Teachers or those in the know - predicted grades??

[followtheyellowbrick]

So, new to this and DC is getting nearer to the stage of having to think about uni applications.

I was somewhat surprised to learn that uni applications are not always based on mock exams in Y13 but on 'predicted' grades but that how these are produced seem to vary from school to school.

Looked online and found an interesting study on teachers' predictions of their students' A-levels, and it seemed that the factors taken into account, in order of most to least were: Mocks, Commitment, Quality of Work, Student Interest and Other Assessments. Intriguing that the fairly 'subjective' Student Interest and Commitment were that high!

In your experience, what do you use to make predicted grades?

Students will be told this info right at the start of yr12 in September - they will hear it again and again. They are told the year will whizz by and before they know it, they will be choosing and applying.

They are also told that wider reading etc should be undertaken. Students might be encouraged to do reading, MOOCs, attend lectures, do essay competitions, work experience etc.

For many courses, the predicted grades and perhaps GCSEs are all that’s looked at in reality. For more competitive courses, stuff like wider engagement will be needed to get offers. Students know this.

Sorry Op if the system isn’t as you’d design it. Lots feel post-Exam application Would be better, but we have the system we do. You work within it. To be honest, the info is there for the kids and parents.

And there are still several months to get some stuff done for the personal statement. The students are approaching adulthood and need to engage. Teachers and schools can do so much, but they have to engage.

But if you don’t put in effort in Year 12 then you’re unlikely to do well in Year 13. I don’t think anyone goes into A levels thinking “I’ll coast year one then try more in Year two.” Teachers and schools make predictions based on what they feel gives them an accurate prediction and if they are wildly off one year they’d rethink how they do it but generally teachers in 6th form have smaller classes and really know the students well.

Remember too, in your quest for objective data for schools to use, that the school itself chooses which internal exams to set and how to mark them. Each school will use different methods. There is no objective method. But generally the various approaches work well.

GCSE results are an objective nationalised and standardised measure of prior attainment. Unis have those too.

Studebts are also free to choose to apply post-A Levels or to re-apply. There are several options.

I didn't grow up in this country either, and my eldest didn't do A levels. But I knew for sure (as did my child) that grades submitted for ucas were based on Y12 exams and coursework and aptitude - what else could they be based on? What were you expecting them to base it on?
Our school does similar to @PrivateSchoolTeacherParent. There is an option to resit an exam in the Autumn term or in the case of non written exam subjects (like Art) show improvement over the summer.
My daughter's predictions were in line with her mock exam results. She has a friend predicted an A in a subject she has never achieved an A in, which has irked my daughter somewhat, and that may indeed be to help with an application, but I see no point in over inflation predictions. It doesn't serve the student nor the school.
The system is terrible. The pressure to achieve a certain grade is immense. Far better to have firm offers based on results achieved over their last couple years in total, not just in a few hours of exams.

Thanks. Just to clarify, I didn't say that Y12 shouldn't matter, of course students should care and put the effort in from the beginning. It is the fact that Y12 is almost (or actually) more important than Y13 that I would guess most people wouldn't know until they're told, as you say, at the beginning of Y12. It's a bit like saying that Y10 is more important than Y11 (which it isn't).

So, you have a system of objective assessments at GCSEs (even though it seems odd with so many different exam boards), but at A-level, the first major weeding out of student is in the form of predicted grades which are highly subjective and with methods not consistent across schools. That seems very strange and unfair! I can imagine that some schools (maybe independents - and I have no skin in the game here as my DC are at private) would err on the more generous perhaps?

In several studies on predicted grades the accuracy ranges 42-55% so it's not very high! Strong tendency for teachers to be more accurate when it comes to high performing students (i.e. A*/A) than lower ability students. Not enough studies on this subject tbh, and many with quite low response rates and samples.
https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/561974-methods-used-by-teachers-to-predict-final-a-level-grades-for-their-students.pdf

If based on teachers' knowledge of the student, it would suggest that, unless you are very unhappy or in the wrong school for your ability, it would be better to stay where you are and where teachers know you.

A fairer system would - if the predicted application model has to stay - to have national Y12/Y13 tests before predictions have to be in.

I think (having had two DC go through years 12-13 now) it's just hard to really grasp how quickly it all goes, and how many critical points there are. The five years from 7-11 are a bit more leisurely and spaced out.

A levels + uni applications/entrance requirements (plus AS levels for some, foreign uni applications for some, plus mocks, and god forbid they have any outside interests or hobbies) all in less than two calendar years - it's really intense. There's no such thing as a fallow period in Y12-13, eg like Y8 in secondary which basically seems to be crowd control (I'm half joking, if you're a Y8 teacher please don't kill me)

I'm not sure there's an infallible way to get a 16 year old to understand this right at the outset - but they mostly come to terms with it and they're all in the same boat.

In my DC's 6th form they are assessed really frequently throughout year 12. They also did year 12 mocks just before half term. We had a letter just before half term explaining that predictions would be based on year 12 mocks and grades achieved in class and those who were working beyond expectation through year 12 would be given an aspirational prediction one grade higher than their current working at based on year 12 work.

People who are not working above expectation will be given a prediction based on what they are working at which seems fairly reasonable.

I think some do actually. My DD2 would most definitely have been told how important yr12 is and although she put some work in she admits now (currently taking A levels) that she wished she’d worked harder in yr12 as she ‘somewhat coasted’ - her word not mine. She realised after end of year exams in yr12 that she had to up her game and put in good effort over the summer holidays ready for the prediction mocks in Sept. She’s worked this year. Hopefully not too little too late. Teachers can tell them but whether they listen AND take action is another thing.

I agree with you @followtheyellowbrick, and interesting point that it is probably easier to predict with the kids already doing very well. Who knows if a child getting, say a C or a B in assessments, isn't already working at their full potential or if they have capacity to pull it out at a later point?
My daughter was new at her (independent) sixth form, and found it hard to adjust to how the teachers worked, and they would reference things she didn't know about as the rest of the class had the same teachers for GCSEs. But she's figured that out and worked hard from day one.

Surely that's obvious if you're aware of the UCAS system though?

@followtheyellowbrick A fairer system would - if the predicted application model has to stay - to have national Y12/Y13 tests before predictions have to be in.

I was a big fan of the "AS + A2" model which was swept away in England (by Gove?)

I'm making myself familiar but it's not something you would necessarily 'know', unless you've been through the system recently or your kid has. Or if you are a teacher of course.

Interesting, yes, in the studies it was (not surprisingly) more accurate predictions made on the basis of AS levels...

I hadn't really thought that through either OP. And I work in a secondary, including in the sixth form office, and have a y13 currently!

MN seems full of posters delighting in telling others how stupid they are today.....

I was the first year of as and I hated it, as a teacher was very happy to see them gone. Yes it helps weaker kids but a levels are meant to be rigorous and synoptic, how can you possibly test proper understanding and application across the subject with staged exams? It lent itself to rote learning which disadvantages truly bright students as average but good workers just learn things by heart that they don't really understand. The reforms were desperately needed. I know that's not a popular teacher view but I really despaired of the dumbing down Blair did. Btec reform was good but not enough, they are not equivalent. At all. Even with external exams.

Also I've never known a school not have a yr12 parents welcome in term 1 which spells out all of your points about hard work, the step up, independent learning not frees (why they think frees are for play time when even 5yr olds have just break and lunch I'll never know), ucas and predictions and general expectations.

@Boomboom22 I teach a small non-GCSE subject (Philosophy) so "4 AS and drop one" was great for me, as today it's much more of a leap of faith to pick it as one of three. I completely accept that it's a selfish view!

I teach Economics and every year some students take it as a new subject, mess about in year 12 and are then surprised when they don't do very well (to be fair, most aren't like that). It's best to think of it as 18 months to become expert and commit accordingly. Actually the ones who've done the GCSE and think they know it all already can also get a nasty shock when they are overtaken by students who haven't, but who really work to grasp it.

In the olden days (pre Tony Blair) it was understood that only those most suitable would go on to A-level and that the A-level would weed out those not suited for a degree in the subject.

Things are very different now but the "A" is there for a reason. Advanced Level!

I would prefer post results application though. All this forecasting (for which teachers are not trained) is a really problematic thing, as 2020 and 2021 abundantly showed.

Year 12 isn’t more important than year 13! Yes you can get grades for your UCAS application but you then need to get those grades. If you underperform you won’t make your offers. If you do better (then yeah - honestly teachers are delighted when this happens) then you can go with your offer, look at clearing or if substantially better then reapply with the grades in hand.

Is it perfect- absolutely not. But no system is. It is the system we have and we have to make the most of it.

Contextual offers are different, they are lower to help students with potential go to university to balance the fact circumstances have made it harder for them to achieve the same grades.

Yes of course but if you're predicted e.g. BBB, you can't apply to a course that requires AAB. Perhaps you SHOULD be able to apply to whatever and then, once the results are in, if you manage to hit the grades you should be accepted.
A very strange system, especially as not consistent across schools or, presumably, even within schools perhaps.

Thanks yes aware of the contextual but I was being a bit facetious as with indies those kids in the state (sector) most definitely need contextualised offers not only due to the inequality in other ways but with independents possibly (?) more likely to know their kids better (smaller classes) and perhaps also with a tendency to provide generous predictions? I might be wrong about that of course. Not to mention the fact there are different exams (iGCSEs v GCSES)!

OP how is the university supposed to select if everyone can apply for every course?

I think if your DC isn't getting the predictions for the courses they aspire to then it might be best to plan a gap year, that way they will be able to apply based on actual grades rather than predictions.

My DC despite worse than average GCSEs (only did 6 and got 8, 7, 6,6,6 and 5 and not actually attending high school due to mental health reasons has worked his but off in year 12 and has just got mocks back at A A A. Clearly children who are applying themselves in year 12 and getting good results should be recognised in applications for their hard work, over inflating predictions make it harder for everyone as they make competitive places harder to obtain and push more kids into the clearing system.

sorry that should have said A star A star A, there formatting goes weird with the stars.

And end of topic tests are not a good indication of true academic ability. Alevels (especially in STEM) are linear and synoptic- all the topics are interwoven, so students need to know everything and be able to problem solve rather than just rote learn (which they do for end of topic tests and then promptly forget).

I think our school uses a lot of data from Midyis testing, GCSEs and mocks and compares to how kids/cohorts have performed in previous years with that particular data set. They don’t like to budge from the data and if they do give a better grade for Ucas (incredibly rare) the low grade remains on their department data. Most likely to help prevent skew their data. It also has to be approved by head of department and head of 6th form.

Well, at least that sounds a bit more data driven.

Maybe there should be a national guideline for how predicted grades are arrived at? That, at least, should be the minimum one would expect for fairness and consistency.

I know it won't happen but perhaps, since pre-actual A-levels seem to matter most (in many ways) for getting the initial offers and for predictions, why not have the exams in February and then it could be based on ACTUAL results. Students would then have had 18 months (I'm assuming that a lot of time in the final months is doing lots of practice tests. If not, the remaining time can be used for teaching whatever might be left of the syllabus).

And do a way with the personal statement (I know they are changing the current version of the personal statement) AND teacher reference and base it ONLY on grades.

This is of course the case in many, many countries and with AI and digital now available, would allow universities enough time to process, and would also mean everyone could apply to anything (just as one can at primary and secondary). Would also do away with most of that mad scramble around clearning and presumably free up time for universities and their staff.