Mock results and grade predictions using previous grade boundaries

[Alsoplayspiccolo]

DD has mocks in January and parents evening this week.

All but the history teacher gave grade results based on last year’s grade boundaries, having used last year’s papers and mark schemes. A couple of teachers told us they’d slightly raised the boundaries, to allow for a 5% movement this year.

However, the history teacher appears to have given arbitrary grades, telling us that he “doesn’t get involved in the dark arts of how the government set grade boundaries, because every exam will be a success”.
When asked whether his headings generally match actual outcome in the GCSE exam for his students, he said he doesn’t analyse that either.

As it happens, going by last year’s grade boundaries, DD was one mark off an 8, but the teacher gave her a 6 and a “working at” grade of 5.
Because of how hard she worked for the history mock, DD is now considering dropping it, because it is such a huge time drain to revise for only to get a 5 in, when she’s not taking it at A level and has other subjects she could concentrate on.

My question is, is the history teacher right not to use previous grade boundaries, and if so, how does any teacher know what year 11 students are likely to achieve?

Thanks so much, giroscoper.
I actually did A level history many moons ago, and the content of the GCSE is overwhelming to me.

I think the idea of having prescribed key words/phrases is what we’ll target. DD does really well on source questions, less well on “What was the impact of...” type questions.

I’ve already made a question bank for the paper she finds hardest, so we’ll focus on model answers and mark schemes.

Such a shame that history seems to be a lot of students’ nemesis. DD loves it until year 10.

Hmmm/ I'm on the fence on this. Grade boundaries in subjects like history and English move a lot.

Last year , my faculty got told off for 'inaccurate predictions', even though they were generated by a data guy using our marks and previous grade boundaries. The fault was squarely put on our shoulders rather than on the system of setting predictions on the shifting sands of grade boundaries. We don't mark to grades ourselves but to the marks on the markschemes (the data guy then turns these magically into grades). If you think that his marking is inaccurate that's one thing ; if you think the grade is wrong that might concern me less.

The only measure I know of that measures performance in schools is how students perform against targets/indicators which are set on prior data. the accuracy of his predictions might be scrutinised but not for any progress measure. In fact, if your DD goes on to get an 8 or 9, he'll probably be scolded for not predicting it rather than praised...

Once upon a time, teachers did finger in the air predictions ( I still do to an extent in my other subject and they are generally just as accurate!)

Is he setting the grade lower based on them not having done the whole paper? I don't like that approach but know it is something done by some departments.

I honestly think the expectation that teachers can give 'accurate predictions' quite concerning. Have to admit , I don't trust any of the predictions DS1 has been given, from the over optimistic 9s to the alarming 2s!

ps I am a huge fan of Eduqas! They are a great exam board. Have you looked on their website for support materials for teachers? These can be really helpful.

Here's the page with all their resources :

eduqas.co.uk/qualifications/history/index.html#qualSearch

As a History teacher, I tend to write my own mock exams. There are so few past papers since they've changed the structure of the GCSE that we tend to have completed them in class. Therefore we do use our own grade boundaries, which this year were a lot higher than last year's actual ones. I do explain this to the students though, and what is more important is that they understand how they can improve their technique on every question. You're right, the content is huge. The questions on the exam board I teach vary so much from question to question, I think it is something like 13 different question types across the 3 papers. Therefore technique is as important as the content. Marking is also very subjective which can also cause difficulties.

Grade boundaries in subjects like history and English move a lot.

Yes but you’re not using a grade boundary for a previous year on a new paper, this isn’t saying ‘it was 50% for a 4 then, so we’re going to mark everything as 50% is a 4.

This is using the grade boundaries for the paper they were calculated for.

I know that marking in the wordy subjects is very subjective, but surely not that subjective that something that would have got an 8 can justifiably be given a 5.

Tbf I’m coming at this from a maths point of view.

This is true noble (or at least I think it is) but we teachers are often also a bit befuddled by the standards applied by examiners, too.

I am pretty confident in film, despite mainly making up my own papers of patchworking together papers form the few samples that exist, that I can predict a grade. I am way less confident in English.

I know in my school that history predictions have historically been 'inaccurate'.

It's a bit of a minefield.

Last year's Eduqas paper for history may have been very very hard. therefore, what looks like a high 5/low 6 to a teacher could conceivably have needed up at an 8. Seems an extreme example but I wouldn't be surprised if the history teacher didn't know exactly what he was doing. Look at the remarks in the first year of English,. People on here were reporting increases of raw marks of over 20. My own DS's A Level Spanish went up by 18 marks...! I would hazard a guess that coursework marking is more accurate and reflective of student ability then exam marking.

btw , lots of people do apply grade boundaries from 2019 or 2018 to sample papers. It's all we have to go on.

Oh dear, my convoluted befuddlement ended up in a lot of typos

Piggy, her teacher said he wouldn't use 2019 grade boundaries (for the 2019 paper given in the mock) because the grade boundaries "were very low".
Isn't that reflective, in part, of a difficult paper?
That said, I looked at the previous year's grade boundaries and there was only 1 or 2 marks difference, so I'm not sure what he means by "very low".

I guess my underlying reason for the OP was to try to understand how on earth anyone knows how well their DC/ student is doing, and in DD's case, why every teacher but history simply works off that paper's grade boundaries as a way of having an "educated" guess. Also, why 6th forms ask for predicted grades, knowing they are almost certainly a lottery.

I don't really know...I guess a school should have a policy on this but mine doesn't! Yes, the low boundaries suggest a hard paper.

Tbh, more than anything, I always slightly question the wisdom of using last year's exams!

As for sixth forms using predictions, it's all they have. It is certainly not a perfect system ! I think as education has become more data obsessed it gives the outward impression of reliability and accuracy...

I feel for teachers, I really do.
They are required to capture so much data and then justify it, when clearly some is immeasurable, some subjective etc.

It's a shame, though, that some resort to using mythical predictions as a stick to beat pupils with (which is what DD's teacher seems to be doing, without being able to explain how he's arrived at his predictions).

How have unis managed to stick to the old system of grading, ie 60%+ is a 2:1, 70%+ is a first?
DS's school follows the same scheme for test and assessment results, actually.

University degrees aren't all equivalent (despite people thinking they are). Whereas GCSEs from different exam boards have to be equivalent and are based on a normal distribution of scores (if I remember correctly). That's why they aren't just 50% is a 5 etc.

Also the first 2_3 years of a qualification often have lower boundaries while everyone gets used to them. Maths boundaries have risen every year but will probably stagnate now. History didn't switch to the new GCSE as long ago so staff are still adjusting to it.