IB results out tomorrow

[truelove]

DS expecting IB results tomorrow afternoon. He needs 7,6,6 at HL for Physics at Warwick (same for his insurance, Bristol) but has since decided he wants to try for Durham through clearing (because his GF is going there assuming she gets the results she needs . He knows it’s a long shot and that he will probably have to wait for A level results.

Anyone else’s DC awaiting IB results tomorrow?

My post above relate to gcse and A level when I say about seeing what August brings etc and not IB which is seemingly flawed as it does not include cohort data.

About turn by Ofqual re looking at IB grades and I see TES have removed their earlier article saying they wouldn't investigate and replaced it with one saying they will!

@SeasonFinale... Referring to GCSE, AS and A level only... yes, you are of course once more right - teachers certainly can work out what % of grades corresponds to the appropriate historic average (assuming that it is this average that is 'the right answer').

But it's what happens next that is "interesting".

When the historical average is applied to this year's cohort to determine the number of this year's candidates to be awarded any grade, the result is likely to be a fraction. But candidates come in whole numbers. So all those fractions have to be rounded.

If everyone rounds strictly in accordance with the rules of arithmetic, rounding down as well as up, then the all-school aggregate, as computed by the exam board, is likely to comply with a policy of "no grade inflation" (if that policy is enforced, which once again I don't know).

But if more than half of the schools round up for the higher grades (and especially if any add, say, 1 more, as might be 'encouraged' by virtue of the year-on-year variation in the numbers from which the average was computed), and down for the lower grades, then the policy of "no grade inflation", as applied to the whole-school aggregate, will be blown sky high. www.tes.com/news/exams-gcse-alevel-grading-issue-risk-concern

I wonder to what extent FFT Education Datalab's results can be explained by the well-intentioned 'optimism' of schools that rounded up, and submitted numbers for the higher grades a bit above the average, but still within the upper variation limit, and without any 'game playing'? For if this is what has happened, the outcome will be catastrophic, and deeply tragic.

To my mind, the fundamental error was the failure of Ofqual to provide all schools with a spreadsheet, or equivalent on-line tool, to do all these computations in exactly the same way, using exactly the same rules for rounding, at every school. The data required is simple: for each subject, the number of students awarded each grade in each of the relevant prior years, and also this year's total cohort. The spreadsheet would then do all the rest, and result in a "recommended distribution". I would also have added an opportunity for schools to make adjustments, to recognise 'outliers' and 'special cases', and to compile the corresponding evidence to be presented to the boards as required.

By ensuring all schools do the computations in exactly the same way, this protects the 'level playing field', and ensures fairness - as far as the policies are fair.

Ofqual could have made such a tool available on 21March, the day after Gavin Williamson's statement. But they didn't.

This is not the wisdom of hindsight. It was a choice open to Ofqual at the time; a choice they did not take. Nor is this in any sense novel. The spreadsheet is not difficult to design, and the use of exactly the same process and model is standard good practice in relation to any situation in which a number of independent entities are required, in essence, to do the same thing, but with different data sets.

But that didn't happen. And we are all living with the consequences. Oh dear.

The schools do not have to offer grades based on the average of the last few years as they can offer more if the cohort is stronger than before. Prior attainment of this year's cohort is being taken into account and grades will be adjusted higher or lower dependent on this.

This is clearly outlined in the AQA video below.

Also Ofqual are taking into account small cohorts and their definition of a small entry will be the same for all subjects and regardless of the overall size of the centre.

Yes as well as cohort prior attainment as determined per setting too all boards have been asked (according to one of the Ofqual documents you provided yourself Dennis) to feed data into an anticipated national prediction for exams results this year too.

I disagree that a tool could have been made available on 21 March. Can you imagine the outcry there would have been about how rushed this had been prepared and so on? There has been enough hand wringing and teeth gnashing around the whole procedure as it is with the various consultations. I am glad they have staggered these too as more scenarios have been brought to their attention along the way e.g.. those taking early gcses and the methodology schools use to teach those. I think the fact that they have indeed taken their time, reconsider areas and so on does mean they have the best chance of being robust.

It has also allowed for consideration for the 2021 exams too.

My one amendment I would make if I were in charge would be some better method of appeal. The grades were submitted just after half term. It shouldn't really take too long to apply the standardisation and look for potential problematic areas such as small cohort or outliers or schools where there is a significant difference in order that the evidence can be asked for or in school process checked. If the results were able to be released earlier this would enable for say A levels at least for an individual to ask that their grade be reviewed on an evidential basis with the option of the October exam too. I agree that for gcses this would be nigh on impossible and therefore the November exams are most likely the best way forward.

TES has published a number of articles recently which quite frankly are disappointing at least and reckless at worst. They really should.be fact checking and considering what they publish rather than almost be another forum for anyone to post what they want. Some readers believe that because it is TES it must be experts submitting the articles and therefore they must be true rather than being as reliable as a tabloid!

Update here- my DD has now been offered her place. So relieved and happy. All the students at her school who missed their places by a small margin now have offers. I hope the Ofqual investigation flags up the injustice of this year's marking and leads to a marking review.

I was so pleased that my DD wanted to go down the IB route- if I had known what was ahead though.

@dennishsherwood I still agree with you. Although I think that half the grades should be right, particularly in consistently high performing schools, the teachers will not have known what their "grade budget" was in a lot of schools. Also, there are loads of people around the grade boundaries every year, DS1 got a marginal A in every past Physics paper he did, got a similar percentage in the real thing, but the grade boundaries moved up that year. His teacher had a valid basis for predicting an A, but that was not what he got and that must happen a lot, but does not mean the prediction was wrong, just that they decided to reduce the percentage of A*s in Physics last year, which is part of what makes it difficult for teachers to predict accurately.

I have said it before, but at DS1's school they got 3% A* in maths A level for 2018, 15% for 2019, even though it was a large cohort (>75). It may have been a more able cohort, but I suspect that the move from the modular style worked against exam factory schools as the papers were not what people expected and tested higher skills more than previous exams had. That resulted in a drop in grade boundaries which helped the schools which were less focussed on exam technique. I expect that the schools which had disappointing results last year will have adjusted their teaching for the new style of exam this year and would have done better for 2020, but last year I saw surprising maths results across the country.

The document linked above with the missing section on standardisation said that for maths, the national progress expectation would be based on 2019 only as it was the first linear year. It does not say whether the grade allocations for 2020 will also be based on just 2019, but for some schools that will make a massive difference. Should DS1's school be suggesting 15% because it is the only year with the new syllabus, or some hybrid of more past years.

Maths is just an example I have plucked out, but each subject will have issues and for some subjects, such as music and drama, almost all the entries across the country will be from small subject cohorts.

I believe OFQUAL when they say "we are on your side" and that they are trying to produce fair results, but "the devil is in the detail" and I think that everyone who is not at a school which has 90% A/A* every year will see surprising results. The boards will say, as IBO have said, it is OK, the results are up on last year, the grades are fine, but at a personal level there will be winners and losers. I just hope the universities are able to look beyond the grades for the losers in the grade lottery.

@Ciancianese, phew, that is great news!

Hi @Monkey2001 - thank you, agreed.

And - despite all my reservations - I too believe that this year's results will be more fair than previous years: if you haven't already seen this - /www.hepi.ac.uk/2020/03/21/trusting-teachers-is-the-best-way-to-deliver-exam-results-this-summer-and-after/ - take a look; it's dated 21 March, and the key message is I think still true.

I just regret that some of the things that might have happened since 21 March didn't - or rather, so far haven't, for there is still time to fix some things, especially the appeals process. My disenchantment since 21 March is captured - once again, if you haven't already seen it - here www.hepi.ac.uk/2020/06/18/have-teachers-been-set-up-to-fail/

Thank you for bringing this back to some more reasoned debate. For me the saddest thing would be if click bait headlines and scaremongering casts doubt on the many thousands of results that will be in line with what students deserve ie those students that get results they are happy with (or are at least able to move on to Uni courses) are somehow made to feel that their results are worth less than they should be.

Yes there will be some that lose out in this system as in any system but currently the headlines and throw away comments are in danger of devaluing the hard work of the many.

Fantastic news that IB students got their places, I am again hopeful that that will be the case in August and A level students will be able to move on regardless. Our young people need confidence and calmness at the moment, not whipping up of angst.

Oratory1
I am saddened too that there are many students who have lost out on their courses and some have failed the diploma totally. It is not unreasonable to be angry and upset in the circumstances- this is after all a thread about the IB results.
I have enjoyed reading this thread, which is now a debate about A levels , but it is totally unacceptable to throw these IB students under a bus- after all they deserved results that reflected their ability and hard work too.
Can you point out the post where the debate was unreasonable please ?
As for clickbait headlines and scaremongering....at least now Ofqual have reluctantly engaged.

Apologies Ciancianese, I wasn't for a minute suggesting it is unreasonable for those affected to be incredibly angry and upset. And also apologies too that this thread on IB has been taken over somewhat by a discussion on A levels/GCSE. My comments referred to some unreasonable articles and comments made in the press recently about the process for GCSE/A levels and which are in danger of impacting on those many thousand of students who will get results they deserve, by throwing doubt on them results, as well as just those unfairly adversely affected. As well as panicking parents and students unnecessarily. I hope that makes sense and I recognize they would have been better made on another thread.

'all results' not them results

Ciancianese - I have posted quite a bit about A levels, but not with the intent of side-tracking, let alone hi-jacking, the IB discussion. And you are surely absolutely right that many IB students have been most unjustly treated.

I think, though, that there are many parallels between the process by which IB results have been determined and now announced, and the GCSE/AS/A level process which is currently in train, but for which the results won't be announced until August 13 and 20.

Yes, the details are different, but many features are similar: an opaque process of "statistical moderation", the details of which have never been made clear, so that no one knows how the results have actually been determined, let alone could anticipate in advance; references to comparisons with history, but nothing detailed and specific; the apparent disregard being paid to teachers' judgements; the supremacy of the policy of "no grade inflation" even at the expense of fairness to the individual student.

My fear is that the current, highly disturbing, dissatisfaction with the IB results is but a dress rehearsal for what could well be a volcanic eruption of dissatisfaction in August, where many more young people will be treated unfairly, and without recourse to appeal.

The hard work of all our young people should be recognised by awarding fair and reliable assessments. Regrettably, this seems not to be the case this year, whether for GCSE, AS, A level or IB.

Just to clarify that a bit though (based on Dennis's previous posts and my reading), there will be SOME very unfair results, some a bit unfair, but the majority will probably be about right and some will be over-generous.

Which is why it would be great news if OFQUAL would offer a lifeline of a right to appeal because the system did not work for some students in the opinion of the teachers who best knew their work and could provide evidence to support an appeal.

Yes - thank you Monkey 2001 - "some very unfair", "some a bit unfair" and "majority about right" is certainly correct. Wouldn't it be great if we could (1) quantify that and (2) ensure, as you stress, that all in the "very unfair" and "a bit unfair" categories had the right to appeal. There's still a ghost of a chance that this could happen, and maybe the current IB issues will influence Ofqual to make that happen. Fingers crossed...

The point I am trying to make (but badly) is that it will be a shame if the irresponsible reporting and questionable petitions undermine what you describe as the 'majority about right' so that those results are devalued as inaccurate and less deserved. Those students deserve to have confidence in their results.

Absolutely - we are all on the same, important, page.

I expect the IB people have seen the coverage in the FT, but in case you have not:

www.ft.com/content/ee0f4d97-4e0c-4bc3-8350-19855e70f0cf

Interesting looking at schools IB results in the FT article and it probably highlights the issues that could arise from the A level results...

KES Bham had a downward trend in IB results but there results this year have shot up from the historical standisation... 4 percent up..

2020 38.7 45%
2019 37.9 41%
2018 37.9 46%
2017 39.1 54%
2016 39.4 54%

King Edwards Oxford results were on the rise and there results are 5% down year on year... (no 5 year table but in 2019 they had 87% 7-5 and this year its 82%)...I can't see their 6/7 trend because they have not published it...

I'm hoping that Ofquals review will see that there's a strong possibility of an issue here.. Is it correct for trends to shoot up or down purely on standisation given no exams were sat?

Dennis.. I totally agree with you about the Appeal process... In order for results to be valued you need to have a process of Appeal where the DC who have unjust outcomes have the opportunity for their teachers to qualify the CAG... Otherwise all the results will be devalued in the press where the majority would have been about right..... your posts have always been courteous and I have not found them scaremongering.

Anyway I'm glad your DC secured their Uni place @Ciancianese.

Thank you @Oneteen! But wow! The Select Committee report is a bombshell - really opening things up for UK exams, and quite likely with knock-on effects for IB too. Here are some extracts:
"A submission from University College London’s Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities warned that the use of historic performance data for standardisation could penalise “atypical” students such as high achievers in historically low-performing schools." (page 10)
"Ofqual’s decision not to include trajectory in their standardisation process was criticised in the Sutton Trust’s written evidence, which suggested that the ‘turnaround’ schools disadvantaged by this decision are likely to disproportionately serve poorer communities.” (page 10)
"Ofqual must be completely transparent about its standardisation model and publish the model immediately to allow time for scrutiny. In addition, Ofqual must publish an explanatory memorandum on decisions and assumptions made during the model’s development. This should include clearly setting out how it has ensured fairness for schools without 3 years of historic data, and for settings with small, variable cohorts." (page 11)
Those are pretty clear; I find the situation as regards appeals less so. There is much emphasis on allowing appeals related to discrimination (absolutely right, of course), but there is no explicit requirement on Ofqual (I don't think) to make a statement as clear as in Scotland.
Page 15 says "Ofqual must ensure advice and support is easily accessible for all pupils unhappy with their grades", but that's not much use if the 'advice' is "sorry, that's tough"; on the same page "Ofqual must issue guidance to schools and colleges about the options available for pupils unhappy with their results" and once again "guidance" is not the same as "actually do the right thing".
Overall, this is really good, and certainly opens the black box of statistical standardisation. But I don't think this will be the end of the story. A lot depends on what we find inside that box - and once the box is open, that leads to the intriguing possibility that schools will be able to replicate the process right away, and discover the actual results way before August 13 and 20. And that will enable all the anxieties we've been discussing to be either relieved or confirmed. Which if confirmed, will lead to all sorts of places. Mmm... interesting. Ofqual will have spotted all that, so that might be an incentive on them to keep things hidden as far as they can - which might result in another telling-off by Robert Halfon, which is their worst nightmare. Or maybe second-worst - if Cummings is against them, they might be headed for that spare slot in the no-longer-required-regulator-graveyard.
I also have a hunch that the appeals process is not yet finalised. What's the difference between "I think I've been treated unfairly because I'm from an ethnic minority" and "I think I've been treated unfairly because they've given me the wrong grade"? Surely it is discriminatory if only BAME candidates are allowed appeals? So let's see what happens...
What do others think?

sorry - hit the wrong button! That's all hard to read - when I wanted to edit, I did the wrong thing. And I can't delete it. Apologies. Let me try again...

Thank you @Oneteen! But wow! The Select Committee report, just published this morning, is a bombshell - really opening things up for UK exams, and quite likely with knock-on effects for IB too. /committees.parliament.uk/publications/1834/documents/17976/default/

Health warning: those only interested in IB please skip this post!

Here are some extracts:

"A submission from University College London’s Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities warned that the use of historic performance data for standardisation could penalise “atypical” students such as high achievers in historically low-performing schools." (page 10)

"Ofqual’s decision not to include trajectory in their standardisation process was criticised in the Sutton Trust’s written evidence, which suggested that the ‘turnaround’ schools disadvantaged by this decision are likely to disproportionately serve poorer communities.” (page 10)

"Ofqual must be completely transparent about its standardisation model and publish the model immediately to allow time for scrutiny. In addition, Ofqual must publish an explanatory memorandum on decisions and assumptions made during the model’s development. This should include clearly setting out how it has ensured fairness for schools without 3 years of historic data, and for settings with small, variable cohorts." (page 11)

Those are pretty clear; I find the situation as regards appeals less so. There is much emphasis on allowing appeals related to discrimination (absolutely right, of course), but there is no explicit requirement on Ofqual (I don't think) to make a statement as clear as in Scotland, where appeals are free and may be made on grounds of perceived unfairness.

Page 15 says "Ofqual must ensure advice and support is easily accessible for all pupils unhappy with their grades", but that's not much use if the 'advice' is "sorry, that's tough"; on the same page "Ofqual must issue guidance to schools and colleges about the options available for pupils unhappy with their results" and once again "guidance" is not the same as "actually do the right thing".

Overall, this is really good, and certainly opens the black box of statistical standardisation.

But I don't think this will be the end of the story. A lot depends on what we find inside that box - and once the box is open, that leads to the intriguing possibility that schools will be able to replicate the process right away, and discover the actual results way before August 13 and 20. And that will enable all the anxieties we've been discussing to be either relieved or confirmed.

Which if confirmed, will lead to all sorts of places. Mmm... interesting. Ofqual will have spotted all that, so that might be an incentive on them to keep things hidden as far as they can - which might result in another telling-off by Robert Halfon, which is their worst nightmare. Or maybe second-worst - if Cummings is against them, they might be headed for that spare slot in the no-longer-required-regulator-graveyard.

I also have a hunch that the appeals process is not yet finalised. What's the difference between "I think I've been treated unfairly because I'm from an ethnic minority" and "I think I've been treated unfairly because they've given me the wrong grade"? Surely it is discriminatory if only BAME candidates are allowed appeals? So let's see what happens...

What do others think?

Its hard to know what will happen but certainly with the IB results it's a shambles... You have a school whose IB results went up by 4% when that cohorts GCSE results (2018) were weaker than the 2017...so logic would say that the 2020 IB results should have gone down or at the very least stay the same.

I'm hoping that Ofqual have had more time to really test the GCSE/A level system and in light of the IB issues will actually change their mind about the Appeals process...

.

I have always felt that there should have been some system when submitting grades for schools to be able to put forward a statement setting out why after standardisation their school results should face an automatic review and why. This would include eg. evidence of the upward trajectory, evidence that although all our grades fall within our normal historic data for pupil X and Y they do not because they are outliers and therefore either individual data is appropriate or evidence of calculated grade or small cohort distortion where in previous years smarter pupils historically went the STEM route but this year have chosen English/Humanities.

There is a time problem obviously but that is why I would have thought at the time of submission of results would have been appropriate. I don't think all schools would have submitted such a statement or do you think such a system would have been abused?

That said it had always been my understanding that outliers and small cohorts would be considered by boards requesting evidence prior to an automatic moderation down of Grades.