University 2020 :4: The wait for grades and better days ahead

[MillicentMartha]

New thread for us. Interesting times.

Old thread here

No NEAs for autumn exams (A level : October, GCSEs : November) except for Art and Design.

The difference in cohort thing is for demographic rather than attainment.

@SeasonFinale - What do you mean, 'No NEAs'? DS completed his Design NEA elements before lockdown, then was due to sit a single paper for the remaining 40%. Normally he would have known what mark/ approximate grade was being put forward for by the school for the NEA part, which would then have given him a sense of what he would (approximately) need to get in his written paper.
Is there any indication that they will tell them, post-results day, what their NEA part was assessed at? Otherwise it's hard for them to decide whether it's worth taking the Autumn exam paper?

It is all in the document. To be honest I skimmed over as my son is not doing Art nor Design. Are you anticipating not getting a grade calculated at what he expects then?

Divoc2020 Its page 11 of this document
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-an-additional-gcse-as-and-a-level-exam-series-in-autumn-2020

SeasonFinale, when they say a different demographic, the subtext is that they mean with different probable attainment to previous years.

My understanding is if there’s a lot of movement in a school between Y7 and Y11, ie only 50% of the Y11s started in Y7 at that school, it makes it hard to apply a statistical model that assumes most of Y11 were there in Y7. The 50% newcomers might be generally lower or higher attaining students than the 50% who left. At my last school we had a big influx of Eastern European students coming into a school in a deprived catchment. Once they caught up with their English, they tended to outperform the local children.

It’s only if the different demographic is likely to get different results to previous years that it might be an issue that schools would want to base an appeal on. The problem is that schools can only appeal on these grounds after the statistical model has been applied and no school will appeal if their results are higher than expected. Which means schools’ appeals will either result in no change or an improvement which might lead to some grade inflation.

Thanks Season.

I think that's appalling if they don't allow a carryover of some form of assessment of NEA.
In Drama for example, 60% of the exam is practical NEA (acting/ devising) and was developed/completed in the 18 months before 20 March (and filmed/ kept for mdoeration). The written exam is the minority part at 40%. It's madness that a single 3 hour exam could determine a final grade in an autumn exam without any link to the practical work .

Divoc But surely they are more likely to get the proper calculated grade of they have done 60% assessment already and won't need to "resit"

Millicent Yes I understood what demographic meant but the explanation will be useful for others referring to the thread.

Sorry, Season, didn’t mean to come across as patronising!

Season - yes, in theory, but there is always the possibility of being the student whose grade is moderated down by the standardisation process, or believes they have been ranked too low based on limited previous written paper evidence.
It also risks disability discrimination, since it disadvantages students with SpLDs (dyslexia, ADHD etc) who may rely on a strong performance in the NEA to counterbalance with difficulties in written exams.
Where the original A level is more than 50% NEA (Drama, Music are the two that come to mind at 60%) then the NEA can't just be dismissed for the resit.

The centre should be able to submit a NEA score from previous completed work to add to the Autumn exam mark.

www.tes.com/news/ofqual-school-gcse-records-given-more-weight-grades

A friend just forwarded this TES article which is a really clear summary of the consultation results.

Thanks for the article @MillicentMartha.. .the exam boards might as well tell each school what grades that they can give out.

It does seem that the proportion of each grade for a school will be pretty much predetermined and schools will just have to slot their students in. There will be some room for manoeuvre within narrow error allowances, which will be wider for smaller schools. I guess it’s been pretty clear that the ranking is what the school can control. The grading will be applied on to the ranking. But that’s much like grade boundary setting in a normal year.

Really hope the allowance for small cohorts or small numbers in a subject and the variation that brings particularly in non selective schools is properly allowed for. It is referred to in the papers so we have to hope !!

I’m crossing fingers and toes for your DS, Oratory.

I think my DS should be ok for maths and FM as his school has a good record, but CS has only recently taken off there and I only have last year’s results to look at and a vague memory of the year before’s results.

Thank you !!

So no school will be getting their best results ever - either across the board or in certain subjects?

I’m just bothered about dd2s French. 2 in the class this year, 5 last year, 3 year before.
Both of this years are predicted an A, last years were A-C (don’t know specifics) and year before were A-C-E (dd1 was the A, the other two barely turned up).

Not much past data for them to use for my DD's college. It's only been open for 3 years, so last year is the one and only year they have had students get A level results!

Dds cohorts GCSE results were pretty much inline with the previous year although there are probably large anomalies with subjects given the vast variety of A levels offered. The Maths mocks did not go well so I think the school will be more than happy using the parameters of last year's results (or the last 3 years).

I assume the exam board will apply percentage ratios... So if its a larger cohort taking say Biology and 30 percent got A in previous years.. 30 percent will most probably achieve A this year..

I've still no idea about the A level grades for past years. DD did well in her mocks and was probably in the top 3/4 in all her subjects, probably highest ranking in her Biology class but not sure how she's ranked when the other two classes are considered , probably helps that the HODs taught Dd in all three subjects.

I am sure your DSs will be fine @Oratory1 (how big is the 6th form? ) and @MillicentMartha.
.
..

Between 50 and 60 oneteen. Our issue is it is not selective. DS has done incredibly well from barely reading at age 11 to A star predictions and is an outlier with his results not typical for the school. Last years CS results were something like CDD, DS is hoping for A. No one has ever got an A in physics before, he needs an A 😲. But we believe the proposed system is pragmatic and fair and also know in a different environment he wouldn’t have progressed and achieved what he has so if he loses out it will be just bad luck that we will have to accept and move on.

Sorry, hope it’s OK to join in, I normally just lurk on this thread, but was devastated to read that TES article. My daughter attends a requires improvement comprehensive, her cohort achieved by the far the best GCSE results the school had ever seen and I truly believe if she sat her A levels, she would have achieved As and hopefully an A*. She has never achieved below an A in any piece of work in History and her teachers felt she had a shot at an A star, but no one from her school has ever even got an A in History, so that seems unlikely given the information in that article. Similarly she should have been very safe on an A for religious studies but they don’t have a good record in that either. Surely this is so unfair to schools such as hers. If they were to look at the results these students achieved at GCSE then surely, it would be possible for them to achieved better grades than those previously. I have a neighbour who is an examiner and he thought they would even consider KS2 SATS in which she got 3 level 6s, If you look at students on an individual level these grades are possible. Her year group as a whole will really suffer for this and it just seems so unfair when they face an uphill struggle as it is.

@PosyRosie, the cohort‘s previous attainment will be taken into account. That’s different to an improving trajectory, which is a school hoping that a cohort will do better than those in the past of a similar ability due to the school improving recently, by better teaching, better behaviour management etc. It’s a bit unfair on those schools that are improving but it’s a hard thing to prove.

If your DD’s year group at her school performed really well in GCSEs that’s a reliable, proven measure the exam boards will be able to use. That means the prior attainment of the cohort will be used as part of the statistical model.

@PosyRosie

‘The standardisation model will draw on the following sources of evidence: historical outcomes for each centre; the prior attainment (Key Stage 2 or GCSE) of this year’s students and those in previous years within each centre; and the expected national grade distribution for the subject given the prior attainment of the national entry.’

This is taken from the guidance issued. The bit to note is where I’ve bolded it. Taken from page 9 of this document. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886978/6614-3_Summer_2020_grades_for_GCSE_AS_A_level_guidance_for_teachers_students_parents.pdf

I hope that’s helpful.