Secondary school teachers... your views.

[Myakka17]

I am curious how the A levels would have been assessed by teachers.
Were you allowed so many students per grade banding or was each band given a % of students to include etc.
Is it possible that a student from one school could be given an A whilst another a B yet the B student was performing to a higher standard.
I’m just curious what the instructions were from the government/ Ofqual.
Thanks

[mskitty]

This might help. It is something a teacher friend of mine sent today. It explains a little of what you are asking plus more. But basically they are professionals and do this year in year out anyway with incredible accuracy.



I just wanted to explain what has happen with A-level results as the media (certain outlets of course) are now pushing the blame of students being downgraded onto teachers. The same thing will happen next Thursday on GCSE results day on a much wider scale so let me explain what actually happened.

In March teachers were asked to submit a centre assessed grade (CAG) CAGs are NOT mock results. They a cumulative and holistic assessment of that student over time taking into consideration their mock exam (which many schools would have done in January) their marked assignments, work ethic and a number of other factors, it is not based on one single assessment like a mock exam. So if you have a student who got a B in their mock you may say that student will get an A as they improve over the next 5 months based on their marked work and other contributing factors. This is standard teacher prediction we do it every year for hundred of students to predict our school performance and implement intervention where needed. It’s a very accurate form of prediction with the majority of schools performing within 1% of their predictions (unless something goes very wrong) So very small margins of inaccuracy. On this occasion because the stakes were high these teacher assessed grades were submitted to the head of department who moderated them (this is the process that happened at my school and most other schools I know). After this the senior team analysed the data and corrected/questioned any anomalies. For example if a child has been predicted grade C in other subjects and grade A in one we would ask what evidence that member of staff had for that prediction. Moderation again is a standard teacher practice and something that middle and senior leaders will be expert at. Once we were happy with the grades awarded to students we then had to rank them within their grades, so for example if you had 10 students all predicted a C you would have to say who is your number 1 C and who is your number 10 and rank all those in between. You had to do this for every grade. This was the part we assumed would be where students were ‘cut’. If students take an exam the grade boundaries are adjusted according to a variety of factors meaning that those at the top of the grade are often boosted and those at the bottom are often dropped into the next grade. If a child is dropped close to a grade boundary they are able to see how close they were to that grade, if it were a couple of marks it is worth them requesting a remark on their paper as it is likely they could go up ( exam marking is again done by teachers who will always have a degree of human differentiation).

What actually happened is the grades we submitted were put into an ‘algorithm’ that applied a number of factors in determining the students grade. Some of these factors included:
Where the child lives ( if they are from an area of social deprivation or an affluent area)
The post code of the school (as above)
The schools overall historical performance
Students historical performance in that subject
Size of school ( smaller schools/colleges performing better due to small class size, mainly applicable to independent schools who have a high staff to student ratio)

Using student X as an example. He was predicted 2 A* and 1 A grade at A-level which were sent off as his CAGs. His first choice uni being Cambridge which after an extensive application process (including the submission of assignments) he was accepted to. The grades he received are BBC meaning he dropped 2 grades in every subject. Why? Well his postcode is in an area of low income. The school is in one of the most socially deprived post codes in the country. Last year the cohort taking the subject were not as academic ( their gcse grades were lower) so grades were not as high as they would have been this year which is in line with normal trajectory.

So what will happen now? He gets rejected from Cambridge. He can appeal and request his mock grade be used, a less reliable source than teacher assessment, but it is likely that Cambridge will not hold his place or defer it until next year. Who will the top universities be filled with? Those from independent schools who the algorithm was written to benefit; affluent, small, history of above average results.

The handling of this has further widened the gap in education between the haves and have nots. A student in an independent school who was predicted a B will have secured that grade, whereas a student from a state school who was predicted an A can end up with a C. It’s not just the most academic, low income students that are affected. Students predicted Cs have ended up with U grades due to spreading the rank over the model curve ( I won’t explain this here but happy to discuss further if anyone wants the info). This will mean that any students with conditional offers won’t get their place even at non Russell group uni.

So to summarise, no it is not the teachers, it’s not even the exam boards. It is the government who instructed the system. In a cabinet filled with public school boys they’ve literally screwed over poor kids in the most crude of ways in a system already designed to favour the ‘elite’.

To conclude, if any parents or young people you know need some support with appeals or uni application please let me know.

[levtweeney]

A very accurate summation. I would add one thing to this. Schools are not going to be judged this year for grades (no league tables produced) so for me their would be no reason to even think about adding in a cheeky higher mark as it would do me, the child nor the school any benefit whatsoever. I have never lied on a predicted grade nor would I ever, what would be the point?

I mirror the events discussed about the internal moderation, the heads of departments, senior leaders, exams officers all checking across topics to get the full picture for each individual pupil ensure anomaly’s are highlighted and dealt with accordingly.

Every school I have taught in has always had their predicted grades accuracy as one of the main school priorities. As already stated it allows for the identification of pupils who may need additional support so helps the school massively if these predictions are correct.

[duchy]

I’m not a teacher but I did work in a high school as a TA whilst deciding if I wanted to do a PGCE (school politics made me decide against it, loved the teaching bit especially with challenging kids). Even then some 15ish years ago teachers didn’t just pick a grade there were endless meetings and recalibration regrading and justifications so I absolutely agree school predictions are the fairest way to award results this year.

[Bobbins]

Originally Posted by mskitty

This is standard teacher prediction we do it every year for hundred of students to predict our school performance and implement intervention where needed. It’s a very accurate form of prediction with the majority of schools performing within 1% of their predictions (unless something goes very wrong) So very small margins of inaccuracy.

See more...

Sorry, but that's beyond nonsense. For example, first hit on Google on predicted grades has a report from a few years ago which says:
"The system of predicted grades is inaccurate. Only 16% of applicants achieved the A-level grade points that they were predicted to achieve, based on their best three A-levels. However, the vast majority were over-pre- dicted – ie their grades were predicted to be higher than they actually achieved."

Originally Posted by mskitty

Those from independent schools who the algorithm was written to benefit; affluent, small, history of above average results.

See more...

That's also nonsense and sounds like left-wing propaganda.

It did happen in some subjects where smaller schools had smaller numbers of kids doing certain subjects and they should have taken it into account, but no one else has even suggested that it was done on purpose. It will have helped state schools too where they happened to have a small number doing particular subjects.

[Cherrypie]

Originally Posted by Bobbins

Sorry, but that's beyond nonsense. For example, first hit on Google on predicted grades has a report from a few years ago which says:
"The system of predicted grades is inaccurate. Only 16% of applicants achieved the A-level grade points that they were predicted to achieve, based on their best three A-levels. However, the vast majority were over-pre- dicted – ie their grades were predicted to be higher than they actually achieved."



That's also nonsense and sounds like left-wing propaganda.

It did happen in some subjects where smaller schools had smaller numbers of kids doing certain subjects and they should have taken it into account, but no one else has even suggested that it was done on purpose. It will have helped state schools too where they happened to have a small number doing particular subjects.

See more...

But it was wrong and shouldn’t have happened

[ChoppyGirl]

Originally Posted by Bobbins

Sorry, but that's beyond nonsense. For example, first hit on Google on predicted grades has a report from a few years ago which says:
"The system of predicted grades is inaccurate. Only 16% of applicants achieved the A-level grade points that they were predicted to achieve, based on their best three A-levels. However, the vast majority were over-pre- dicted – ie their grades were predicted to be higher than they actually achieved."



That's also nonsense and sounds like left-wing propaganda.

It did happen in some subjects where smaller schools had smaller numbers of kids doing certain subjects and they should have taken it into account, but no one else has even suggested that it was done on purpose. It will have helped state schools too where they happened to have a small number doing particular subjects.

See more...

But predicted grades and CAGs are different things aren’t they?

[Bobbins]

Originally Posted by ChoppyGirl

But predicted grades and CAGs are different things aren’t they?

See more...

Yes, but the teacher quoted says they can do good CAG assessments because they're used to doing predicted grades and they get them to within 1%.

I can't understand anyone even writing that - it would be nothing short of miraculous to be able to predict almost anything to within 1%.

[holidaysaver75]

We’re not spitting in the wind when we make grade predictions. They’re the result of often years of pooled experience within a department or faculty. Take the department I’m in. Between the 6 of us, we have over 120 years of combined experience with thousands of students, in state, independent and international schools. 4 / 6 of us also mark for exam boards, with two highly experienced team leaders. We work closely together, marking and moderating each other’s work. Can we get it right to 1%? No, because students are individuals and have good and bad days. But we’re on the nose or very close the vast majority of the time.

It’s so frustrating as a teacher to be treated as inept and it feels at times our honesty is called into question too. We are highly trained professionals, honest and scrupulous, who know our kids because we put our hearts and souls into our jobs. That’s why we can get it right and we need to be trusted to do our jobs, not questioned and undermined at every turn.

The reason we’re in this mess is that there has been political muck peddled over decades eroding public confidence in the teaching profession. The algorithm is a manifestation of that lack of trust, and look where that’s got us.