I can understand how the over-inflating happened.
Whatever Heads at independent schools say about not being bothered by exam results and league tables, they are usually very interested in it. In 2020 which was the first year of teacher grades, the whole system was chaos. Schools were asked to submit broadly in line with previous results. Many did this and some inflated. Then after all the furore about the use of an algorithm, the grades the system had given were abandoned and instead the teacher grades were used. At that point, schools which had ignored the recommendations to go with typical ratios of grades were the ‘winners’ and their kids got the inflated grades. Some independent schools who had been much more conservative even found themselves being sued for not giving high enough grades. Their argument that they could only give X% to A* as that was their historic average didn’t hold water with parents who knew other schools had given far more and then got away with it.
So come the following year when teacher grades were again to be given, and no algorithm was even suggested, pretty much all schools over inflated. It became a question of ‘how much could you get away with’ really. Schools knew that the system wouldn’t have enough staff to seriously challenge many results, and given it was all based on whatever teachers wanted to use and how they wanted to interpret it, some schools decided to push it more than others. Knowing schools the previous year who had been conservative had ‘lost out’ or even been sued all incentivised schools to boost it higher and higher. I guess those close to the top of the league tables, who perhaps felt under pressure to try to maintain their position or rise a place or two were especially worried that if they didn’t raise them by whatever they did, that others would and they would lose out. I can totally see how it happened. Who was to say whether a 15% rise would be okay or a 60% rise or 80% rise? NLCS just happens to be the one that chose the biggest percentage rise. Would it have been acceptable if it was 35% instead? All the schools in the lists basically did it. Lots of state schools did it too and while it might not have boosted A* grades so much, the boosting of oerhaos C to B or similar was often as big a leap - but without quite so much attention.
In my view, schools couldn’t really win, and in the independent sector with parental pressure that was especially the case. If they were conservative and realistic, they would be criticised and out of kilter with others. If they were generous, they risked the attention they have got. And in reality, it was impossible to say what grade a student would definitely get. Every year over 80% of UCAS predictions are wrong - usually too generous. Schools can often suggest on a broader level what % of the cohort will get different grades, but they usually can’t pinpoint the exact students. They might be able to say that 25% will probably get A. But although they might know that 10% are pretty certain, the other 15% might come from 50% of the year group. So, in a year if teacher grades, where 50% of the cohort had a chance of an A, you’d outdone argue that 50% would be the right number to give - because essentially everyone had to be given the benefit of the doubt…as long as the doubt had some basis to it.
It will be interesting tos we what happens this time round. Will there be any attempt to suppress the results if certain types if school? That is very difficult and can be shown up fairly easily? Will the grades really be at a half way mark between 2019 and 2021? We will see. I’d suspect the generous side is more likely.