Scottish Exam results

[DonegalGhirl]

So proud of my DD for her Nat 5 results, she worked hard and her results reflected this.

We were a bit worried before she received her results as the results were based on course work/predicted grades but also on the schools previous exam results, and as our DD’s school is ranked in the lower half of Scottish school results we were a bit worried that might affect her grades, thankfully it doesn’t appear to have.

Anyway just wanted to share our good news and hope all other kids are happy with their results as well.

My dd is still asleep. How long to give her before I wake her up to find out her Higher results?

I like your daughters style Demented, she must be super chilled to sleep in, hope her higher awards were good Xx.

I just read on the BBC news site that a lot of grades were lowered, and that for some students the adjustments were large and on the face of it difficult to justify. I'm concerned - I am fostering an 18yo who didn't get to take A levels this year. He had a difficult Yr12 due to his mother's mental ill health, but since coming to live with me, his grades have shot up steeply. My fear is that he could be downgraded based on where he used to be, not on the upward trajectory he was actually on.

Reading about students being assigned grades lower than their mocks also worries me, as the vast majority of my DD2's GCSE cohort performed well above their mocks grades in the actual exam, so a double hit could be on the cards for a lot of people, especially those living in areas where academic achievement is traditionally low. It's going to be a mess.

They downgraded 25% of teachers estimates. I understand why they did it as otherwise pass rates would have been far higher than usual and credibility questionable.

But they did it without looking at any coursework or other evidence to ensure those they chose to downgrade were the right students.

There will be a lot of appeals.

25% of grades lowered but overall results still up on last year. Appreciate there may be some decisions which seem unfair to individuals, but sounds to me like teachers massively overpredicted.

Agreed Bravefox

My point was they could have taken evidence for each predicted grade and at least reviewed those they were going to downgrade (given in a normal year they have to mark lots of papers and coursework in any case).

Some whose grades have been over predicted have been given those over predicted grades, and others arbitrarily downgraded have got worse results than if they’d sat the exams.

But they did it without looking at any coursework or other evidence to ensure those they chose to downgrade were the right students

The underlying assumptions are that a school's performance this year would have been broadly in line with previous years and that teachers know their students well enough to place them in order correctly. If a school that historically had a pass rate of around 65% was genuinely on course to achieve a pass rate of 85% this year it will have been unfair to those students.

Equally, if a school has predicted that 10 students would have achieved the highest grade but historically you would only have expected 5 to do so, those who the teacher believed would have the 6th to 10th highest marks will have been pushed down a grade. If the teacher got the order wrong and, say, the student who the teacher predicted would finish 9th would actually have finished 2nd, it will have been unfair to that student.

But if a school's historic performance was a good indicator of this year's likely performance (which, in general, it is) and teachers placed students in the correct order they will have downgraded the right students.

sounds to me like teachers massively overpredicted

It does indeed. I note that some students have been awarded a higher grade than predicted, so some teachers underpredicted but, on the evidence, it seems most were far too optimistic. If the unadjusted teacher's predictions had been used the results would have lacked credibility.

Given the things I've heard some teachers in England say about the approach being taken for GCSEs, I suspect some schools believed they could game the system to improve their results. It may be that we will hear something similar about GCSE and A-level results when they come out later this month.

The problem I have is that it appears mocks results weren't taken into account, as people were given grades substantially lower than mocks results. My DD did GCSEs last year and her mocks were pretty meh - she was dealing with fibromyalgia (though we didn't have a diagnosis at that point) and was in constant pain. She got a 3 in her Chemistry mock and a 5 in her Maths mock. Her real exam grades were both 7 because she busted through the pain and worked her backside off to get those grades. People like that are going to be the ones hardest hit by the current system and that isn't OK.

I don't think it is a case of teachers gaming the system @prh47bridge. As someone said to me previously, if you have 3 students who are all say 66% likely to get a certain grade, a teacher would predict them all that grade. However in reality, only 2 out of the 3 would achieve it. So when the results are fed into the model one will be dropped.
This is obviously an over simplification of the process but it will only get more difficult when you take into account increased numbers, difficulties in making predictions etc, who should have their grade dropped etc. Making statements like teachers are over predicting etc are not helpful, when the system is designed for teachers having to over predict and modelling to bring it back down.

@sparkelark - I'm not saying teachers generally have gamed the system but I have heard of some heads who thought they could artificially inflate their league table position this year.

@prh47bridge there are no league tables this year. Not being done due to no exams. And as we can see, schools that over inflated all their results have done a massive disservice to their students as all have been marked down. I hated doing the CAGs but I gave what I thought was fair. I did give a U. I just hope that's what got sent off.

@mumsneedwine - True which is one of the reasons I couldn't understand what I was being told some heads were saying. I've heard quite a few things from senior teachers this year that suggest at least some of them don't really understand the process, including some teachers being instructed to make sure their predicted results for this year exactly matched last year's profile. So if no-one got a 9 last year, no-one should be predicted a 9 this year.

@prh47bridge I think that has happened unfortunately. And some schools have put in ridiculous grades thinking they'd get away with it. I think they are in for a bit of a shock next week. All we were asked to do was give our most accurate estimate, which is what most schools will have done. 75% of Scottish grades were not changed. It seems the 25% come from the same kids, so all their grades have been marked down. So unfair they couldn't look at individual data if they were changing grades, up or down, as it has resulted in disadvantaged kids mostly going down and luckier kids going up. Which is v v wrong.

I think there's an interesting debate to be had about the 8.3% difference in downgrading between least deprived and most deprived. (Most deprived downgraded 15.2%, least deprived 6.9%.)

I wonder how much that is down to most deprived students not achieving their potential historically for whatever reason. Are they more likely to flunk an exam? Are they less likely to appeal a grade? Less successful in appealing?

Whilst I appreciate potential grades were way out compared to historic results, I think @sparklelark has it spot on:

if you have 3 students who are all say 66% likely to get a certain grade, a teacher would predict them all that grade. However in reality, only 2 out of the 3 would achieve it. So when the results are fed into the model one will be dropped.

I don't think an algorithm was the best way to sort this out this year. I think I'd have been more comfortable with an acceptance that no one could know which 1 out of the 3 was going to be the one who didn't get the predicted grade, and so this year's results will be anomolous and all 3 students will have achieved their potential.

Is this unfair on other years? A little, but in other years they will have sat the exams and 1 student will definitely not have achieved the predicted grade. I feel it's more unfair to judge on might haves.

Just for clarity, the teacher of the 3 students in sparklelark's scenario would have put the three in order so the one that dropped out would be the one most likely to miss. However, that relies on the teacher getting the order right. It may be that in reality the student the teacher thought would finish third would actually have finished first.

There will be some students who now have lower grades than they would have achieved if the exams had gone ahead. There are others who have higher grades than they would have achieved. We will never know for certain which students have the right grades and which have the wrong grades.

But we can assume that kids from more disadvantaged areas are more likely to have lower results than ones from nice rich private schools. And that's what is wrong. They should have looked at those 25% closer and seen the individual child behind them. V possible as it seems a lot of those results belonged to the same students. Glad they can appeal but this is not fair.

The problem is that kids from more disadvantaged areas are more likely to have lower results. The link between income and educational outcomes is far stronger in Scotland than in England. If you are from a disadvantaged area in Scotland you will go to a school that historically gets poor results. If your teachers this year predicted that their results generally would be in line with previous years but you would get a top grade you would probably have been ok - your grade would not have been adjusted. However, if your teachers predicted that the overall pass rate for the school would go from 65% last year to 85% this year your grade will have been adjusted downwards.

@prh47bridge I agree. But this process does not take into account the very bright child at the disadvantaged school. And these are the kids who have been shafted. They genuinely would have got an A but have been marked down because everyone else has. Partly fault of the over predictions, but having done the process myself it was very hard. These kids deserve their results to be scrutinised and to let them get the grade they worked for. I know one student who has never not got an A, in Nationals or prelims. And got C and Ds. This is v v wrong.
It is also the upgrading of the lazy kid at the posh school up the road who got their grades pushed up, just by virtue of going to a school in a nicer area. So should have got a C but got an A because most people usually do at their school.
I can't see her they couldn't have used the candidate numbers at this stage to look at previous results for individuals.

I agree - use of averages and historical school results ignores the fact that every class is a group of individuals that won’t perform in exactly the same way as the ‘average’.

Maybe a school has achieved for maths for example on average 5 As per year, but it’s not a stretch that in any particular year there might be 8+ maths students who would all have achieved As in exam.

Given pass rates are already up, how willing will sqa be to award appeals?

And the sqa upgrading some results confuses me - maybe I’m naive but I can’t see many teachers having predicted a grade below a students potential.

@rozzyraspberry the marking up is not good. Especially as I expect they will ALL be to students at the good schools. Where teachers will have given accurate predictions. It's just not fair that your parents wealth has dictated your results this year. There are always some students who do v well at school despite their peer group. I hope this is sorted out fairly. And before next weeks bun fight.