Any A Level History Teachers - advice re - coursework disaster?

[courseworkdisaster]

DD has just has A Level NEA mark back of 29 / 40.

This has come as a complete surprise as she is predicted A Star * *and does well in all of her school work/ exams consistent a star /a

She was told throughout the process that she was on track with the coursework too. Some amendments were suggested and she was told by her teacher not to make any further amendments.

So today she's received the above mark which equates to a B according to last year's mark scheme. To say she is surprised/ disappointed is an understatement especially given the feedback from school.

She now thinks there is no chance she can get the A she needs overall in her A Level for uni. It doesn't help that today is her 18th Birthday so she's really upset.

I know that things can go wrong/ etc and that it's only one element.

I've emailed the school to ask to speak to the teacher to check no obvious error etc.

But can anyone give any glimmer of hope. Can marking mistakes happen? what would you advise.

At the moment she feels like completely giving up!!!

History is a bit notorious for that (if it's history) which is why I can see that depts err on the side of caution.

Yeah, because 'sending it off 'is an informal arrangement perhaps with another local school.

In any moderation you can choose to disagree/ignore. It's often a thing if one person say 27 and another 29 that the margin is so small that you'd go for the 29 even if the 27 was possibly more credible.

It is correct rank order that matters most.

Thanks @Piggywaspushed It is History, indeed. I think you teach English?

Certainly my colleague and I would always give the higher mark - if one is saying 29 and one 27. We work on the assumption that we'll give the highest mark possible in the level we went for in each AO (so, 8/10 rather than 7/10) because as long as you are within 4 marks of tolerance then the exam board won't change it. It's only bitten us once, as I said.

I haven't had one externally remarked (and you are right, I'd be asking my HoD colleague at the other 6th form school nearby to do it).

I guess I'd assumed that if I'd formally asked them to mark it that I would go with the mark they gave, even if it had dropped a couple.

I am English but also film. If I asked another school to do it it would be really informal via social media connections and just something I would do to recognise the candidate's concerns. If the other school said 'worth more', I'd put it up. If they didn't, it stays where it is!

Thjs is a large school/ 6th form with a large cohort and 8 teachers so I wouldn't think it would have to be sent anywhere external to be looked at.

I must say, what Piggywaspushed is saying isn’t my school’s understanding of JCQ’s NEA appeals process at all. If a student appeals their NEA mark in that window between the marks being released to them and submitted to the board, it’s a formal process administered by the Exams Office. It’s certainly not just sorting something out on social media!

Do you think history A level is very harshly marked? My DD is looking at history for A level.

I thought Oxbridge also went by their own interviews and their exams not just A levels. If they drop an A * and still get an A then if they interviewed well they would still get in. Is that correct?

DS has a friend at Oxford doing history who got AAA.

Ah well,, tat is why I said contact the exams officer as they will know process. It i a 'formal'process insofar as there are forms to gill in etc but not in the way that the student has to pay or take big risks with their own mark.

But if you haven't got other teachers to relook at the work in the school someone needs to be found who will so am not sure how one gets round that and I think that's why students are discouraged from asking. You can't just say to kids that no one else can. (the SM site I use is administered by the exam board)

I am definitely correct that the process isn't the same as an August remark.

This is what it says in our policy

ensure that the review of marking is conducted by an assessor who has appropriate competence,
has had no previous involvement in the assessment of that candidate for the component in
question and has no personal interest in the outcome of the review

Meant to add, it doesn't matter anyway since there appear to be lots of history teachers in this case.

Essentially if a school doesn't give evasive answers, explains things clearly, lets students know how marking and moderation processes work etc then students really shouldn't be asking for remarks. It does feel like this school has been a bit opaque!

I can only speak for Oxford as that's where DD applied.

They require a predicted minimum 3 A's then a specific History Admissions Test then if you get a high enough mark in that an interview.

It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you would still be given a place with a B in history.

DD was interviewed based on the strength of her application and her entrance test score but wasn't offered a place.

She has accepted a place at UCL. The offer there is also 3 A's. As it is very competitive it is unlikely she will be accepted with less than an A in history.

Regarding remarking - at our sixth form it is a review process. The student must make a case for why the work should be reviewed before even succeeding in getting one. Marks may go up or down, apparently.

Re uni offers - only very few places lack flexibility on offers. Reputationally, Durham and Oxford spring to mind. I’m not a History academic though.

She's speaking to the teacher after her lesson today so hopefully she will receive some reassurance.

More important than a remark to me is the idea that she understands nuance in language going forward as this mistake will be easy to remake being so literal. I think if in doubt she just needs to ask and ultimately check the criteria/ guidelines of the exam board. Massive learning curve. But all good ultimately.

Her 6th form are VERY hands off with parents. I've never even met the history teacher in question.

Hopefully there will be some flexibility when it comes to uni if she doesn't get an A. My main concern now is that she knows the marking criteria for each of the written exam papers and is not just relying on good overall historical knowledge. Hopefully the teacher points her in that direction. She is comfortably getting marks in the A, A* region on practice questions that are being marked so fingers crossed.

I don't think so, not in a way that should put you off.

I just think my daughter's issue here is specific to her autism/ literal thinking.

The History NEA is such a demanding piece of coursework. It makes the Eng Lit NEA look like a mini-homework project. When the head of English at my school heard about what History students have to do he was amazed and said it sounded like an EPQ!

Anyway, the History teachers cannot give too much help with the NEA - they certainly cannot say what to specifically add. It may be that OP’s DD included everything they could in the NEA but there wasn’t the level of detail or analysis to hit the notional B.

I have so much sympathy for OP’s DD as we have had students question the marking but it has always come back accurately marked. It seems disproportionate the amount of work that goes into just 20% of the final grade.

My advice is to ignore the NEA now and focus on content and application for both the papers.

It is possible for candidates to achieve an A* even with B grade NEA

She's spoken to the teacher and whilst they are not allowed to suggest moderation they have hinted that this is appropriate for DD's work. She has also been reassured it shouldn't impact on overall grade in the grand scheme of things and to keep chin up.

Best to crack on then as likely to be a time limit. At DS2's school they had 5 days only to appeal, and this included the time to ask for and receive a marked copy of the essay

Email now sent.

IME (well DCs experience) its more harshly marked than eg psychology, as in harder to get an A star .
Not a reason not to do it, however. Dc definitely enjoyed history A level , psychology far less so.

I don't think it's harshly marked. I think it's a fairly rigorous academic subject, and students are sometimes surprised by the fact that there is a real depth of evaluation and analysis that is needed. Like most A levels there is a big jump from GCSE.

My bug bear is the 'bums on seats' attitude of our SLT who - ignoring my professional advice - repeatedly set 'GCSE Grade 4' as the requirement to take A level History. I would say that if you cannot achieve a Grade 6/7 at GCSE then you really shouldn't be taking History A level as you are likely to be struggling around the E grade mark.

Even getting an 8 or 9 does not guarantee you an A grade. GCSE students can often achieve a good grade by working hard - whereas some kind of flair for writing and analysis is needed by A level. It is the quality of the written argument and the depth of analysis, backed by detailed evidence supporting it, an acknowledgement of other factors, and a really solid conclusion laying out exactly why you are arguing this that will get you high grades at A level.

The History NEA is such a demanding piece of coursework. It makes the Eng Lit NEA look like a mini-homework project. When the head of English at my school heard about what History students have to do he was amazed and said it sounded like an EPQ!

DD's history teacher started the work on the NEA by saying "Don't think you are going to find this easy if you've done an EPQ. There is an awful lot more expected here ...." :)

Just a little update. She ended up requesting a remark as we felt that the marks scheme had been unfairly applied.

Anyway. Message back she has been awarded 4 additional marks across 2 of the criteria. So it was definitely worth doing in her case.