To think that the government did this on purpose

[therhubarbbrothers]

The A level results fiasco seemed to penalise bright children from disadvantaged schools. Aibu to think the government knew that this would happen but saw it as acceptable ?

AKissAndASmile
To the PP who said they didn't expect GW to have looked into the algorithm and it was perfectly acceptable that he trusted his experts, this video shows why he should go.

The PP wasn't me but I started to watch the video in your link - early on the video blogger (a teacher who "likes talking about politics") said the algorithm "notably did not downgrade a single student who went to Boris Johnson's old school, the private Eton College".

I didn't bother with the rest of the video after that politically motivated 'false fact'.

From tes;
"In a letter to parents, Simon Henderson, Eton's head master, said that a number of pupils had seen their teacher-assessed grades downgraded by the standardising process, sometimes by more than one grade, "and in a way which on many occasions we feel is manifestly unfair"...

"The results awarded to many boys in this subject bore no relation at all to their CAGs or to their ability. Several have lost university places as a result."

@Peregrina - that is an unusual way to describe ministers. However, I can name a few of them as well - Michael Gove for one was passionate about this. As for actions, whatever you think about this government's approach, it has significantly reduced the gap between the disadvantaged and the rest in education. The gap is, however, still too big and is closing too slowly.

@HipTightOnions

But it wasn't the student who we thought would most likely get a C who we ranked last in their grade. We ranked last in their grade the weakest student of those we thought, based on the evidence available, would get an A (my school only predicted one A at A level, so this applies more to GCSE/ C at A level for us).

Although presumably you did expect, if you were predicting higher grades than usual, that they would be “downgraded” according to the ranking and your historical results.
Given any of the students can have a bad day, arbitrarily deciding that it was the weakest student of a given grade who would have that bad day is the issue.

I don’t think “arbitrarily” is correct or helpful. Your own ranking effectively specified, when push came to shove, which students were more or less secure in the grade.

Well, we didn't predict higher than usual, so for some reason we thought they wouldn't be adjusted.

And maybe arbitrary is an unhelpful term. However, and I'm thinking specifically of a friend's school here, though it could apply to one of mine, it felt pretty arbitrary (and I'm using the 'unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority' meaning, rather than the 'random personal whim' meaning) when a number of your Cs become Us because they are the bottom of your rank, when apart from one U in th last three years you've had nothing below a C, and this is your strongest year ever using GCSE data.

prh47bridge. I notice you have not furnished proof of Cummings statement about the disadvantaged.

As for the Government being a bunch of toadies and incompetents - I am not alone in that opinion, but you are at perfectly liberty to disagree. You appear to think that the Government is doing a good job. I don't agree.

You talk about Micheal Gove's passion - he has a strange way of showing it. Take Maths - there was a very good suggestion to offer a double award for Maths GCSE for those going on to study science, and those who just enjoyed maths. He scrapped that, making it harder overall. That's fine for those who need maths and want to take it further; it's demoralising for those who aren't as good to take a paper when you know that you won't be able to tackle half of it. But they would have been fine with a single award maths paper.

Michael, sorry, a typo there.

Peregrina
I totally agree, my dd has this problem.
If she fails maths (highly likely) she will have to sit it again.
Neither the FE or HE courses or institutes ask for Maths GCSE.
But still has to take it, she could be there for ever as currently working at level 2/3.

No, the algorithm did not deliberately target these groups!

Nope. The algorithm was clearly devised by an idiot with no concept of how complex and nuanced the school exam system really is.

OP -don't think the government is organised enough to do something like this on purpose ....

What would the government gain by deliberately sabotaging potential of social mobility and the higher taxes that generates?
Yabu

@GetThatHelmetOn

Am I the only one thinking that Williamson is just another minister chosen for their stupidity, inability and lack of backbone so they can provide the face to the public while DC is running the show? It seems to me Boris and his friends won the election but handed the show to DC to manage while they enjoyed the perks of the job.

That’s exactly what happened. And every minister is a hard brexiteer. The ineptitude of the cabinet means they’ll do as they’re told and take the flack when the results of their incompetence back fire.

I notice you have not furnished proof of Cummings statement about the disadvantaged.

I thought about posting details of things he did whilst working with Gove at the DfE but I decided to keep the post short.

You appear to think that the Government is doing a good job

I didn't say that. I specifically pointed out that the gap between disadvantaged pupils and the rest is too big and is falling too slowly. They are narrowing the gap but not quickly enough. I would have said the same about the last Labour government - they also narrowed the gap but not quickly enough. At the current rate it will take around 500 years to close the gap completely. That is not good enough.

You talk about Micheal Gove's passion - he has a strange way of showing it

I'm not saying he always did the right things. He didn't. And I agree with your comments regarding maths. But some of his policies were clearly aimed at improving the performance of schools in deprived areas. One can argue about whether they were the right policies and whether they were implemented competently but the intent was there.

Which policies though prh47bridge? In what way would they have improved things?

As for intent - well the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

No i doubt it was intentional, it's based off poor results so it was always going to affect disadvantaged pupils and schools, tbh ofqual is to blame, it's their system

@Newfornow

What would the government gain by deliberately sabotaging potential of social mobility and the higher taxes that generates? Yabu

Never assume it's deliberate when it can just as easily be attributed to good old fashioned civil servants/quango incompetence!

This Dominic Cummings? The one who wrote this in his blog? The one that is going to sort out the 'incompetent' civil service? The one who passionately believes that the answer to all problems is an algorithm? Great that some feel reassured by this. Me, I seem to think differently about his list and him.

There is a huge amount of low hanging fruit — trillion dollar bills lying on the street — in the intersection of: the selection, education and training of people for high performance; the frontiers of the science of prediction; data science, AI and cognitive technologies (e.g Seeing Rooms, ‘authoring tools designed for arguing from evidence’; Tetlock/IARPA prediction tournaments that could easily be extended to consider ‘clusters’ of issues around themes like Brexit to improve policy and project management); communication (e.g Cialdini); decision-making institutions at the apex of government

Almost anyone who talks about AI is full of bollocks.

"apex of government" is also another twatflag.

And that's before you consider the pisspoor grammar and style in that excerpt.

That reads like it was written by someone who is overly impressed with their own intelligence, after one too many glasses.of red....

I wonder if DC used a 'Seeing Room' or the frontiers of the science of prediction to predict this debacle? Obviously the science worked well for him to predict that his 'superforcaster' would have to resign after being found out for dubious social media comments. Ah well, at least he can help Gavin learn how to argue from understand evidence.

@WhyNotMe40

That reads like it was written by someone who is overly impressed with their own intelligence, after one too many glasses.of red....

It reads like what it is. Something written by someone none so bright that impresses other people who are none so bright.

The first 16 words are a tautology incorporating an unnecessary (and rather strained and odd) definition.

Little tip. If you need to explain "low hanging fruit" to your audience, then you probably need a big red nose, oversize shoes and flower that squirts water to hold their attention.

You would have though enough lessons had been learned from the Post Office Horizon fiasco

Computer says it so it must be right and we must take it as gospel mentality.

@Bluntness100

I think folks seem to forget that even with the alogorithim there were more passes than ever before. This is simoly a case of how over inflated the results were. Some folks are reacting like thousands and thousands of kids were given grades worse than they would have achieved, and everyone was downgraded, that’s not the case at all. Overall the grades given were still better and over inflated v previous years..

Yes some kids were penalised by it, but it was a tiny minority where the algorithm got it wrong as it attempted to standardise back to previous years.

What should have occured is teachers told to assess grades but keep it within a given percentage of the average of previous years Performance. That part was missing which is what’s caused this fuck up.

They over inflated too much, so the government tried to standardise it back but still kept it over inflated.

The whole thing is a mess but the media frenzy and the hysteria some folks are displaying shows a wholesale misunderstanding of what’s actually occured.

First bit of teacher-bashing I’ve seen on this thread...just a few messages in.

Do you have kids? Do you trust teachers to care for them in school? Then fucking trust them to grade them accurately then! Fool.

@HeIenaDove

You would have though enough lessons had been learned from the Post Office Horizon fiasco

Computer says it so it must be right and we must take it as gospel mentality.

Quite so, Tuttle.

OP, you are assuming the government looked at the detail. Which I doubt.

I rather like this description myself , sorry Si can’t remember the author ( which is bad I know)

First bit of teacher-bashing I’ve seen on this thread...just a few messages in

How is it teacher bashing if it’s factual? That’s batshit, the scores were forty percent over inflated, and for a valid reason as explained in other posts. That post was in response to someone,

Cmon, get a grip, seriously. There’s sensitive and then there is this.