Anger that teachers are taking the blame.

[DBML]

Watching Sky News and the reporter commented that due to the failures of the algorithm, the teacher’s Centre Assessed Grades had to be used, leading to an inflation of this years GCSE grades.

To me this sounds like they are saying that teachers input grades that were overly positive.

I am utterly fuming. I assessed my pupils and awarded grades fairly and based on evidence including some partial coursework; some complete coursework and mock examinations.

There was no incentive to ‘inflate’ grades, as this year I am not being held accountable for the results.

Yet on receiving the final grades today I noted that a number of my learners were ‘upgraded’ by the exam board. Pupils who didn’t deserve a top mark, achieved a top mark. It was the same across the school with over 100 children out of 1000, having been upgraded from what their teachers said they should have.

So is that the teacher’s assessment that has inflated GCSE results? Or is that the cock-up of the government and exam boards?

I’m happy for the children, I really am...but...
To hear that the ‘inflation’ of grades is being laid at the door of the teachers has really boiled my blood.

AIBU to think this is not the teachers fault?

The problem is that the people who SHOULD be taking the blame are desperately trying to pass the blame onto anyone but themselves.

Just a simple question. How would all the MN education experts have done it? Moaning about the algorithm, moaning about Centre Assessment, maybe they could put forward an alternative.

It's not even true.
I have one who ticked all the right boxes for grades 2 levels higher than predicted and 3 more than mocks at least.
One was actually awarded on that stupid algorithm, but then put right when changed to CAG. It was such a ridiculous grade that anyone who knew the child was hysterical including the child.

Now peace avails as much more realistic and correct grades have been awarded, no 9's but no resits, which was a strong possibility.

They should have just used the teacher’s predictions.

Without all those algorithm inflated grades, the overall pass rate would have been lower and fairer.

How would the kids have known that an algorithm put their grade up before that idea was scrapped?
They wouldn’t have, so keeping the ‘algorithm worked out’ higher grade makes no sense at all - some pupils have just got lucky, unfairly.

@mrsBtheparker

Just a simple question. How would all the MN education experts have done it? Moaning about the algorithm, moaning about Centre Assessment, maybe they could put forward an alternative.

At the moment we have a mix of the two - both the algorithm and teachers have probably been a cause of the grade inflation.

Using one system only would have been a better option. A number of teachers I know, I didn't teach yr 11 last year, have said their grades have been increased.

If my class grades had been left alone, I’d have had 61% pass rate.

However due to the algorithm upgrading my results, I now have a 78% pass rate.

I’m screwed next year.

After 10 years of teaching I’d say predicted grades are MASSIVELY inflated and mean fuck all... 🤷🏼‍♀️

I think this is something that is being missed by many.

Having done a lot of marking in my subject - most of the time my marking as an examiner is way harsher now than my teacher marking was before I worked for the exam board.

Add in national standardisation that hasn’t happened and it’s clear to see why grades are up this year.

I believe center assesses is the fairest way for pupils who haven’t sat the exam this year but it is an anomaly year not in line with previous years.

It’s tough- as a teacher we want to award our pupils, so many of us are high achieving conscious professionals, but that fear of failing that is in many of us, is precisely why there should be an external judgment of work learnt. To remove a layer of emotionalism. Well that’s what I think.

Personally I would have put the GCSE/Alevels off until late Oct and delayed the start of Uni till Jan. Given the rest of the school 3 weeks off in November to use the classrooms for social distancing if need be.

I'm not hearing anyone blame teachers.
The overwhelming anger of anyone I've seen is firmly aimed at the Government.
Admittedly, most of my energy has been taken up with A levels, not GCSEs, but all forums I've read through have no doubt at all that teachers have been through the mill over this, and no-one is blaming schools, universities, UCAS or anyone else other than the Government. I would presume it is going to be similar in any GCSE groups.

It was an impossible task for all concerned. I think we just have to be glad it's over and move on.

The higher ups like to pass the buck And are not honest enough to own up to their mistakes
The end

@DBML

They should have just used the teacher’s predictions.

Without all those algorithm inflated grades, the overall pass rate would have been lower and fairer.

How would the kids have known that an algorithm put their grade up before that idea was scrapped?
They wouldn’t have, so keeping the ‘algorithm worked out’ higher grade makes no sense at all - some pupils have just got lucky, unfairly.

But they couldn’t do that. They couldn’t do that for GCSEs because of the shitshow over A Levels. Students had been given their algorithm A Levels. Lots were downgraded. But some would have benefited. Once they all knew then they applied for their degree course. The government then U-turned and said everyone could have their CAG. There’s no way they could have said, oh but you lot who got higher in the algorithm than the CAG have to drop back down again, because some had already been accepted on their Uni course based on their algorithm grades. They had to let the higher algorithm grade stand or the shitshow would have worsened. They couldn’t then do something different for GCSEs and say, sorry even if the algorithm is higher you only get the CAG, they had to let the higher grade stand. (This post is not an endorsement of government policy btw)

Yanbu. I had to move a few pupil's grades down to fit the data for last year. I didn't agree with it but SLT made me. Then today 3 students were moved up. 2 to received 9s. I didn't give any 9s! I'd rather my original grades for every one were given instead. The ones moved down still upset me.

Total shit show by the government. They should be embarrassed and ashamed.

My CAG's went up from 2 9's to more than 6...I am still in shock.

YANBU

It is outrageous that some (ignorant) people are blaming teachers

The algorithm / model made ridiculous upgrades and ridiculous downgrades

Ofqal themselves tested their algorithm on the 2019 results and reported that it predicted the wrong grade in 35-55% of exam papers, depending on the subject

Williamson obviously never bothered to read their report or listen to his advisers
He didn't do his job

How would all the MN education experts have done it? Moaning about the algorithm, moaning about Centre Assessment, maybe they could put forward an alternative.

Ok, there was a point near the end of the algorithm where pupil grades were converted to marks based on ranking, and then grade boundaries were generated from those marks that matched the desired statistical outcome. These grade boundaries were then applied to the marks allocated to each student so they were converted back to grades.

Prior to that part of the algorithm, small group had received their CAGs which gave them (as we know) higher grades than the algorithm would have predicted. The algorithm wasn’t used for them as it’s not accurate for small samples.

This meant that pupils with higher grades were put with pupils with average grades and the national statistics grade boundary calculation applied. Because some pupils were higher than average, this calculation would have pulled them all down. But it would have pulled them down unfairly, as some pupils already had lower grades due to the original algorithm being applied as they were in large groups, so they were pulled down further.

I wouldn’t have done this stage. Instead I would have compared the output of the initial algorithm with the CAGs issued by centre and looked for anomalies (a grade 2+ drop or rise). The odd anomalies could be found and fixed manually (perhaps they could have been sent to schools for teachers to spot). Obviously anomalous centres/subjects with lots of drops or rises could have been investigated as a whole - perhaps asked to provide evidence for their wildly different to expected results.

You didn’t actually want an answer though, did you?

YANBU, it is typical Divide And Conquer bullshit.