Why weren't teachers/schools more realistic with predicted grades?

[nervousnelly8]

Genuinely looking to understand how the A Level results seem to have gone so wrong. I don't work in education and DS is too young to be impacted, so hoping that those more informed might have some input!

Everywhere I see, people are calling for teacher assessed grades to be used. But if this happened, wouldn't the results be way out of line with history, rendering them useless as a form of comparison with other year groups? I understand that the model that has been used appears flawed when considering individuals, but does aggregate performance not also matter? Why wouldn't schools and teachers have been sensible in their predictions relative to previous cohorts so that their assessment could be used reliably?

Not really an AIBU I suppose, I'm sure IABU for seemingly missing the point completely!

At least this way, results were based on pupils’ performance over 18 months, and teachers’ knowledge of their ability, rather than on who had an off day or forgot to turn over the last page of the exam.

This is a reasonable point, but makes it impossible to guarantee equivalence in judgement across schools.

@mrsmuddlepies you are incorrect. Eton has had grades lowered and has written a complaint to SoS.

The algorithm was written by people and programmers who chose to manipulate those rankings in a particular way that involves a lot more.
Sounds quite sinister!

If it was as you say, I wouldn’t have had the outcomes in my school that I did.

Are you saying that students lower down the ranking were given higher grades than those further up? I hadn’t heard that before.

I'm convinnced that the calculated grades didn't really take the the predicted grades into consideration but were based entirely on the rankings and the schools achievements in previous years.

There were 4 students in DDs class for one subject who were pretty much neck and neck throughout the 2 years. Sometimes one would be a mark or two ahead, sometimes another. They all had a track record of performing well under pressure in external exams. They were all extremely motivated and competition between them was friendly but fierce and spurred them to study hard. They actually worked together so if one was struggling on a given topic, the others helped them to understand.

I imagine the teacher had a nightmare of a job ranking them. They would almost certainly all have got A, however, the school was deemed to 'qualify' for 2 A so the two lower ranked lost out. Pure and simple, no evidence taken into account. Fortunately, all of them still got their Uni places.

My DD moved schools for her 6th form. She was top of her year in her chosen subjects but her school couldn't provide her with peers that she could spar with.

The irony is, if she'd stayed put, she would have got the A* but she would have pushed someone else at her old school down a grade. That is what I can't get my head around.

DD is more than happy to take what she has and knows she is extremely lucky that the system didn't down grade her so far she lost her place.

It also seems contadictory to use the argument that teachers will naturally over estimate grades but to then allow the algorithm to raise some grades.

@LaurieMarlow

At least this way, results were based on pupils’ performance over 18 months, and teachers’ knowledge of their ability, rather than on who had an off day or forgot to turn over the last page of the exam.

This is a reasonable point, but makes it impossible to guarantee equivalence in judgement across schools.

I agree! Exams are flawed, but probably the best solution.

Exams are flawed, but probably the best solution.

Yup

Also the results have been calculated by looking at previous year’s data. If you had a lower achieving cohort within the last three years this could really pull your results down.

But the ranking only provided a comparison with others in the class, it didn't allocated a grade to that ranking, the algorithm did that.

Going forward I think schools do need to make it clear to parents to manage their expectations that UCAS predicted grades are not the level their child is working at nor they grades theh think they may get but are aspirational

Absolutely! The outrage last Thursday with parents on here was ridiculous. The UCAS grades are not linked in any way to the final expected grades most schools issue in Feb/March of Y13. They are merely a tool to open the admissions tutors' doors. There's not a school in England that doesn't give generous UCAS predictions.

That's a highly inflammatory question, OP. Teachers weren't unrealistic - the only grades the students actually attained were those assessed by their teachers in terms of coursework, essays, mocks etc. Your question should be why was an algorithm system so badly designed? By allowing CAGS for smaller classes it is also more likely to favour independent schools - why are those teachers somehow more trustworthy? And yes I've seen the Eton headmasters' letter.

Hats off to the teachers who clearly put so much work into predicting grades - this whole shit-show must be so frustrating and undermining. I imagine Williamson will resign over the next week - and well he should. So tired of the teacher bashing on MN - and no, I'm not a teacher, just grateful for their hard work

Also the results have been calculated by looking at previous year’s data. If you had a lower achieving cohort within the last three years this could really pull your results down.

This is what's really unfair.

There was a need to calibrate schools against each other - and I have no alternative ideas on how it should be done. However, cohorts can vary very significantly year on year. I feel very sorry for those students who have been pulled down purely because last years lot weren't as good as them.

nervousnelly8

It is impossible to predict a grade when you don't know what the grade boundary is.

These move now move every year.

If you directly compare my class this year to last years class, they are also completely different. The majority of pupils in last years didn't want to be there, this years do.

And that it without all of the usual teenage stuff getting in the way.

It would be stupid to even try and fit this years class to last years marks, yet that is what the government, ofqual and the exam boards are trying to do.

The thing is, the govt missed an opportunity here- they could have awarded pupils their CAGs, and then placed all the blame and acrimony at teachers' feet, and directed complaints there! What a massive wheeze, can't believe they passed that one up!

@W00t

The thing is, the govt missed an opportunity here- they could have awarded pupils their CAGs, and then placed all the blame and acrimony at teachers' feet, and directed complaints there! What a massive wheeze, can't believe they passed that one up!

Bet Big Gav is kicking himself now on that !

@W00t

The thing is, the govt missed an opportunity here- they could have awarded pupils their CAGs, and then placed all the blame and acrimony at teachers' feet, and directed complaints there! What a massive wheeze, can't believe they passed that one up!

In their mission to open up schools and blame any concerns on unions and teachers trying to block it they forgot they had another stick they could have beat teachers with.

So whilst teachers are returning to schools under their "moral duty" the government are forgetting their "moral duty" to provide fair and realistic results for exams they cancelled.

It also seems contadictory to use the argument that teachers will naturally over estimate grades but to then allow the algorithm to raise some grades

Because if previous years a class of 8 got AAAABBDE and then AAABBBCC and then A*AABBBCE and this year was BBCCDDEE, people would assume a less capable cohort/poorer quality teaching but an algorithm just says ‘you’re owed an A’.

Teachers are keen for their students to get good grades as it reflects well on them. It links to performance related pay, promotion etc.

Teachers were always going to overestimate grades.

Remove the uni place caps to allow them to take all they offered to

If this happens and students take places for which they didn't get the grades then are they going to be spending 3/4 years asking for special consideration for getting lower marks?

@blue25 so you don’t think teachers are capable of accurately assessing their students if there is a carrot stick stuffed with ££££?

I can’t speak for all schools, but performance management was suspended in my school this year. No incentive whatsoever to overinflated grades to look good.

My childs grades weren’t over estimated

Shes been a solid B student for years...with the odd flash of brilliance

But I suppose she is destined to spend all her life being told that she didn’t deserve her grades 😩

(Thats a joke by the way...i really doubt she or indeed anyone else will care)

@HoneysuckIejasmine

I think 2020 results are always going to be viewed as inaccurate compared to other years, so they should have just allowed CAGs. Employers will always use a pinch of salt when looking at 2020 cohort. Remove the uni place caps to allow them to take all they offered to. Clearing allowed as usual as places will open up when offers are declined.

Then we can all move on.

If you're uni bound, a lot of employers won't look at your A levels anyway, once you have a degree.

This is entirely sensible.

It is a far worse situation to have multiple students feeling dismayed and robbed of something they deserve (based on assessment of their capability) than a year in which everyone got slightly higher than usual grades and so all got their uni places.

A-Levels are almost all about qualifying for the next level of education, based on your capability to proceed. Allowing teacher assesments to stand, achieves that.

Changing teacher assessments, based on school's prior performance, does not. All that achieves is misery as students are limited by something outside of their control.

The problem now is some schools won't have helped their students in either direction.

Some schools may have been generous in that their CAGs were what the students will perform on a good day.

Others, like some we know, have awarded CAGs based purely on moderated mocks but not taken into account the 'good day', the children do normal go up in mocks (in our experience) and not taken into account coursework and NEA because it wasn't complete or moderated. So others have lost out that way, especially once they went through the Government's algorithms.

Its all such a mess.

There are some children though whose grades matter immensely

Both for their immediate future and long term

DD was predicted a B she got awarded a U

Not sure how this is right.

But if this happened, wouldn't the results be way out of line with history, rendering them useless as a form of comparison with other year groups?

They are currently graded against each other per co-hort. You are only as good as your peers as it stands.

If you in the year above or below you’d be competing with better or worse students.

The grad boundaries alter every year. There’s no set pass rate.

The whole system is unfair.

DS year 10 will have his maths GCSE based on mocks, he’s given 25% extra time in exams and not mocks so his grades will be lower - he would’ve had more marks if he’d been given the extra time.

I’d like to see how this was predicted or teacher assessed. Results due Thursdays.

A couple of PP have mentioned grade boundaries causing issues with predictions: even with moving boundaries (experienced) teacher assessment of grades is still able to be accurate. The movement of the boundaries is intended to ensure that the standard of work is the same year on year. An A grade student should show similar skills and knowledge as A grade students on the previous years. That may not be represented by the same number of marks on a paper (although, if I get on my high horse here - if the paper is written properly it should be very, close indeed, for content based subjects certainly!)

If a teacher knows what work of a certain grade standard looks like I absolutely believe they can be completely accurate in their assessment of ability and make valid decisions (although not based on centre created mock papers with their own designed boundaries - these would be useful for rank ordering and formatively assessing but not for grading, I am retroactively cringing at every time I wrote a paper and made up grade boundaries based on %. Ironically the thing I was told off for, benchmarking grades based on certain students, was actually the most accurate method).

The problem is the blunt object of the algorithm. Cohorts vary wildly. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of stats understands that the larger the sample size the more reasonable their use is. An algorithm based previous data and broad national trends was never going to be fair for individuals (see also BMI, national R rate, median pay information - useful for broad analysis but often verging on absolutely meaningless when looking at individual cases).

It's fine if you're assessing widget quality, not when you're fucking with the life chances of an entire cohort.

I'm sure I had a point at the start of his post but now I'm just angry and sad again.