‘A’level results, not a level playing field.

It was clear for quite some time that it was going to be a mess. And Gavin Williamson, knowing that full well- did nto attend the meetings to try and sort it out with experts in the field and representatives from the teaching profession. He went on holiday instead, at the crucial time.

Yes, we talked about Goethe and gin.

Yes I did, I remember it pretty well considering !

So, does anyone remember the days when you had to attend interviews at various universities and often produce a piece if work on the spot?
The worst one was having to have afternoon tea with the professor!
Having teacher assessed grades would have been a doddle in comparison.

Davudhs. Monday 18.11

Sorry, who is blaming teachers?

Amazing isn’t it when the government has climbed down and apologised that some people would still like to blame teachers!

How would offering places after exam results have helped? There weren't any exams this year? `

eazybee

I don't trust the algorithm but neither do I trust teachers' predicted grades and assessment of pupils' work, having seen how assessments from KS1 upwards can be manipulated. A public exam, independently marked, proves what a pupil can do unaided, within a time limit and in competition with others.

That said, it will be interesting to see how this year's cohort performs at university compared with previous years, given that worldwide, many students are being admitted on what are openly acknowledge to be inflated results, plus the fact that many students have missed up to five months education.

If ever there was a time for revising the admittance procedure, this is it; only offer places after the exam results.

KS1 assessments aren't moderated externally. GCSEs and A levels are. There is no advantage to the school to overestimate by more than half or one grade.

Ellianne

Some of the estimates must be dubious growstuff because teachers are after all human beings not robots. I would want my pupils to get the best possible grades, even though I do not like the current system of chasing top grades. I would bump up a borderline pupil who had put in maximum effort and worked their socks off.

So how would that help them? Their grades would normally be based on formal assessments, not the centre assessment.

Teachers were required to submit their estimates before they knew there would be no exams.

The only time teacher estimates are ever considered is if a pupil is ill and a request is made for special consideration (which is extremely rare) or if the whole centre's marks are seriously adrift of the awarded grades, in which case an administrative error is usually to blame.

Stop trying to blame teachers! The government is responsible.

I don't trust the algorithm but neither do I trust teachers' predicted grades and assessment of pupils' work, having seen how assessments from KS1 upwards can be manipulated. A public exam, independently marked, proves what a pupil can do unaided, within a time limit and in competition with others.

That said, it will be interesting to see how this year's cohort performs at university compared with previous years, given that worldwide, many students are being admitted on what are openly acknowledge to be inflated results, plus the fact that many students have missed up to five months education.

If ever there was a time for revising the admittance procedure, this is it; only offer places after the exam results.

Some of the estimates must be dubious growstuff because teachers are after all human beings not robots. I would want my pupils to get the best possible grades, even though I do not like the current system of chasing top grades. I would bump up a borderline pupil who had put in maximum effort and worked their socks off.

A pupil who has worked damned hard throughout school, despite not going to a high-achieving school or coming from a privileged background, deserves to have attainment recognised.

A pupil who has been estimated as A*AA and would have achieved those grades, if he/she had sat an exam, doesn't deserve to be downgraded, so that a course at a prestigious university or on a course such as medicine or law is denied.

It's not just the high fliers who lost out. For some with more modest estimates, the offer of a course or a good job was a route out of family poverty.

Don't try to blame the teachers! This is the government's responsibility. It briefed Ofqual and teachers did what they were told.

Ellianne

^However, there are also examples of teachers over estimating which have inflated grades. So what would have been a fair system to students, universities and employers?^
The trouble is Gwyneth we have created a situation where we drum into youngsters how vital it is to get top grades, how they must achieve top marks in everything, how they will be measured by academic achievement alone, how failure will lead to disappointment and nothingness. Teachers themselves have been sucked into this circus too, they are measured by the success of their pupils' grades. So some of their estimates are dubious.
It is often a case of learning for learning's sake in the world of examinations today.

What evidence do you have that centre estimates are dubious? In normal circumstances, they count for nothing, so teachers have no reason to overestimate recklessly.

Of course grades matter to young people. Everybody knows that there is a hierarchy of universities and that entry to the more prestigious ones is going to open doors. That opportunity should be available to all young people, whatever school they attended.

GrannyGravy13

What would have been fair would have been to keep A level and GSCE pupils in school / colleges and let them sit their exams.

With no other pupils in the buildings, social distancing, hand cleansing and mask wearing surely it could have been an option?

I agree, although even then there were pupils who were self-isolating and shouldn't have been in school.

Nevertheless, if even half of a cohort had sat the exams, teachers could have applied the normal procedures for absent pupils and the grades would have been more accurate than the algorithm.

For me, what's been significant is that government really did think it could get through this and dismiss the anger. Hence, Johnson's comments about the results being "robust" when they most certainly weren't. I think the government underestimated the range of people who would be affected. Even the headteacher of Eton wrote to him pointing out what an unfair system it was.

After trying to score political points for what Sturgeon did in Scotland, there are some people who should be eating humble pie.

However, there are also examples of teachers over estimating which have inflated grades. So what would have been a fair system to students, universities and employers?
The trouble is Gwyneth we have created a situation where we drum into youngsters how vital it is to get top grades, how they must achieve top marks in everything, how they will be measured by academic achievement alone, how failure will lead to disappointment and nothingness. Teachers themselves have been sucked into this circus too, they are measured by the success of their pupils' grades. So some of their estimates are dubious.
It is often a case of learning for learning's sake in the world of examinations today.

Gwyneth There is overestimating every year. Everybody knows that, so it could be taken into account. Centre assessed grades are moderated by schools and give the candidates the benefit of the doubt if they're borderline. They don't usually count in final grades. They are much more accurate than any algorithm ever could be. Some people have tried to make out that it's "cheating", but it's not.

The reason that an algorithm was developed was because the government was paranoid about grade inflation, but the coding itself was flawed because it discriminated against pupils who went to big schools and colleges. There were also other flaws, such as not comparing results with all the other data the government has about school improvement and the ability of individual cohorts. This could have all been modelled before issuing the grades and the algorithm adjusted. The exam boards have had five months to do it.

It was based on historical data and insisted on fitting all the current entrants on to a curve dictated by the results at the school/college over the last three years. If there were five or fewer entrants for a particular subject, they were exempt from the algorithm, which favoured very small schools, usually private ones.

Teachers were instructed to rank their pupils in order. This meant, for example, that if even one pupil over the last three years had been awarded a U, then one pupil this year had to be given a U. That pupil might have been the worst in the class, but still have been worth a higher grade, but had to have a U. That's why there are bizarre examples of pupils being downgraded two or three grades. Teachers' overestimation might result in half to a whole grade, but it's highly unlikely that a candidate would be that much lower.

As an employer, I would ignore A level grades if the applicant had subsequently gone on to study for a degree. If I were considering appointing somebody straight from school, I would trust the centre assessed grades more than the algorithm and would interview anyway. Only a handful of candidates - mainly from private schools - have been awarded grades higher than the centre assessed grades.

They have to be socially distanced anyway when taking exams..

What would have been fair would have been to keep A level and GSCE pupils in school / colleges and let them sit their exams.

With no other pupils in the buildings, social distancing, hand cleansing and mask wearing surely it could have been an option?

There have been many posts about the use of an algorithm as unfair which I do not dispute. However, there are also examples of teachers over estimating which have inflated grades. So what would have been a fair system to students, universities and employers?

This fiasco can only cause even more confusion for employers. I would not employ anyone based on these grades. Instead, I would set my own assessments based on whether the applicant had the ability to do the job.

Hope this is not too OFF TOPIC!!

"Private Pike" was Chief Whip at one point and will have had access to the little book with dirty secrets. One Tory MP has been quoted as saying that they'd rather have him inside the tent than outside.

In any case, Johnson will want to keep him in post until pupils have successfully (or not) returned to school in September.

How not to use an algorithm:

www.newstatesman.com/politics/wales/2020/08/westminster-s-u-turn-over-exam-grades-case-study-how-not-use-algorithms

Thought he was on holiday, leaving Private Pike in charge. Not like we are in the middle of a health and economic crisis or anything.