GCSE and A level Government/Ofqual 'Sweetner'

[HappySonHappyMum]

Does anyone else feel that the government/Ofqual have released appeal info and results pattern information in advance of the actual results to try and offset the fury that thousands of teenagers and parents are likely to feel on results days when they realise their kids have been shortchanged? I felt really angry for the Scottish kids when I saw how the data supplied to the SQA had been used. I am feeling even more worried now than I did before. This whole year group are going to lose out and there's nothing these kids can do about it .

I have the same worry with Maths. Ds was predicted a 7 and told that with effort he could get an 8 but he was in set 2 so won't be ranked that high.

We were also told at parents evening that this year 11 cohort was the strongest they have ever had. This will mean nothing when it comes to the results ☹️

This year 11 group is particularly strong in Maths, with most of top set being predicted 7-9's. Previous years ( particularly last year) were not so strong.

I think the appeal process is meant for situations like this, and the school would have evidence.

Is the fisher family trust predictions taken into account?

Thank goodness for the clear explanation from @HipTightOnions. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is planned, which is not surprising given the inaccurate media coverage.

I think the change is a sensible one and I'm really glad that England is not taking the same approach as Scotland. It's clear that, overall, teachers have vastly overestimated grades and their predictions are simply not credible. Obviously some schools will have been much more realistic than others. Standardisation is therefore essential, and not that dissimilar in principle from what happens every year.

Easy for me to say, I know, as I don't have children taking A levels or GCSEs this year. Perhaps I wouldn't feel the same if I did. Either way, I do feel incredibly sorry for the children who should have take exams this year.

prh47bridge How is statistical modelling based on previous exam results at particular schools giving any information about the ability of staff in that school to accurately predict their students’ exam grades?

If teachers in those lower-achieving schools accurately predicted the previous exam results, then their current CAGs are likely to be equally reliable, even if the current cohort are generally higher-achieving overall. Perhaps pupil premium, new and improved teaching and a higher-ability cohort have come together in a perfect storm to exceed expectation and bell-curve type rate of improvement?

In the current system the current CAGs will be downgraded based on previous poor pupil exam performances irregardless of their teachers’ ability to give accurate CAGs.

The stat model, if designed to identify overestimated/underestimated grades doesn’t really actually do what it was designed to do.

And although predicted grades may not be published, they are on student and school records. Both my DDs got predicted grades regularly on their GCSE and A Level years’ reports.

All predicted grades vs actual achievement are regularly analysed after results day in school departments. This information is ready available and easy to access. It is blatantly obvious how well correlated (Or not) they are.

Both my kids are now awaiting the results of the current lottery with anxiety - never before has there been felt to be such a disconnect between actual work and skills achieved and the letter grade which guides the next steps in their academic and vocational journey.

Obviously no system is fully fair or perfect (linear exams for example!) but the government approach to trying to maintain the credibility of this year’s results has been shambolic and deeply insulting to the professionalism of teachers (shouldn’t be surprising, though - it’s just been made even more obvious through this situation)

If the Fischer family trust is used could that give some an unfair advantage? My son was targeted 7-9 across the board because he aced his SATs in year 6 and did very well in his CAT tests. Realistically he was never going to reach his targets in all subjects because he doesn't work consistently.

WeAllHaveWngs The problem is when a school has 10 very similar pupils they expect to get a strong A when normally only 8 do. A 25% increase.

Why is this a problem? Why does everyone keep saying it is an issue or suggest that it ‘devalues’ other years’ results? If 10 people show the skills/knowledge to pass a driving test, should two fail because it bucks a statistical trend that usually only 8 pass?

I simply don’t understand the problem with students getting the grades calculated carefully by reliable and previously-accurate staff. These aren’t just the usual ‘predicted grades’ but are ‘Calculated Grades’(CAGs). They have been based on a specific and rigorous in-school process (as per Govt guidelines) where all evidence for the calculations has been collected (we thought for moderation purposes!) and standardised within departments (and frequently between groups of local schools).

Yes there will be some centres who have tried it on, but they are no doubt in the minority. Yes, it would be unfair for actually overinflated CAGs to be awarded without moderation, but surely if there was concern over the credibility of the proposed results, the actual evidence collected to support the choice could then be moderated.

This year the department are giving grades without having viewed one original student script - material their teachers have in abundance (or not, in which case CAGs are likely to reflect this).

WeAllHaveWngs The problem is when a school has 10 very similar pupils they expect to get a strong A when normally only 8 do. A 25% increase.

Why is this a problem? Why does everyone keep saying it is an issue or suggest that it ‘devalues’ other years’ results? If 10 people show the skills/knowledge to pass a driving test, should two fail because it bucks a statistical trend that usually only 8 pass?

Because the driving test is an absolute standard - if you meet that standard you pass.

GCSEs and A levels are not. They are moderated every year, and grade boundaries are only set once a representative sample of papers has been marked.

Yes there will be some centres who have tried it on, but they are no doubt in the minority

This isn’t the problem though. It’s our natural instinct to be optimistic and want to think the best of our students. This definitely resulted in accidental “grade creep”. It happened at my school too, despite everyone doing their absolute best to be objective, so we had to self-moderate before we submitted them.

How is anyone, even the teacher, meant to know which 2 would have got stuck on an unexpected question, who would have not slept the night before, who was unwell but not enough for GP note, who misread the question, who slept in and lost those precious marks, who panicked when a question threw them in exam conditions?

No system other than actually running the exams could cater for that. If the authorities think that only 8 of the students would actually have got the grade all they can do is drop the 2 lowest ranked ones down a grade but, of course, there is no guarantee that they would have been the ones that lost out (or, indeed, that any of them would have missed the grade).

Here's the horrible inconsistency as I see it:

• For some people, including Ofqual, it is unacceptable for a pupil to get a pass that they might have failed if having a bad day, or a 9 if they might have got an 8 on a tough paper. So 1 grade boundary higher - unacceptable
• For the same people, including Ofqual, it is perfectly acceptable for a pupil who might have passed on a good day to be failed, or a pupil who might have got a 9 on a good day to be given an 8. So 1 grade boundary lower - acceptable

That is really unfair on the pupils and does not give the benefit of the doubt that really should be given to a year group of pupils really messed around and already disadvantaged by lockdown and trying to get an education during a pandemic. Really the attitude to one grade higher should be the same as for one grade lower - not significant to worry about and just move on. Why is the mean attitude more valid than the generous attitude.

Why is the mean attitude more valid than the generous attitude

It isn't. You mischaracterise the situation. The mean attitude is not more valid than the generous attitude. It only appears so because the evidence is that the predicted grades are too generous overall. Grades will move both up and down from those predicted but, given that the predictions have been generous, more will go down than up.

What I mean is the exam boards' and Ofqual's attitude to the possibility that a pupil might get one grade higher than they might have - seen as unacceptable and requiring moderation.
But the attitude to the possibility that a pupil might get one grade lower than they might have - totally acceptable, move on and forget about it. The moderation means many pupils will get one grade lower than they might have. I find that unacceptable compared to the equally skewed outcome of many pupils getting one grade higher than they might have.

Because these are not statistics, they are individuals, and no-one can say how an individual would have done on the day of the exam.
Moderation has only ever been applied to marks achieved in an exam. The outcome when it is applied to rankings and predicted grades seems to have more of an effect on an individual and can't be seen as the same as a normal year.

I think my calling it mean vs. generous is not helping my point.
What I am trying to say is that the efforts of exam boards and Ofqual are being directed at ensuring no-one gets a grade higher than they might have in the exam, even if that means many pupils getting a grade lower than they might have.

What I am trying to say is that the efforts of exam boards and Ofqual are being directed at ensuring no-one gets a grade higher than they might have in the exam

And what I am saying is that you are wrong. The efforts of exam boards and Ofqual are being directed at ensuring that no-one gets a grade higher or lower than they might have in the exam. They are not just adjusting grades down. Some pupils will have been awarded a higher grade than that predicted by their school.

Mine is worried about Maths and pretty sure she'll have to resit.
The schools usual 8's and 9's might help a bit, but mock result was 3.
I've never seen a child work so hard and put in so much effort right to the cut off deadline, because she thought it might count.
Passed English with a 6/5 though, I'm so proud.

Teachers’ prediction is highly unreliable
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/12/08/one-six-a-level-students-predicted-right-grades-teachers/amp/

It is chaotic at its best but not many better options at the time.

It's bollocks to look at UCAS predictions. They are not the same thing at all. They are aspirational. They might be flawed but they are not the same as the CAGs.

Devlesko - my DD is in a similar position. Low target grades through secondary as low SATS results. Worked her socks off moved up to top sets or set 2 for most subjects. Was told will achieve 5's & 6's for majority of subjects (and to ignore target grades). Teachers were incredibly supportive, she took everything on bored. Mocs were between 3-5's, used to find strength/ weakness- as told by teachers.

Secondary is a good school but "wrong" postcode. I fear for her, as it stands, she will be one of the big loosers in this. Even if we appeal, on paper it's not looking good for her. I hope against hope that she will pass the subjects that mattered to her, so she can get the college course she wants.

UCAS predictions are made between September and January, so there are still several months go.

Far less time for change when the predictions are made (using standardised guidelines) around May, when all the course content has been covered.

It's going to be harder if there is continuing school disruption in the autumn term. The class of 20 had at least covered all/close to all the syllabus. 21 may well struggle, even with a largely functioning autumn term, 22 might also have difficulty if this autumn and/or spring term is badly disrupted.

@prh47bridge Yes, in a normal year, with actual exams or NEAs to moderate that might be true.
This year 40% of A'level results were dowgraded in the moderation system.
I can't believe 40% of pupils were given inflated grades.
And I expect the percentage upgraded was a fraction of one. It certainly isn't a figure that is being reported as any counterbalance to the mass downgrading.

Of course they were given inflated grades. Let’s not call it downgraded like it is actually correct in the first place.
The submitted grades are exactly like UCAS grades, aspirational at best, delusional at worst like the Scottish results. 20% up on a normal year. It devalues their results straight away.

Yes, that's what I mean. I do expect some teachers gave the benefit of the doubt, especially around the pass/fail boundary.
You say 20% inflation. A figure I previously heard was 12-15% grade inflation.
So why have 40% of pupils been downgraded?
I hope a better explanation of the figures will become available.
I also think that an unexpected finding is that exam moderation does not work on a CAG where there was no exam and no NEA.
There are probably cleverer people than me who can explain why exam moderation is not working fairly or accurately on the CAGs.

prh47bridge How is statistical modelling based on previous exam results at particular schools giving any information about the ability of staff in that school to accurately predict their students’ exam grades?

It isn't 100% but if a school where students historically achieve, say, 34 points per pupil on average comes up with predictions suggesting this year's cohort would have achieved an average 50 points per pupil with no evidence of over-achievement at GCSE, it is reasonable to be suspicious of the teacher predictions.

@neutralintelligence - They haven't said that 40% were given inflated grades. That is the figure for those who have been awarded a different grade to that predicted. It includes those who have been given a higher grade than their predicted grade. If the experience in England matched that in Scotland, that will be around 37% given inflated predictions and 3% given under-optimistic predictions.

Unlike you, I have no problem at all in believing that nearly 40% of pupils were given inflated grades. As I've posted a couple of times, predicted grades showed 38% of pupils getting an A or A*. The proportion achieving this level has never been above 27% previously. Unless this year's A-level cohort was truly exceptional despite this not showing up in their GCSE results, this is clear evidence of substantial grade inflation.