Are this year's GCSE and A level grades going to be fair?

[dennishsherwood]

This year's grades will be determined NOT by teachers, but by a big-machine-in-the-sky - a process called "statistical standardisation". This could disadvantage bright kids in otherwise dull schools. See, for example, this article in The Guardian on Saturday 20 June - the headline is "Against natural justice - father to sue exams regulator over A level grades system": www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jun/20/against-natural-justice-father-to-sue-exams-regulator-over-a-level-grades-system

An enterprising 18-year-old has also set up a petition, www.change.org/p/ofqual-review-the-standardisation-of-grades-in-summer-2020?fbclid=IwAR2toogfGtYUtSawgMBhqyQNYf_sQ8MrWEtvVKo9Gy_myolfQLE-lFEbVsc

and there is a new facebook group too

www.facebook.com/groups/272512373867127/

And if you're a teacher, you might like to look at www.hepi.ac.uk/2020/06/18/have-teachers-been-set-up-to-fail/

I would suggest that you use the search facility on mumsnet to search the 30 or so other threads where this has been discussed at length and indeed has many useful links.

Have you looked at the exam boards websites for the exams your child is taking?

On the Ofqual website also check for updates. Some are incorporated into the original documents. There is also an analytical tool.

The Consultation has now finished but outliers within cohorts, small cohorts as well as prior attainment of cohort, expected national results and school historic performance will be taken into account.

The centre assessed grades (ie teacher's grades) are supposed to genuinely reflect what they anticipate that child will achieve and then the rankings within the grade will be given.

If the standardisation shows the school has been overoptimistic those at the bottom of the rankings may be bumped down a grade. This may have a knock on effect or may not if the others below still fall within standardisation.

Personally exams may produce unexpected results where someone has a shocker for whatever reason.

There are less likely to be shockers when the grade is being given based on reviewing 2 years of the pupils work. In fact some may say this year's grades may be a more accurate reflection of the pupils ability.

I agree results will actually be fairer and more accurate in terms of reflecting what students should have got, given what teachers know about their ability from past performance and understanding of the level of uplift each student would have gained during the study leave period and run up to exams.

Lots of people worry that their child was lazy and underperformed through the course, and in the exam would have pulled it out if the bag and surprised everyone. Actually, teachers usually know who those students are and in submitting grades,would have borne that info in mind. The grades they had to submit were what the student could have been expected to get in May/June exam sittings, not in March when they left school.

The other thing is, that actually some students who perform in a mediocre way through the course, just are mediocre and although they or their parents are convinced that a massive uplift is going to occur, it never realistically is. Again, teachers tend to know that.

I think that the grades will be a fairer reflection this year than usually. However, I suspect that there will be greater disgruntlement than before. I've said this before on threads on this topic - every year, the vast majority of students don't achieve their UCAS predicted grades. The same will be true this year. Usually, they get their exam results and are disappointed, but have the sense it was determined by their performance in the exam and so accept it. This year, similar numbers will fail to achieve their predicted UCAS grades, but instead if recognising it was down to themselves, this year more will feel a bit cheated by the system this year. They won't actually have been cheated, but they will feel it. And there will be loads more threads like this and articles in the press etc etc.

Most of the angst will be short-lived however, as this year more than others, students will get their uni places with lower grades as it really will be a buyers market and the Unis will take lower grades. And once the next stage of their life, especially at the uni of their choice is sorted out, most students will move on and not fret about if their grades were fair or not. Every year students quickly move on from disappointment in the actual grades, getting places through Clearing .

I predict the numbers taking the autumn exams will be very small. Most will have moved into uni and moved on emotionally from it all. Some will sit the exams and most will probably find the outcomes are the same as the teacher grades. Of course there will be the odd significant difference when someone sits an exam....and these will probably appear in the press, giving support to the idea some people had/have that it's all been extremely unfair.

If I were a parent of a Yr11 or Yr13 right now, apart from being sad for them about missing out on the end of school and probably the normal start to uni, I would think that the grades could actually be a bit of a gift. This might be especially true for students who might be on for C type grades who usually miss out on places at RG Unis ...but this year might find they are good enough and they can go somewhere that was probably not realistic in normal circumstances.

Totally agree Wombat

No. Nor will next years.

Hmm theHEPI blog that the OP supplies a link to has been written by someone called Dennis Sherwood in real life. I hope this person isn't basing their "research" on mumsnet!

catndogslife - let me reassure you all my opinions and analyses are not based on mumsnet postings, but firmly rooted in Ofqual's own publications, dating back to 2016 and earlier, as well as the results of my own work at Ofqual in 2013. My 13 HEPI blogs www.hepi.ac.uk/?s=dennis+sherwood provide links to all the sources.

My "research" is fully robust, albeit controversial, for Ofqual have been in no rush to publicise the fact that GCSE and A level grades have been so unreliable, until forced to do so by an article in the Sunday Times on 11 August 2019 - see www.gov.uk/government/news/response-to-sunday-times-story-about-a-level-grades, where you will read Ofqual's admission that "...more that one grade could well be a legitimate reflection of a candidate's performance...".

That statement is not qualified at all, so, presumably, applies to all grades in all subjects, at GCSE, AS and A level.

You might like to think about that, and what that means for all those students with an A ... might another "legitimate reflection" have been A? And if the A is as "legitimate" as the A, why was the A, and not the A*, on the certificate? And in that uni's admissions officer's mind?

There is much more on my website www.silverbulletmachine.com/copy-of-news, and you might like to listen to the first 10 minutes of this episode of More or Less, broadcast on 23 August 2019, the day following the announcement of the GCSE results - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0007rtv.

Ah OP has been found out. Not good OP, not good at all. I will read anything else you publish with a sneer and take what it says with a large pinch of salt.

You purposely posted here, claiming ignorance, not mentioning you had a HEPI blog on this and clearly quite a lot of knowledge and skin in the game.

Why did you do that?

OP I think you have already posted on other threads about "inaccurate" A level grades over several years and I thought your concerns were purely as a parent and that you didn't really understand how the exam system works.
The link you have provided to the OFQUAL document describes the Times article as misleading and you have selected the one quote from it that supports your argument and ignored the rest, which I would hardly call robust research.
I suggest that other MNetters read what the article actually says before jumping to conclusions.

So you're keen to push the idea that A grades should often really be A*? I see. No agenda there, I'm sure.

Dear titchy

Thank you. You ask why I posted the initial item in this thread. The reasons are these:

1. I wished to draw attention to the piece on The Guardian, published in Saturday 20 June - it contains some personal stories that I thought might be of interest to anyone in the mumsnet community who had not already seen it.

1. That article mentions a recently-started crowdjustice campaign that some might not know about.

1. As a result of the Guardian article, a new facebook group was created, with the intention of linking together those who might be affected by the bright-child-in-weak-school issue.

1. I also provided a link to a HEPI blog posted 18 June, which is a 'retrospective' of the last several weeks, and discusses the bright child issue, as well as some others - I also flagged it might only be of interest to teachers.

All of those items are new, having taken place over the last few days. And although the centre assessment grade issue has indeed been "debated, discussed, petitioned to within an inch of its life", it hasn't gone away, and there might be more to be both said and done.

May I ask you to clarify, please, what "ignorance" you believe I claimed? There are many things I don't know - like how statistical standardisation will take place, exactly. Where 'exactly' means what it says - so that any school would have been in a position to replicate the process before they submitted their grades so that they would be able to assess the likelihood that their grades will be confirmed, rather than over-ruled. So that any school will know how their outliers will be treated, and that the fears articulated by those in the Guardian article - and very many others, for the problems extend far beyond the 'bright child' - may be assuaged with confidence.

Perhaps many people think all that doesn't matter. That's fine. But it does have consequences - as discussed by Will Hazell, whose recent article suggests that "millions of proposed grades are set to be cut" (inews.co.uk/news/education/gcse-a-level-exams-2020-millions-proposed-grades-cut-generous-predictions-england-450236).

We won't know until the results are announced in August - but if Will Hazell is right, and millions of grades are cut, why did teachers have to go to all the bother, and anguish, of deciding them and then submitting them? That's what the 18 June HEPI blog is all about.

I don't use a pseudonym because I don't need to hide. And given that the HEPI blog I linked to in the original post also has my real name on it, it's not hard to make the connection, as catndogslife clearly did. Also, if you read the Guardian article, you'll find my name in that too.

And please tell me what "skin I have in the game". Yes, I do have some knowledge, and I do have some opinions. That knowledge might be helpful to others, and the opinions might stimulate lively and constructive discussion. But what "skin"? I'm not betting on the results (although that might be an idea a gaming website will wish to pick up); I don't have any relatives sitting any exams; I'm not on the board of Ofqual; I don't work for an exam board; I am not paid to write blogs. I am just a member of the public with an interest.

And I do hope you will read all of my material with a very healthy pinch of salt - and I hope that of everyone else too. Please don't believe a word I say. But - as quid pro quo - please think about it. Check the sources. Look through the analysis. And please come to your own conclusions. I might be wrong. My only request is that you do all that without the "sneer".

Hi Buttery Puffin: My agenda is that I believe that all assessments, of which exam grades form a substantial component, should be reliable. The A/A* is only one example: the principle applies throughout, especially at the 3:4 boundary in GCSE English and Maths.

And catndogslife: yes, I quoted that phrase, but am happy to quote the whole thing - which is why I included the link, rather than left it as the few words. What important material have I missed, please? And yes, I agree about not jumping to conclusions - as in the last part of my response to titchy.

Dude you're a consultant.....

You posted here, on a parenting website, claiming ignorance (including about statistical techniques - 'I'm so old I don't even have O Level Maths'; you have a degree in Physics FFS, hardly innumerate), and wanting advice. At face value you appeared to be a parent who had only just got to grips with what is happening. It's disingenuous.

If you'd have posted saying you were an educational consultant and wanted to alert parents to some issues that would have been fine. (Although most would have said you're about six weeks too late...) But you didn't. You pretended. And that's underhand.

mental note to make sure my institution doesn't use your consultancy firm

I am not an educational consultant. And I only mentioned that I don't have O level maths (which I don't) in response to your original posting.

And if you know more about the process than I do, that's great. There are many things I really don't know, and you might - so if there is a document I haven't read, or have understood incorrectly, I want to fix that. And, if you look, you will see that most of my (earlier) posts were asking questions, enquiring. Not declaiming.

The Guardian article states the following "Dennis Sherwood, an independent assessment consultant who has worked with Ofqual"
Is this correct or not OP. If incorrect then why are the Guardian under this impression? An assessment consultation who needs to ask fro information about how assessments work on mumsnet seems strange to me.
Most of us on these threads are willing to give information to help other parents. I also realise that it's possible to be both a parent and a professional as well.
However in this case, I suspect that there is a conflict of interest and that the OPs motives in asking these questions are not as altrustic as it may appear from his posts.

Hi. No conflict. As it happens, I am a consultant, not an "assessment" consultant. I don't know why it appeared like this in the Guardian. But it's the only item in that article that, as far as I know, isn't absolutely right.

And yes I did carry out an assignment at Ofqual in 2013, but that (certainly) was not to give them any "advice" on assessment. They know a lot already about that already. And in so far as they seek external resources on this, they go, for example, to the Oxford Department of Education. But my assignment did kindle an interest.

If you look at my website, you will see the nature of my consultancy activities, which have nothing to do with education, assessment, teaching or whatever, although I have worked with a few schools and many universities. But nothing concerning teaching or assessment.

Since 2013, I have had no contact with Ofqual, Ofsted, DfE... The only information I have had access to is that which has been published. And let me assure you that everything that I have written elsewhere about grades and this year's process, and been interviewed on, and has appeared in the press, is the result of my own work, at my own cost, in my own time. I have received no income from any of this, nor do I intend to receive any. And if you are reluctant to believe that, I can give you the names of those I have worked with, and you can contact them to determine whether or not they paid any money at all, including expenses for travelling to meetings.

I really have no vested interest, save a desire to throw a light on some issues that I think are important, like the unreliability of grades, and the lost opportunity that has just been experienced attributable, in my opinion, to the failure to explain, exactly, the 'rules', and the absence of any opportunity for a school to explain, and justify as required, their submissions.

Some may disagree, and believe that it's fine for the rules not to be clear, and for schools not to be able to offer explanations. That's fine. People may believe whatever they wish.

I am simply a concerned member of the public, no more, no less. I don't teach, I don't mark exams. But I have done some homework, and I have done some thinking. And, with everything I write, I do not seek that anyone 'believes', for I am not an 'expert' who should be 'believed' - nor should I portray myself as such, for that would indeed be manipulative. What I do seek is that people should think, to look at the sources as appropriate, and to come to their own conclusions.

But I don't know everything, nor do I claim to. And mumsnet, amongst other places, can be a very valuable way of exchanging knowledge, and learning new things. You never know who's there. For example, you might be Amanda Spielman or Sally Collier, and you might be willing to point me towards something I would find helpful. It's always dangerous to jump to conclusions.

As I have said, the purpose of my original post was to point out four new websites or postings that take this matter forward.

So I'm not sure that you are in a strong position to determine the degree of 'altruism', or otherwise, of my posts, here, and - much more thoroughly - elsewhere.

Your suspicion that there is a conflict of interest is understandable, but unfounded. So perhaps you can help me unravel my moral dilemma by informing of what those "interests" might be, and the nature of the "conflict"?