It would be good to leave the continuing A level fiasco alone this morning, but I cannot. Not that I want to discuss it directly: I have already done that. Instead, I want to consider its indicative qualities.
We knew about this issue from March. As the father of an A level student, I knew from the day that it was announced that exams were cancelled that there was stress to come. And I'll be honest and admit that both he and I suffered it. As a student with a less than perfect GCSE performance, but who had reacted well to the environment of sixth form college, I think both my son and I thought his situation would be hard to predict. As it turned out, he got his predicted grades. Like every other parent, I (or course), think they were a fair reflection of his ability. Th fact that I have taught people of about his age over the last few years gave me every reason to think that they were, but now we are suffering what might fairly be called ‘survivor syndrome', which is the guilt that he has his place secured when so many others have not.
And that's not surprising. Despite months of notice of the need to create a fair, open and transparent system of assessment which could be subject to appeal at every stage, and so win the support of all involved (pupils, parents, teachers, employers, universities and others who rely on this information) the government created an algorithm in secret.
It spurned available advice.
It delivered opacity rather than transparency.
It even delayed publication when that was not necessary, given that all the data to make its algorithm work was available in early June. This created a cliff-edge crisis now that was wholly unnecessary. There is no one but the government to blame for that. The absurd demand that the ‘results' be published on the conventional data, which has always been dictated by the demands of the marking process, made no sense when there was no marking to do, teachers had finished their work in May and the algorithm must have taken a few minutes to run.
Every single aspect of this crisis, including the frantic pressure on appeals now, into which process it is now very obvious that no thought was given, is entirely the fault of the government. They built a cliff, and then threw us over the edge.
The significance of saying so is not just for the importance of apportioning blame (vital though that is). It is also to make clear that this is going to happen again, at least three times this year.
The next occasion will be the GCSE results.
And thereafter there will be at least two more precipices over which we are destined to catastrophically fall.
The first of these is the end of furlough at the end of October.
The second is the end of the EU transition arrangements at the end of December.
The third, less predictable but quite likely, is the return to major lockdown during the autumn as Covid-19 cases rise again, as seems likely.
We already know there is no plan for the GCSE results, which are forecast to be even more unjust than the A level results.
Meanwhile, Rishi Sunak has said that the end of furlough is fair because it will end the pretence that people have jobs when that is not the case. It takes a very particular form of callousness that can only be born from privilege to think that way when the result will be more unemployed people in this country than it has ever known before.
Whilst the end of the EU transition is still completely unplanned, let alone prepared for at almost every level and yet will happen anyway.
What the A level fiasco has proven is that we have a government that has two fundamental qualities. The first is that it can both create and then exacerbate crises. And the second, is that it is utterly clueless as to what to do about them.
Saying this, I am making clear that the government did make the coronavirus crisis worse than it needed to be. And it still has not the slightest idea how to manage it, as the absence of a meaningful track and trace system proves. That cost lives.
And I am suggesting it made the economic downturn worse than it need have been as a result. That too will cost lives.
Now its failure on exams will blight many young people's lives.
Whilst the very obvious failure to plan for the coming recession may not have dawned on many of the 7 million still reported to be in furlough schemes (even if part time now) but it will do soon.
And the Brexit disaster to come will top all of these issues.
What I want to stress as well is that this is not disaster capitalism. That has a plan inherent within it. A cold, calculating plan, maybe, but a plan nonetheless.
But there is no plan on the part of this government. To think that there might be would credit it with an ability for co-ordination that is beyond its ability to muster.
What we are seeing is incompetence compounding indifference based on dogma that is as far removed from reality as it is possible to get, all played out in some great social experiment that presumes there is a ‘guiding hand' from afar that will always save the day when there is no such thing.
This week has resulted in massive stress, and a profound sense of disquiet. Next week will see a repitition, with at least as much damage resulting. And thereafter? Things are going to get very, very much worse, with that prediction being too optimistic if coronavirus infection continues to increase.
And throughout it all we have a government so incompetent that it is reasonable to assume it incapable of planning the inevitable tea bag disposal requirement after the brew has been made because they had never anticipated the need to do so.
If this week was bad, I can only offer one promise, and that is that the worst has yet to come.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thanks. It looks like the creation of chaos and undermining of confidence is perhaps a tool of the present government hiding beneath a cloak of incompetence.
I agree. They are about to add to it with a merger of Public Health England and the Track and Trace organisation with a focus apparently entirely on pandemic management and as an after thought obesity. Apart from the distraction of a merger, what happens to all the other PHE priorities – see this letter for 2019/20 priorities.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/789194/phe-priorities-in-health-and-care-2019-2020-letter.pdf
The Conservative Party couldn’t organise a brew up in a patisserie.
I like that
“And that’s not surprising. Despite months of notice of the need to create a fair, open and transparent system of assessment which could be subject to appeal at every stage, and so win the support of all involved (pupils, parents, teachers, employers, universities and others who rely on this information) the government created an algorithm in secret.
It spurned available advice.
It delivered opacity rather than transparency.”
If that was the case, why was there a huge consultation about A-level grading beforehand? Where Schools, teachers, Local authorities and even the teaching unions coming to a broad agreement about what should be done? Are you just making things up?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886555/Analysis_of_consultation_responses_21MAY2020.pdf
It strikes me that it is very easy for people like you to criticize after the event and are more than willing to use what is an almost impossible situation to score political points and attack the government. I don’t see you attacking the SNP and their grading algorithm was very similar – until they got rid of it and instead went for the equivalent of tractor production statistics in the massively inflated grades awarded.
But they were ignored!
No one bar Ofqual wanted this system
Of course it was right to think a system – incyding one to deal with grade inflation was required
Not no one wanted this bizarre and utterly unjustified outcome
Frankly, stop making stuff up
I’m making stuff up? You have literally no shame.
Were you at the Ofqal summer symposium? Where the main agenda surrounded the nature of awarding exam results for 2020? Where broadly Schools, teachers, Local Authorities and even the teaching unions broadly agreed on the methods Ofqal had put forward?
No. I didn’t think so.
So after several rounds of consultation, who exactly was dissenting and who exactly was ignored?
All you have done is make some claims to suit your own argument. Facts and the truth be damned.
Like I said, it is fair easier to snipe away from the sidelines without actually bothering to check any facts. It is even easier to make claims that you could have done better with 20/20 hindsight.
You are misrepresenting the truth to advance a political agenda. You are not alone in this – the SNP are doing to exact same thing to avoid political fallout for the farce that is the Scottish education system – but that doesn’t make it any better.
Please note the detailed comments already provided
Your claims are simply not true
And, respectfully, since I know something about such processes, they are very rarely representative
In this case, despite this it appears theY rejected the recommendations
I suggest you are the one pursuing a political agenda. I don’t do party politics. It seems very likely that you might do so
So Sharon why is Ofqual doing the following if their algorithm system was such a great carefully thought through one?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/15/ofqual-suspends-a-level-appeal-criteria-hours-after-announcing-them
I must ask the commenter ‘Sharon’ to forgive me, but there are some comments I find utterly wearying. A claim is made about a “huge consultation”, and a link is provided; but the link, when followed I struggle to find is consistent with the position of the commenter. It is not consultation that matters, it is what is done with it. It is not supposed to be a mere PR exercise.
For example only, the consultation responses, Q1 asks whether respondents agree with the ‘exceptional regulatory requirements it is propsed to implement’. Only 42% of respondents agreed. That is not an endorsement.
I searched for the word “algorithm”. I found only two.The first was in the response of a parent or carer to the consultation, Q23 on appeals from schools but not individuals:
“It appears Ofqual are proposing, yet again, only examination centre heads can commence an appeal, rather individual students. This is wrong in any year, but even more wrong in a year when some arbitrary algorithm making standardised adjustments, and a student ranking system is involved. It is absolutely vital that students should be able to lodge their own appeals against grades awarded, and should not be left to an examination centre head being willing to do this” (p.77).
That is not an endorsement. It rather makes Richard’s point.
The second reference was in the response of an interest group to Q38, precisely on the question of the required mitigation of negative impacts on students:
““Requiring centres to be transparent about the evidence they have used to calculate grades and ranking would help ensure sufficient accountability on the quality of the evidence used. Additionally, there should be transparency about the algorithm used for standardisation of results to help ensure small schools with fluctuating cohorts are not disadvantaged.” (Other representative or interest group)” (p.138).
That is not an endorsement. It rather makes Richard’s point.
I have not carried out a thorough analysis of the consultation; frankly I do not have the time. But what was the point of this comment? I cannot see it, unless it is just to criticise opinions the commenter doesn’t like, for reasons that may not be worth even superficial consideration. If this is how we are going debate real issues in modern Britain, I despair.
Thanks
I meant to add – the consultation questions did not raise the algorithm directly. It was raised by respondents. It at least appears that the institution running the consultation did not even either acknowledge, or understand or care sufficently about the significance of the algorithm itself. Extraordinary.
The crushing importance of all this is precisely the place of the algorithm. Exams are tests of an individual. What the algorithim appeared to do was adjust for expectations on the past performacne of schools. I do not know, because I have not seen the algorithm’s protocols; but that appears to be the conventional view of its methodology. What sort of education, what sort of prospects are we providing actual young people, if that kind of sweeping generalisation passes muster?
Thanks
Sharon, please explain how people agreed to an algorithm that was not discussed
Well exactly! How good was the consultation when the implications of the algorithms and the premises it was constructed on weren’t gone into in any detail. I already posted the American article showing that teachers in private schools boosted grading in order to attract customers (parents) and keep them happy they’re getting bang for their buck as far as their children’s education is concerned! How equitable is that?
Richard, I doubt you will get a reply.
The fact that people, who frankly understand jack shit about the proposed algorithm to “normalise” results in a very not normal situation, feel the need to defend it makes me despair about the lack of ability to understand things in the modern world.
Jeez, it is on the level of “we got loads of apples this year, but not so much pears – the pears must be wrong”.
I suspect that the very concept of a category error is a wee bit too much for them to understand.
As posted elsewhere, the Royal Statistical Society, having read Ofqual’s published consultancy exercise – (including Ofquals’ assessment of its own algorithm accuracy) and noting several issues – attempted to intervene… it would appeared their offer was rebuked :
https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2020/general-news/rss-alerts-ofqual-to-stats-issues-relating-to-2020/
Four more years. Tory majority 80. What can be done? The UK opposition is as powerless as the opposition to the Naziz in Germany. The only hope is that the “Red Wall” Tory MPs see the light, and recognise that emperor has no clothes.
Look at Belarus
The anger of decent poeple who have been wronged is what effects change
But only if they are willing to express it
“Scrapping of Public Health England (PHE) raises red flags on many levels”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGZ5KLxBtzk
Very good
Is it fair to say that the private sector educational market has been impinging on grading assessments in an inequitable way for decades?
https://qz.com/1058476/grade-inflation-is-the-worst-at-rich-private-schools-disadvantaging-poor-students/
Yes
Not much point being British anymore. The country needs a good shake-up with a corrupt predominantly English establishment finally descending to an unparalleled level of incompetence. May as well break up the enterprise into separate parts to see if any will fare better on their own. I note that very small countries have their own currencies like Iceland population 364,134 (2020) and the Seychelles population 96,762 (2018), Scotland’s population, for example, is 5.454 million (2019).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_kr%C3%B3na
Re the ‘A’ level results fiasco, the Good Law Project have said they’re taking an action in the Courts. Their site today included a copy of the letter being sent to initiate the case, and these comments:
‘Our letter says that Ofqual has a duty to create a scheme that was procedurally fair and it has failed. That there is a systemic problem with the scheme that gives rise to an unacceptable risk of procedural unfairness. And that Ofqual has also breached its obligation to ensure that “regulated qualifications give a reliable indication of knowledge, skills and understanding” and to “promote public confidence in regulated qualifications”. ‘
I don’t know whether this will make any difference for those who’ve suffered at the hands of Ofqual this year, but it may have some effect on those who will suffer next year.
I will be supporting them
So will I!
Is it not the case that consultation is usually after the fact in this country?
People are ‘consulted’ when the Government or consulting body has already made up its mind and wants to gauge reaction – not to include new changes or suggestions.
Forgive my cynicism but I’ve worked over 20 years in public sector housing working with the CLG, landlords and tenants and my views are formed from experience.
Having said that, there is then the consultation that you don’t hear about – that between the Government and the ‘market’ (private sector) as they plot the gains they will get by taking a certain courses of action.
Expect to see the demand from private schooling go up as a result of this. Your Government is telling you that it knows smaller class sizes are better for students – and yet it will still underfund state schools as a matter of fact.
‘Consultation’ ? Yeah, right………………………………..
I took part in discussions on the Freeport consultation with senior government officials
They basically admitted that the consultation document did not reflect what was planned
It was a whitewashing exercise
Is there anything this government can do right first time instead of the public having to go through a “dog’s breakfast” stage which is devastating for some?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-level-results-ofqual-appeal-grades-tory-mp-robert-halfon-a9672671.html
Interesting points.
The exam shambles shows just how outdated our education system is.
Why is it that some people responsible for education think it is a good thing to put children through 9+ years of school just to pass exams?
Yet as far as I can see, no party ever has true education reform as the number one priority in its manifesto.
With regards to Covid-19, it looks increasingly likely that it is here to stay and we are going to have to find ways to live with it.
Remember that the only thing we have ever eradicated was Smallpox and that took 100+ years.
What does annoy me is that our “free and fearless press” does not seem to be capable of critical thinking regards to various reactions to the virus.
For example, the recent outbreaks in Aberdeen, the farm in Herefordshire and the Caravan Park (Shropshire was it?) do not seem to have put pressure on the local hospitals.
I also notice that no journalist has interviewed someone that has tested positive (an Aberdeen player for example) is it because they don’t fit the narrative? It seemed to happen with Bolsanaro, lots of interest when he contacted the virus, less so when he recovered.
There is still no economic plan, no sign of anything approaching a Green New Deal, and no real signs of a deal with the EU. Although I do think a back of a cigarette packet deal may well be reached by late November/early December to avoid a cliff edge, it certainly will not be for the United Kingdom’s benefit.
Here’s an alternative view if you are prepared to publish it.
Firstly, I have ‘no skin’ in this i.e. I have no children involved, am not in any way involved in education. I’ve been digging around out of interest & trying to understand the issues beyond the rhetoric. Here’s the position as I understand it:
Every year, teachers are asked to make predicted grades for A-level students as part of university applications. Research shows that just 16% of results are predicted correctly with 75% of estimated grades over-predicted. There have been several studies of of grade prediction over the years, notably the UCU/UCL study.
https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/8559/Call-for-university-applications-overhaul-as-report-reveals-just-16-of-predicted-A-level-results-are-correct
So – from the above study there is clearly a need to make some sort of amendment to the predicted grades, otherwise the exam results are not necessary in any year. I have no qualification to suggest any such system.
I suspect Scotland will suffer problems from their recent decisions given the above UCU commentary.
But, you ignore the fact that it was not UCAS predictions used for this process
Everyone knows they’re overstated and no one cares
But the predictions made by teachers here were utterly different
So I am afraid I do not agree
Just to be clear from your response:
– the teachers do a predicted grade which universities use for conditional offerings which I understand is the reason pupils are saying they have lost their places as the current adjusted gradings are lower.
– but there are different teacher gradings used for the current process?
No!
Students base their expectations in school reports, but Ucas statements
My son had no idea what his school told ucas
We knew what his detailed assessment and mock said
The trading used fir this process had to be consistent with the latter, but the former
Please credit teachers with the professional respect they deserve
@Sharon
I’ve read your response, so thought I’d point out an issue with your belief that all was duly agreed in the consultation between stakeholders. I refer you to the relevant report in here:
https://www.naht.org.uk/_resources/assets/attachment/full/0/100071.pdf
If you read the full report, you will see that Headteachers disagreed that the use of the proposed algorithm would be fair to students.
They were overruled.
I doubt School Leaders in England all have a political agenda. They do, however, have experience of consultations, and of being ignored when it suits a political agenda.
I used to be one of them, and experienced some of the worst damage to state education in my career when Gove’s political agenda took over.
Thanks
Sharons casual sideswipe at the Scottish education system told me all I wanted to know in order to judge how seriously to take the rest of her comment.
WRT to grade forecasting by teachers, my ignorant impression, as a parent and a person who knows some teachers, is that teachers try to make sincere judgements and predictions and did so this year in Scotland. When it comes to university and college places, universities publish the entry requirements in their prospectus. A few will require better than the published grades due to competition but most will not.
Therefore the gross errors in the exam system comes with the ‘normal’ moderation practices that squash any given years results into a shape that is determined by the statisticians. So last years A grade student could become this years B grade student in a time shift world.
And, more callously, last years C grade student could be this years D grade student as the algorithm was demonstrated in Scotland to have disproportionately pushed students from a C to a D – both a pass, but one almost uselessly so – and these are the grades that more disadvantaged schools and pupils tend to hover around.
I think your last is especially significant
The focus has been on As
A D says you basically hardly turned up and is damning
That is profoundly unfair
Not just the Ds. The Es and Us too.
With respect, Donald, we know that in previous years teachers have systematically predicted higher grades than are actually achieved at the exams. Not with any malice or incompetence, but because in the main they are predicting what the student *might* achieve if all goes well, and sometimes all does not go well (more rarely, a student does much better than expected).
We also know that different schools took very different approaches to the centre-assessed grades submitted to the exam boards this year. Some assumed that any moderation would be downwards, and simply put in optimistic grades (in a sense, they were right). Other did their very best to estimate what each exam result might realistically be (which seems to have been wasted effort – just the ordering mattered – and these seem to be the ones who are most disappointed). I am aware of some people whose centre-assessed grades were lower than they achieved in the mocks or in the predicted grades that were given to universities.
There is no perfect answer here – in the absence of exams, any system is going to be somewhat rough and ready, but simply switching to using the centre-assessed grades instead will give some students better grades than they would actually have achieved, and advantage the students who attended “optimistic” centres over those at “realistic” centres. Conversely “the algorithm” seems to have more or less ignored the centre-assessed grades, and given students grades based on the average achievement of the centre in the last few years, with some adjustments for prior performance in the cohort of students at the centre this year, and then allocated grades by the ranking of the students.
There are many elements missing here – correcting predicted centre and student performance by reference to trajectory of results (improving? falling?) not just using flat averages, checking how the algorithm would have performed in predicting results last year or the year before, double checking (or better, flooring) the output of the algorithm by reference to mock results, looking individually at anyone who was adjusted by two grades and looking very hard at everyone adjusted by three grades or more, and much more.
Trying to fix this through appeals means the system has not worked. A ball has been very badly dropped.
Agreed
Andrew
We don’t have E and U grades in Scotland (that I know of) and your own point that ‘ in the main they are predicting what the student *might* achieve if all goes well,‘ to me perfectly captures why their forecasts should hold sway. Just out of fairness.
In the limited cases that I have been witness to, I could apply my boring engineers brain to the three tracking reports that Scottish children get (and got this year) and arrive at the same predictions as the teachers, or at least could understand how their predictions fitted with the tracking reports. So I think they were fair.
It’s all a bit of a moot point now though! Perhaps this will see a big chip away from end of year exam importance and a move to something more akin to the modern university system of assessments through the year with a top up at the end. ( that’s also what many subjects have , and that’s the bit that was ignored)