GCSE predicted grades used for sixth form admissions policy - is there any standardisation?

[claptrapped]

A very oversubscribed selective sixth form near us uses GCSE predicted grades to rank applicants in order, and gives offers to the ones with the highest average grade - usually just those with various combinations of 8s and 9s. Once students have an offer, they don't have to achieve those predicted grades - they just need to achieve the minimum for the course (which is a 7 for most courses) - so they could easily end up scoring lower than students on the waiting list.

I'm wondering whether teachers use any standard method to predict grades? (If not, this sort of policy seems a bit unfair).

This is how my school's sixth form operates, it's a Grammar. It's based on points per grade and added up, those with the highest receive an offer. Most people got in though that achieved well in reality but had bad predictions

2.6 of school admission code "applying for places at sixth form" shows that this is very much legal

All maintained schools in England have to abide by the Schools Admissions code

As Prh said, all free schools and academies have to abide by it too. The school in this case is an academy, though it is also a grammar school which complicates things. Their policy for Y7-11 in-year applicants who reach the top of the waiting list is to test them. They don't explicity state that the test will be of the same type that was taken by the cohort in question, or whether they will apply the same lower threshold, but it probably should because in-year applicants are supposed to be ranked using the same criteria as on-time applicants. Presumably the test they use can be adjusted for age, so I would see no problem in them extending it beyond Y11 into Sixth Form.

@lonklen my God, aren't a lot of us suddenly reading this blessed document!
But then @prh47bridge knows it inside out and sideways, as well as all the nuances of various interpretations of parts of it, adjudications etc, so we are very lucky to have him/her on board. I am dying to hear the final judgment on this.
And yes, it does stink that it is not fair and depends so much on the manner in which the pre 16+ school puts forwards its predictions. Makes you sometimes wish you lived in another country where an awful lot more is decided by competitive exams. Takes all the nuances and interpretations away to a large extent.

lonklen: "2.6 of school admission code "applying for places at sixth form" shows that this is very much legal"

No, all it says of any relevance is "Admission authorities can, however, set academic entry criteria for their sixth forms, which must be the same for both external and internal places". Nobody is disputing their right to set academic entry criteria - but we're saying these particular criteria are not fair or objective. Paragraph 14 of the code says: "admission authorities must ensure that the practices and the criteria used to decide the allocation of school places are fair, clear and objective."

Every school in my area uses this method @claptrapped so either we have a hugely illegal set of schools that are also in the top 20 in the country...or it's allowed.

Stanley

The only thing is that the 'competitive exams' aren't that good either.

The 'competitive exam' at 11+ that the school uses to select applicants at that point is:
a) Highly coachable (and favours those who can pay for tutors or who have able parents who can self-tutor)

b) Based on curriculum that state school applicants won't have covered at that point in their schooling (and thus at least 25% of pupils each year have been to private primaries who teach specifically to this test)

c) Not reprodicible (on a different day, the same cohort taking the same test would give different passers and different failers)

d) Not particularly good at discriminating between who should pass and fail (so really good at eliminating the bottom 30% or so, but very poor at discriminating between the 120th applicant and the 121st)

e) Not particularly good at identifying those who will do well in the school. At least 10% of those who pass at 11 and attend the school fail to meet the 8 7s requirement for the 6th form.

A fairer approach would be a post-results approach - so that applicants to the 6th form (internal or external) are ranked in order of their results and then offered places from the top of the list down. Then at least they ARE offered places on the basis of their performance in public examinations.

claptrapped if it is the same one I'm thinking of (recently become co-ed...?), once the GCSE results are out you can always call and let them know what an amazing range of 8s and 9s your child gets and they will snap them up! This school always saves a few spots for those who do this and a friend's daughter got her place there that way, despite being rejected for interview in the initial interview stages.

If I'm correct they are also 'oversubscribed' for maths and sciences but not other subjects, so depending on the courses your child indicates they want to take, they may get an interview in the first stage.

but it might not be the same school, as this one only requires an average of 6.25 across the best 8 GCSE subjects (higher individual grade requirements for the subjects desired to be studied at A Level though).

so either we have a hugely illegal set of schools that are also in the top 20 in the country...or it's allowed

Not "hugely illegal", just potentially in breach of the admissions code. Unless someone refers their policies to the adjudicator for scrutiny we won't know whether they're in breach or not. Every year the adjudicator finds hundreds of schools in breach of the code. Local authorities are supposed to scrutinise the policies of local schools and challenge any that are potentially in breach, but some do a better job of that than others and often it's left to local parents to make the challenge instead.

this one only requires an average of 6.25 across the best 8 GCSE subjects

Schmedz, if it's the same school, that is only the minimum threshold. They get many more external applicants than there are places, so they rank them by average predicted grade, and only offer to a top-slice, depending on how many places they have available. It's that part of the policy that we've been talking about.

that is only the minimum threshold

Of course it is the minimum threshold (as it seems surprisingly low for such a high-achieving school - a student could achieve only three 7s and five 6s and meet the criteria for entry!) and when oversubscribed, the children with highest overall grades will be most attractive candidates for places. I don't have a problem with a selective school selecting the kids with highest potential grades, especially knowing that in reality if you call up immediately after the results are out and they are good enough, they will not have 'over-offered' based on predicted grades and therefore have several places available for those who are able enough academically / keen enough to bother to call.

In fact, this particular 6th Form offers less 'value added' than a lot of other 6th Forms which are just as easy to get to, so if our DC don't get an offer there, at least there are excellent local alternatives (particularly if one has been fortunate in the ballot for a nearby college).

That said, I do share some concerns over predicted grades - a bit like the university process also - where is the moderation across schools/the country? We all hear horror stories of kids being told they will get certain grades that have been vastly overinflated by teachers, and also others whose teachers are far too harsh.

Surely it's more sensible to wait and see what the actual results are and offer places based on that (taking into account other factors if too many eligible candidates with identical grades have applied?)

But if offers for schools need to be made so that families can plan for the start of 6th Form and all the enrolment paperwork can be completed with sufficient time, using predicted grades is as good a criteria as any. If the chosen students in reality don't get as good grades as someone on the waiting list, then they still have achieved the minimum of a 7 for their A Level subjects so have a negligibly different chance of succeeding there compared to the 'higher' GCSE-achiever. It is also pretty unlikely that any students predicted 8s and 9s will actually end up with significantly lower than that required as the 'bare minimum' for the school. In general schools are pretty reluctant to predict 9s (well they are at my DCs school, even though well over 70% of GCSE grades actually achieved each year are A*,8s and 9s and 99% of GCSE students achieve 9-6 grades in all their subjects) so it is probable that the majority of predictions should be fairly accurate.

If predicted grades aren't the criteria for a selective 6th Form, then what should be? This isn't meant to be a confrontational question - I have been thinking about a potential answer and have come up with nothing apart from abolishing selective 6th Forms altogether....

Schmedz, the problem is that predicted grades aren't an objective criteria, because there's no standard method for producing them. If they're not objective then the policy isn't code compliant. Also, they're not treating internal and external applicants equally - external applicants have to have very high predicted grades whereas internal applicants just need to meet the minimum threshold.

To answer your question, I did suggest a potentially code-compliant method a few posts back - they could use the same entrance test that they use for years 7-11 (age adjusted of course). However, I think it would be fairer if they just randomly allocated conditional offers to students whose predicted grades were over the minimum threshold.

As cantkeepawayfroever so capably explained above, I think there are issues with using the same age-adjusted tests for Y7-10 (presumably they don't accept students halfway through their GCSEs) as these have been proven to be:

a) Highly coachable (and favours those who can pay for tutors or who have able parents who can self-tutor)

b) Based on curriculum that state school applicants won't have covered at that point in their schooling (and thus at least 25% of pupils each year have been to private primaries who teach specifically to this test)

c) Not reprodicible (on a different day, the same cohort taking the same test would give different passers and different failers)

d) Not particularly good at discriminating between who should pass and fail (so really good at eliminating the bottom 30% or so, but very poor at discriminating between the 120th applicant and the 121st)

e) Not particularly good at identifying those who will do well in the school. At least 10% of those who pass at 11 and attend the school fail to meet the requirements for the 6th form (which is your exact issue with the continuing internal applicants).

not to mention that you still suggest a system which relies to some extent on predicted grades (random conditional allocation based on those over the minimum threshhold)...

...and if there is random allocation, then the minimum threshhold would need to be raised to a much higher standard, and you then have the same issue with predicted grades not being produced by a standard method...

Shmedz, I agree that the 7-11 tests are flawed, but as far as I'm aware they are code-compliant, which was the only point I was making.

The second suggestion actually doesn"t need to be dependent on predicted grades at all - they could include all applicants in the random selection because the offers would be conditional on the actual grades meeting the threshold. However, to cut down on time-wasting, it would be reasonable to issue guidance to families about using their predicted grades to self-assess whether they're likely to meet the threshold before applying.

I think the simplest method would simply be to raise the academic threshold to the level required to reduce the total number of applicants (internal + external) to fit the number of places.

So give the same offer to all applicants, without the 2-step 'only give offers to those from outside with highest predicted grades', and admit everyone who meets the offer.

So rather than e.g. 8 7s, the offer might be 8 8s, or 7 8s and a 9, or a total of 65 points from top 8 including English + maths or whatever.

Yes, it would eliminate a larger proportion of internal candidates - who currently score lower on average than the external candidates who get places - and there would need to be some flexibility either on size of sixth form or wiggle room on grades (so if not full on 65 points, they could go down to 64 etc - like universities do).

However it would be compliant and fair - I think?

Yes cantkeepawayforever, that would seem reasonable too.

@cantkeepawayforever I agree entirely with all the points that you made in reply to my post about the unreliablity of the any entrance tests, and I particularly agree with your last para which I had already posted about further up the thread.
The massive problem is that education in England is fragmented in a way that other countries would never understand. Entrance requirements, something that is so important and should be utterly objective and even-handed across the country is, as I think many of us on this thread would agree, a fudge. Such a shame. and so nerve-wracking not just for the OP. I note that @prh47bridge has fallen silent, which is a shame as I had hoped that his/her insights would have led the OP to some sort of resolution of her situation.

I've already given her all the advice I can. Past decisions of the Schools Adjudicator suggest that use of predicted grades for sixth form admissions is ok. However, it seems this school talks about "our assessment" of the predicted grades. That may tip it over the line into being a breach of the Code. I suggested to the OP that she refer the matter to the Schools Adjudicator and she says she intends to do so.

Of course, the courts are the ultimate arbiter but I wouldn't generally recommend going there.

If she wants to PM me the name of the school involved I will be happy to provide further advice via PM.

Nice to hear from you again prh. Cannot feel any of us can give her better advice than you have.