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 .

? How does that work for GCSEs - results come out next Thursday. The first day of term for sixth form is 7 working days later (including an inset day).
The only solution now must be very quick and very simple.
No time for repeat moderation or taking an exam in November - these results affect pupils' marks right now.
For GCSEs it affects what subjects they can take and what sixth form or college they can go to. This is for pupils aged 16 years old who are legally required to be in education. Left without options at age 16.
The appeals process must be capable of being resolved before 1 September or else hundreds of thousands of 16-year-olds will be disadvantaged, potentially for the rest of their lives.

ofqual had months to sort out problems with individual centres, their chance to do that has passed.
As explained above, pupils getting GCSE results next Thursday need to know before 1 September what their appealed result will be.
It is perfectly possible to do: the triple lock promise is a start, but it needs to be instant, like in Scotland.
The pupils' mark need to instantly revert to CAG or a valid mock result authenticated by the school but not requiring anything more than that.

By putting comparisons to previous years ahead of this years' pupils, the government and Ofqual are failing to protect the interests of the individual pupils who are directly and primarily affected by unsubstantiated lowering of their individual grades.
These are the pupils who are directly affected, but the government and Ofqual are putting the interests of those with only secondary interests ahead. That is unethical.
Everything else in this coronavirus pandemic is explained by 'unprecedent times'. That cannot justify why an individual pupil has grades lowered without an exam paper to prove that it is warranted. It can however be used to justify a year where results are 12% higher - that is really not a big deal in a year where people have died, most pupils have been out of school since March. It is not a normal year, so normal results are not required and certainly not at the expense of individual pupils who have done nothing wrong, did not even get to write on an exam paper.

I agree that everything about the way the government has finalised A-Level results was a debacle and hope against all hope that GCSE grades are not similarly affected.

For instant solutions, all Sixth Form colleges and Centres need to do what Worcester College, Oxford, has announced it will do - made all their offers unconditional. After all, they have run the interviews, met the students, read their school references and seen evidence of their academic achievements over GCSE years - these are the evidence they needed to offer the place and they should give all students the benefit of the doubt, irregardless of what the grades lottery allocates them this year.

Students could then appeal for their personal records, but at least their future studies aren't immediately affected by any downgrading.

I do believe there is some concern over awarding CAGs without sensible moderation and it is infuriating that the government wasted the months in between CAG submission and Results Days on their algorithm instead of proper moderation. The vast majority of centres submitted well-moderated results, but some centres submitted 100% A and A grades (which again, could be possible with a strong cohort but you need to see the evidence for those CAGs). I have no problem with the results being 12% higher as for the first time in a long time, teachers have been able to assess student achievement based on more evidence than that in a single set of exams (which I'd argue is actually more fair than in previous years) What isn't fair is that some students HAVE received CAGs this year due to the size of their classes, but many others haven't - the larger the cohort, the worse the algorithm affected individuals. Analysis of results in certain subjects show that the proportion of A/A are up nearly 50%, but in others (like English Lit, they have only changed by a fraction of a percentage) - this is due to inequitable use of CAGS.

There's no perfect system but all this nonsense that the grades will be 'devalued' and lack reliability is nonsense - no-one is going to be looking at the class of 2020's results in future years and think 'oh yes, that was the year they didn't actually sit exams - I can't trust this A-Level grade'. To suggest this is another attempt by the government to avoid taking responsibility for their appalling and unfair handling of the whole situation.

And as for the comment that higher results would lead to students being progressed 'beyond their capabilities'...

I don't know how it works in the rest of the country but in London there is a fair amount of overbooking for sixth form (offering more places than capacity) plus students may hold multiple offers, so with social distancing, that could all get a bit interesting.

@Phineyj

I don't know how it works in the rest of the country but in London there is a fair amount of overbooking for sixth form (offering more places than capacity) plus students may hold multiple offers, so with social distancing, that could all get a bit interesting.

Hopefully with the good news that CAGs are to be awarded, there will be some natural selection regarding 6th Forms : some students will still miss out on their offer requirements and have to find an alternative place, some will have applied to several 6th forms and so might be ;forced to accept a place at a college or school which isn't already full.

It is definitely going to make things interesting if they have to go to their admissions procedure regarding more people accepting/meeting the offer than usual...

Are they still going to issue the GCSE grades from the algorithm, along with the CAGs, or just go straight for the CAGs?

@Grumblyberries

Are they still going to issue the GCSE grades from the algorithm, along with the CAGs, or just go straight for the CAGs?

Just CAGs for GCSE on Thursday (if the DfE announcement can be believed!)

Such great news for thousands of students!

It's the highest of the CAG or moderated grade so students must be issued with both.

@Schmedz - if there is any chance of a better sixth form that my DC has qualified for forcing him to go to a less-good sixth form, I will simply reject the other offers immediately. They can't force a pupil to go to another school if they have made a condition offer that the pupil meets. They are not pieces of pork chop being redistributed.

yes the annoucement was a bit confusing - definitely the higher of the two grades for A-levels ,but I wasn't sure for GCSEs.

Some pupils might well be upgraded, if they are particularly low in a school that normally does very well.

I wonder what it will mean for resits next year, if some of the grades were aspirational, combined with potentially being upgraded - normally people with, say, a 3, tend to have to re-do GCSE, whereas those with a 2 can be offered functional skills, which is sometimes a more appropriate course.

[quote neutralintelligence]@Schmedz - if there is any chance of a better sixth form that my DC has qualified for forcing him to go to a less-good sixth form, I will simply reject the other offers immediately. They can't force a pupil to go to another school if they have made a condition offer that the pupil meets. They are not pieces of pork chop being redistributed.[/quote]
Good luck with it all!! It’s such an uncertain time for everyone.

Schools Still Used the Abandoned Algorithm.

Up to 1,900 schools still used a similar algorithm to the one the government abandoned due to "too many significant inconsistent and unfair outcomes". 1,900 schools sent their CAGs to FFT Datalab who sent back to them, information about how many grades to change to fit their school's 2019 data. 1,000 schools sent them to FFT again to further check their CAGs.

I'm writing to FFT, my MP, Ofqual, my school, exam boards, any journalist whose written about the algorithm. I suggest you share this information and do the same. My child's grades were at or lower than his most recent sustained, attainment grades.

Grades should have been, per Ofqual, "[a CAG] which represented the grade that student would have been most likely to achieve if teaching and learning had continued and student had taken their exams as planned."
AND
"Working At Grades" as well as "Target Grades" (FFT Target Data) were not to be used as per Ofqual, "note that these centre assessment grades [CAGs] are not the same as - working at grades (the grade a student is currently working at) [and] - target grades". Rather, the DfE and Ofqual stated when determining CAGs to use "student's knowledge, skills and abilities in relation to the subject. This evidence should inform teachers' professional judgements about each student's likely performance at the time of the exam."; "those judgements should be holistic, based on the range of evidence that schools and colleges have. So students shouldn't worry about one disappointing mock exam result"; "performance over the course of study"; "review data, classwork, bookwork"; "performance on any class or homework assessments"; "signed off by at least 2 teachers [or an equal] in that subject .... [stating] fairly represent the grades".

Please see the following: ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2020/06/gcse-results-2020-a-look-at-the-grades-proposed-by-schools/?fbclid=IwAR1i6OB4gEvjEcBa4yCWW9xYW83S5EM1K2WiWanh-BKoqTpo1Q0V2Z9-V1g

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909035/6656-2_-_Executive_summary.pdf

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887018/Summer_2020_Awarding_GCSEs_A_levels_-_Info_for_Heads_of_Centre_22MAY2020.pdf

I am concerned about this. The FFT lead to the ridiculous situation of my DS having a Progress 8 of over 4!
I admit he made good progress at a very good secondary school. But his predicted GCSE grades using the FFT were extremely low and all DS's teachers stated that he would do much better and agree to manually override them in most cases.
But that doesn't help DS with his GCSE CAGs. One was an 8 -- in his year 10 exam he got an 8, in his year 11 mock he got a 9 and his NEA was said to be A-level standard. So why does he have a CAG of 8? It's the FFT prediction that has lowered it. FFT probably said he should have a 6 then the teachers could only argue it up to an 8.
There is something not right with predictions done this way - is it wrong for summer-born boys? Does it take into account parental, especially mother's, level of education - a crucial factor in children's educational attainment.
It seems very focussed on year 6 SATs, which many schools just aren't fussed about and tell their pupils not to worry about. Also I never expected my DS's y6 SATs to determine his GCSE grades!! If I had any inkling of that, he would have done some revision and practice. But he was only 11 so of course I didn't make him do any of that.

I suggest anyone whose school has used FFT data (especially FFT Target data) in setting CAGs, consider appealing based on discrimination. Ofqual stated not to use protected characteristics (this includes age and gender) and FFT state they use both of those in their data analysis.

Also, Johnson stated the mutant algorithm is gone. It is not. The ‘Mutant’ Algorithm is still being used on tens of thousands of state schools’ 2020 GCSE students. The government dumped its algorithm but yesterday, it quietly permitted another, nearly identical one to be declared, ‘[not an error]’. They are most likely referring to the FFT data analysis that up to 1,900 schools used. See ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2020/06/gcse-results-2020-a-look-at-the-grades-proposed-by-schools/?fbclid=IwAR1i6OB4gEvjEcBa4yCWW9xYW83S5EM1K2WiWanh-BKoqTpo1Q0V2Z9-V1g

The government’s abandoned algorithm placed weight on 2017-2019 historical performance, school-level data. FFT placed weight on 2019 historical performance, school-level data. Per the Department for Education the government algorithm resulted “in more significant inconsistencies than can be resolved through an appeals process” and “the process of allocating grades resulted in more inconsistency and unfairness”. I’m certain FFT’s resulted in the same result.

Per Ofqual, “Each centre assessment grade should be an holistic professional judgement, balancing different sources of evidence and data. It is important that your centre’s judgements are objective, only taking account of existing evidence and not irrelevant factors, such as a student’s socio-economic background or any particular protected characteristic they may have.” See ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2020/05/15/making-grades-as-fair-as-they-can-be-advice-for-schools-and-colleges/

Per FFT “All Aspire Target Setting screens for pupils, subjects and schools include a ‘benchmark’ estimate. Progress rates will differ across different subjects and indicators. They will also vary depending on the starting point of pupils (prior attainment in the previous key stage, gender and month of birth). See help.fft.org.uk/articles/manage-target-setting-benchmarks/

Per FFT, “Contextual value added (CVA) is a technique used to analyse the progress made by pupils which takes into account a wider range of factors than value added.”
“Typically, value added only takes into account pupil prior attainment whereas CVA can include things such as ethnicity, free school meals status, mobility and first language. CVA can also include aggregate measures such as the average attainment of a school’s intake.”
“It was first included in Department for Education performance tables in 2005/06 but then dropped in 2010/11.”
“We – FFT – were calculating CVA before it was introduced into performance tables and have carried on calculating it since the government abandoned it.”
See ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2019/11/should-we-bring-back-contextual-value-added/

Per FFT, “The impact of term of birth at your school”
“FFT has always recognised this issue. It’s one of the reasons that ‘month of birth’ is included as an input factor in FFT pupil estimates.” See fft.org.uk/term-of-birth/

SPREAD THE WORD! LET’S SHOUT LOUD ABOUT THIS INJUSTICE!

I agree.

However, like most reading this, I don't get algorithms. Can you specify what factors will count against a DC?
I guess being a summer-born boy means FFT thinks you will underperform?
How does it assess socioeconomic factors? I have no idea how my DC's school would know how much I earn. Does it base this on the value of my house or postcode?

I am also happy for FFT to take a look at my DS and see how year 6 SATs bear absolutely no relevance to how he has done at school.

He did no revision or practice for y6 SATs. He revised almost full-time during year 10 and 11 for his GCSEs.
His y6 SATs did not know he would be really good at GCSE geography or history or science (primary school science at my DC primary was basically floating stuff on water).

This may help too.

Twitter:
@ofqual
@educationgovuk
@BorisJohnson
@GavinWilliamson

Ofqual complaints:
complaints.ofqual.gov.uk/

DfE Complaints:
form.education.gov.uk/en/AchieveForms/?form_uri=sandbox-publish://AF-Process-f1453496-7d8a-463f-9f33-1da2ac47ed76/AF-Stage-1e64d4cc-25fb-499a-a8d7-74e98203ac00/definition.json&redirectlink=%2Fen&cancelRedirectLink=%2Fen

The government’s abandoned algorithm placed weight on 2017-2019 historical performance, school-level data. FFT placed weight on 2019 historical performance, school-level data. Per the Department for Education, the government algorithm resulted “in more significant inconsistencies than can be resolved through an appeals process” and “the process of allocating grades resulted in more inconsistency and unfairness”. FFT’s certainly resulted in the same biased results yet Ofqual just published the following regarding appeals, “A school or college that took into account the distribution of centre assessment grades compared with grades achieved by the centre’s students in previous years will have acted within the guidance. The taking into account of such information is not, therefore, an error.”

Per FFT, "[schools] received reports which compared the spread of grades in each subject to historical attainment figures and progress data." "We’re going to compare it to published, school-level results for 2019" "The precise reason that schools submitted data to FFT’s statistical moderation service was to seek some assistance in determining what grades to set. Many will have used the reports that they received to tweak the grades they were proposing before they are submitted to the exam boards."

It's just wrong.

I suggest anyone whose school has used FFT data (especially FFT Target data) in setting CAGs, consider appealing based on discrimination. Ofqual stated not to use protected characteristics (this includes age and gender) and FFT state they use both of those in their data analysis.

How is it possible to find out if the school used FFT data?

My school listed it in a letter stating what they'd use. I've started the FOI request process for the rest of the information they hold on my kid. If your school won't tell you, maybe ask your LA or maybe these links will help.

ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/schools/pupils-info/

www.tes.com/news/how-respond-subject-access-requests

If you find more or anyone else has recommendations. Please share with us.

BBC news has a question time on their website about GCSEs and appeals.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53812998

The FFT analysis would not have returned individual results. It would have compared the overall pattern of results with the overall pattern in previous years. The summary guidance for appeals is clear that doing such a comparison was within the guidelines and therefore not an error. For discrimination to be proved, it must be demonstrated that an individual was treated less favourably than their peers, or that a different process was applied. This is not the case in a cohort level analysis, unless the ranking of the individual candidate within the cohort was biased.

Has anyone had any luck at all getting the grades their child deserved? I obtained some emails from my child's school and in summary, at least one grade was lowered at the behest of the headteacher. Have a look.

Hopefully someone has had some luck!

17 May 2020. Quotes from one English school’s internal emails, whilst working on setting CAGs.

Head of Subject, “all grades are based on the students results and what we genuinely felt they could achieve”, “they are a very hard working year group so we felt quite confident that these were the correct results for the students”

School Leadership, “I sent our results to the FFT database”, “As you will see Geography is predicting that on average all students will achieve a whole grade higher than FFT”, “he would like you to review your results again as we all feel the exam board is likely to bring the Geography grades down”, “we do feel that at the moment that these results are out of kilter”

Head of Subject, “a bit disappointed”, “but if we have to move so be it”

School Leadership, “I did say you felt you had the evidence”, “I would start by altering those at the bottom”

Head of Subject, “let me know if we have changed enough or if we need to change more”, “Currently is about 40 students with a reduced grade do you think that’s enough?”

School Leadership, “I’ll need to look but I’m sure if you’ve moved 40 before even looking at the classes then it will be fine.”

Several weeks later, 27 August 2020. Quote from an internal email regarding a parent’s question about an individual student’s CAGs.

Subject Teacher, “I think he was one of those I had to bring down due to overall grades being too high, he is one who would have got higher sadly.”

2020 Students - Class Action Lawsuit Against DfEd & Ofqual.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/families-to-sue-over-wrong-marks-given-by-teachers-g2qjjc8x7