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!

@ChloeCrocodile

Can you also explain why Public schools saw an increase this year and only State schools saw a decrease in predicted grades?

Where are you getting this data from? I work in a private school and we have been given our lowest A level grades in over 5 years, including a fair number of downgrades from CAGs.

There has been so much (worldwide!) coverage of why public/private schools were favoured by the algorithm - is that what you're looking for? It's one of the most distasteful aspects of this whole debacle that the privileged are given even more of a boost! www.varsity.co.uk/news/19703 www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-A-level-private-school-subjects-see-rampant-inflation www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2020/08/outrage-after-private-school-students-favoured-in-uk-grade-shuffle.html

I do think teachers know their students and most would have worked over and above to put in as accurate grades as possible. However, and I am prepared to be flamed here, I am wondering how many teachers were put under pressure from SLT with these grades. Schools are judged so much on results now that this was almost bound to happen. I listen to radio every day and have been amazed how pretty much everyone seems to have been predicted A* A. I feel sad that you havent done well if you don't get top grades. The whole system is a mess.

I have been following the news, but saying “state schools were disproportionately downgraded” is very different from saying “only state schools were downgraded”.

I’m from an under-privileged background myself so I’m outraged at how badly it has hit those students. I’m one who probably would have been affected and it’s shit. But spreading misinformation isn’t helpful to anyone.

Thanks @manymanymany I was just getting my list together

My cags were lower than I.wanted cos we knew we had to keep them in line with previous years, even though I had a phenomenal class.

And they were still taken down. We've done the same for gcse, so.I'm v worried. Wish I'd bumped the whole lot up.

You seem very fixated on assigning blame to teachers. Focus your frustration on a group of people who built and theoretically tested an algorithm which by design favours private schools with small cohorts and either didn't care or didn't notice because it seemed normal to them.

I’m not sure if this was directed at me or at the OP. I am a teacher at a large state school and despite our best efforts to be realistic our results are down slightly on previous years.

I’m not blaming teachers at all and I’m not defending the particulars of the algorithm. I’m just trying to counter the idea that going with CAGs is a fair solution. It would disadvantage students in my school because we were very strict with CAGs in anticipation of the Ofqual moderation.

Fee-paying schools were not favoured. Small cohorts studying subjects in any setting could not be accurately graded using the algorithm, and were given the centre assessed grade. It didn't matter what the setting was. Some state schools/colleges offer subjects to limited number of students. Two, for example, in my area offer a subject to only 15 students and therefore they gained their CAGs. One of these places is the sixth form of a comp and one is a stand-alone sixth form college.

You can’t deny that the algorithm favours public schools @ChloeCrocodile. This isn’t the same old state school/public school argument, it’s more about ensuring that state school students (the majority in this country) aren’t cruelly disadvantaged, unnecessarily. Basically it’s about fairness.

I don’t deny it at all, giningit. But I will challenge things which are factually incorrect, such as “Eton/Harrow/private schools didn’t have any downgrades“.

No, the algorithm doesn’t arbitrarily assign them a C. The teacher’s own ranking decides which one will be “downgraded”.

Are you saying that if a student was ranked 1, then the algorithm awarded them their CAG?

@Omelette9

Fee-paying schools were not favoured. Small cohorts studying subjects in any setting could not be accurately graded using the algorithm, and were given the centre assessed grade. It didn't matter what the setting was. Some state schools/colleges offer subjects to limited number of students. Two, for example, in my area offer a subject to only 15 students and therefore they gained their CAGs. One of these places is the sixth form of a comp and one is a stand-alone sixth form college.

Oh please. Every journalist who has covered this has got it wrong and you have exclusive access to the truth? Really? You know more than the Times Education Supplement? Bias and discrimination are written into the model! There are countless blog posts by data analysts as well as educationalists about it

@ChloeDecker

No, the algorithm doesn’t arbitrarily assign them a C. The teacher’s own ranking decides which one will be “downgraded”.

Are you saying that if a student was ranked 1, then the algorithm awarded them their CAG?

Not necessarily. If the teacher had given, say, 5 grade As but historically the school on average got 4 As and a C, the student ranked 5th would have got a C and the other 4 would have got As.

If, however, the school historically got 4 Bs and a C, none of the students would have got their CAGs.

(Oversimplified example, but that’s roughly the idea.)

Strange hill to die on @ChloeCrocodile when you’ve agreed that state school students were disproportionately disadvantaged. Maybe I should have said “on average” but the point still stands. The algorithm is at fault here.

@ChloeDecker no definitely not.

My highest ranked student wasn’t given an A even though that was her CAG (and her mock and I had 3 A grades in my class last year)!

@BluebellsGreenbells I know this doesn’t help for this year, but your DS should definitely be getting extra time/access arrangements for internal assessments and mock exams! Schools are obliged to hold evidence of need for these arrangements (JCQ regulations).

Not that strange, giningit, when I have students who attend my fee-paying school and have missed uni places due to being downgraded. Most people won’t care about them because they are already privileged, but I’m determined to ensure people know they do exist.

However, with a government announcement due today the whole debate might be moot before the morning.

@nervousnelly8 I really didn't intend to bash teachers as I know it must have been an impossible task. It simply can't be the case though that all schools submitted predicted grades which were roughly in line with what their previous cohorts had achieved. Some must have submitted significantly higher grades, otherwise the algorithm wouldn't have adjusted so many people down to make the "average" comparable?

This year we (Science dept) entered significantly higher grades becuase our cohort was very, very different. Last year, we had no A grades and a few U grades across all sciences (students didn't turn up....). This year, we had 4 different students who are straight A students, never having less than a very high B grade in any form of assessment. No students were U grade students at all, all securing at least a D on assessments and mock exams, and we gave a CAG for each student based on a minimum of 14 data points (most of them over 20) from over the 18 months they had been assessed for A Levels. This year we have had solid CCC students downgraded to EEU, AAA students given BCC, and one AAA* student (never less than 95% on any mock paper) given ABC. That student was the only one to be given an A grade across all of the sciences, despite our accurate CAG.

We have been so careful to be accurate and based this entirely on data, not gut instinct. As of this morning I still have 2 students down for medicine not even get into their insurance offers, and we have over 15 students without a place despite being excellet students.

The results were always going to be off in some way so why not be in favour of the student? Why this obsession with not unfairly giving overly good results for one single year but totally cool with giving unfairly bad results? If things have to go one way or the other, why not go for the favourable one? The implications are far less destructive than giving unfairly low results

@damnthatanxiety

The results were always going to be off in some way so why not be in favour of the student? Why this obsession with not unfairly giving overly good results for one single year but totally cool with giving unfairly bad results? If things have to go one way or the other, why not go for the favourable one? The implications are far less destructive than giving unfairly low results

Because not all schools predicted “favourable” results. Some of us made cautious predictions in line with historical data, in anticipation of moderation.

Our students would be disadvantaged if Thursday’s results were replaced by CAGs.

The government didn't take teacher assessments into consideration. They used an algorithm based on location, school performance historically, class sizes and demographic data they totally ignored the teacher assessments

Why this obsession with not unfairly giving overly good results for one single year but totally cool with giving unfairly bad results?

Ofqual would claim that they haven’t given unfairly bad results - which may be true at the national level, but isn’t (IMO) at an school or individual level. And ofqual’s entire job is to ensure the integrity of the qualification system as a whole, including being fair to past and future candidates. If they give too many top results this year that would devalue the qualification as a whole, so those who achieved that grade last year, or next year, would be disadvantaged.

Imagine you got 3As last year and are up for a job against someone who was awarded 3As via CAGs. Would you consider that fair?

Tbh, I don’t think there is a good way out of the mess - someone is always going to be worse off. Currently, it is disproportionally disadvantaging state school pupils.

Williamson can bang on all he likes about how nobody would believe the grades if they issued as predicted, but nobody believes them now. At least with the first route you’re not screwing young people out of their degree and employment choices.

This just proves two things to me:

1. educational attainment should be based on longterm performance and aptitude, not the performance within a few short hours on a given day

2. the tories are so ideologically opposed to anyone “getting away with something” they don’t deserve that they’ve thrown huge numbers of young people under the bus. This is the fundamental basis of so many tory policies that it shouldn’t be a surprise

My year 13 group had joined my school in year 7 with an extremely high set of year 6 SATs scores- we had the highest ever number of more able students. When they did their GCSEs they got the highest percentages of 9/8's and A*s that we had got in a long while. As a year group they are academically stronger than previous year groups and so their A Levels would have been better also had they been allowed to sit them. Instead they have now been penalised because the previous year groups werent as well.

There are two success measurements in education- attainment (number of A*s etc) and achievement (how far students have come on from their starting point- in this case their GCSEs). The government has only been looking at overall attainment a has ignored what the achievement scores of these students would be. This is despite the fact that they jusge schools on their achievement....

twitter.com/schoolsweek/status/1295344337048473600?s=12

4 o'clock for the announcement

At least with the first route you’re not screwing young people out of their degree and employment choices.

Unfortunately you would be - just a different set of young people.