arrogant you would sound....
People die because many doctors aren't capable of professional judgement, people suffer from crime because the many police officers aren't capable of professional judgement (these are not my opinions... just showing how ridiculous you sound).

If they take the exam at the next sitting, then any subjects with coursework don't get it included.

Schools were not told until a few weeks ago how much statistical modelling had been used, and how little heed was paid to the CAGs. To tell students it is all based on historical data would be troubling to them and increase a sense of injustice. They don't want to be told they are cogs in a machine. They want to think their own personal hard work is rewarded and recognised : not the work of students 3 years ago.

No, it means that there are two competing models.
1) what the teachers think that the student is capable of. Not what they will definitely achieve, but what they are capable of.
2) what Ofqual needs results to be to ensure roughly comparative outcomes with previous years.

We (my school, anyway) were told very explicitly NOT to predict what we thought they were capable of. We had to rank them then allocate grades broadly in line with results from previous years. So the Scottish approach would not mean they got the grade they were capable of, but the grade we had, after much soul-searching, concluded they were more likely to get if someone had to.

@noblegiraffe

Surely everyone is 'capable' of 100%, it's just not very likely. There will be a mode grade that is the right expected grade - not one that could be achieved if the planets were all in alignment, the right question came up and the student guess correctly when they didn't know.

Its the fact that these grades are expected, rather than saying, you'll likely receive an A, B or C depending on how you do on the day that is concerning.

I'm definitely going now, but thanks for the feedback.

Schools were not told until a few weeks ago how much statistical modelling had been used, and how little heed was paid to the CAGs.

We knew this all along. Perhaps some reading between lines was required, admittedly.

Were your previous years very similar to each other? is your school's performance consistent? Was each year cohort of similar prior ability? And size? Did you conveniently have data form each year?

All these things have had huge impact on some subjects in some centres.

You don't need to predict who will have a bad day. If there are 7 people who may get an A, but statically only 5 will, just choose the top 5 and regrade the bottom 2 - as that is the real expectation. It's no different to any other selection such as recruitment or redundancy.

Who are your top 5?

You have 7 students who are all got A's in every assessment. Each time they alternate who gets the highest number of marks.

Any one of them could have stormed it on the day and any one of them could have had a heavy cold and not done as well.

This is students lives not a lottery where you guess which one may have had the bad day or guess which one would have done better in this exam this time.

For some subjects yes, Piggy, and for others no. Some “big” subjects ignored the instructions and massively over-predicted, and their results were adjusted. Others were almost spot on. The smallest cohorts have not been adjusted.

But we were all told what to expect, and so it proved.

Who are your top 5?

It was very hard, but we did in fact specify who were our top 5 via the ranking.

@HipTightOnions Ofqual were clear, grade then rank. Admittedly the rank order is the most important and actually most places did a combination with some tricky decisions along the way.

Its the fact that these grades are expected, rather than saying, you'll likely receive an A, B or C depending on how you do on the day that is concerning.

You're getting confused with CAGs and normal predicted grades.
If a student asks what I think they will get, my standard answer is "work hard, revise well, and I'd expect you to get xyz. However remember grade boundaries change every year so your grade depends on the rest of the country too". Only this year there is no easy way to ensure parity between centres.

Ofqual were clear, grade then rank.

I didn’t know that. We did the opposite. I think what we did made more sense.

Surely everyone is 'capable' of 100%, it's just not very likely.

My mistake with language. The grade that they were likely to achieve. I meant a reasonable grade.

And you’re not a teacher if you think everyone is capable of 100% in an A-level.

Its the fact that these grades are expected

You’re asserting that these grades are expected. Students were not to be told their CAG under any circumstances to avoid expectations.

Teachers were horrified to find out that students could perform a subject access request to find out CAGs after results day. Students should have never been told them.

The grade inflation % was 12%. Teachers predicted grades at 12% higher than the cohort would most likely have achieved had the exams gone ahead. 40% of the predicted grades were then reduced.

My friends who are teachers spent hours and hours agonising and analysing the correct predicted grades to give their students. They took everything into consideration from GCSE results, performance over school years, coursework, how well they do under exam pressure situations, how effective their revision is, their reactionary revision techniques on account of either previous poor or good performance, their realistic potential etc. etc. to give them a predicted grade as fair and as accurate as possible.

Most students they said would receive say for example a B on their worst possible day but an A on their best possible day. You can’t give half grades so you have to go by the best possible scenario not the worst. It’s unlikely you would give a child who got AAA in their mocks a predicted grade of BBB but it’s quite likely you could give a child who got AAB in their mocks a predicted grade of AAA as you believe this is a more likely than less likely outcome of what would happen on actual exam day.

Also, most teachers said mocks model the worst possible exam question scenario so children get a kick up the backside, don’t get complacent and weaknesses can be highlighted early on. Mocks are designed by lifting most of the hardest questions from previous past papers. Also, many teachers know that even some of the brightest pupils don’t revise as vigorously for mocks as they do the real thing.

They take all of the above things into consideration and weight each variable as effectively as they possibly can so YABU