While these events are terrible, I am pleased that the decisions made by Ofqual are open to judicial review—and that the Good Law Project are considering issuing a claim to force Ofqual to fix this mess.
Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
101–110 of 143 posts
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#102Two things worth noting that the article doesn't go into... 1) "The year-on-year rise in proportion of students achieving A or A+ grades was much higher at independent schools than state comprehensives" https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/13/england-a-... Essentially, students lucky enough to be in private education were more likely to see their grades go up / stay the same, compared to students receiving…
> it's hard not to be sceptical that this wasn't intentional and class-motivated. It's incredibly easy "not to be sceptical". The teacher's predicted grades are, on average, unprecedented . And represent many times greater than any previous yoy increase. This is far less true at top-performing schools where teachers are predicting far more consistent grades (by the very nature of being a top performing school). Teach…
It's not obvious that predicted grades are categorically worse than the system they put in place though, is it? In some aggregate statistics we can see them perform worse but exams and grading aren't about averages at school level but individual achievement. A prediction systems that doesn't take students prior achievements into account is just obviously defective here. And that matters especially if it locks out a whole year of students from the top universities that are so life/career deciding in the UK, because getting a place at them by definition requires being an outlier.
The social and cultural factors at play are not well represented by just looking at the mean.
And finally, so what if 2020 had had outlier grade average? It's the outlier year.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#103Two things worth noting that the article doesn't go into... 1) "The year-on-year rise in proportion of students achieving A or A+ grades was much higher at independent schools than state comprehensives" https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/13/england-a-... Essentially, students lucky enough to be in private education were more likely to see their grades go up / stay the same, compared to students receiving…
> it's hard not to be sceptical that this wasn't intentional and class-motivated. It's incredibly easy "not to be sceptical". The teacher's predicted grades are, on average, unprecedented . And represent many times greater than any previous yoy increase. This is far less true at top-performing schools where teachers are predicting far more consistent grades (by the very nature of being a top performing school). Teach…
I went to a private school on Australia, which is also pretty common.
What you realize is that the school's primary deliverable is acceptance into a university program.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the private schools were actively lobbying to deliver the best result to their customers.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a write-up of the situation, shared on Facebook publicly, from a friend involved in careers at a UK Sixth Form college (where students take their A-Levels): ################### I've spent the last two days dealing with very upset young people who have had their plans ripped up. Some will still be able to go to university, but not the one they planned on and have been forced into clearing, some won't be able to…
You've described a system where, if an exceptional kid comes from a lower-performing school, there is nothing they can do to gain entrance to the top universities. I wonder if the effects are visible when comparing allocation of spots vs past years. Or is that what they are optimizing for? To achieve the same allocation across feeder schools as the year before?
> You've described a system where, if an exceptional kid comes from a lower-performing school, there is nothing they can do to gain entrance to the top universities.
You're right, and that's what is happening this year. Straight A students that had solid offers from major universities have found themselves with Bs, and seen those places vanish in the mist.
Stupidly, if they just accepted this year as a weird year where everyone did a better than normal, it would be less negatively impactful than what they've opted for.
Even worse, this was literally what Scotland just went through a few weeks ago. There's just no excuse for it.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well as a point of fact, they didnt. Their requested, "accurate" grades represent a 20% increase in general attainment. That has never happened in the history of modern education, and occurs only when, eg., civil wars end. As a comparative reference, we'd expect an at-most, 3% increase in IQ in the general population.
I have no problem with the idea of down-weighting the entire national cohort to correct for this. The problem is that they actually weighted the results on a per-school basis.
Even down-weighting the entire national cohort... some kids have seen grades go from C (or B/C in one case) to U! A fail grade for an exam they weren't allowed to take.
That would be an improvement if your luck of the draw was national rather than biased in favour of private schools, but it's still a pretty awful outcome.
There may not have been any solution available that would be 100% fair to both this year and other year cohorts, but at the very least they should avoid making any student feel actively screwed over.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#106An obvious point not discussed is that the exams system was already biased to begin with. Previous years were already unfair as great kids at bad schools have much fewer chances than less great kids for which the parents can pay a great school. England especially is awful at achieving a fair system (that gives everyone a fair chance at good grades) because schools are so stratified - by design of funding rules, etc.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#107There's no good answer here, the unfairness is an inevitable side effect of lockdown, along with people dying due to stopped cancer treatments and a host of other issues. Using teacher's predicted grades is stupid: teachers use predictions in whatever way they think will best motivate their students. If the student is lazy, they'll under-predict to shock them into revising more. If the student is not very confident,…
You are under the mistaken assumption that somehow exams are more fair or get a better view of what students can do. It's well established that exams measure a few limited congnitive constructs and its not the smartest or most hard working students that perform best, but rather those who are prepared by teachers for those exact constructs and the precise way of answering them. A brilliant student at a public school might study hard and still not get as good results as a mediocre and lazy student at a private school which tells them and drills them on the exam topics (often having their teachers in the exam boards and anyway paying more so that those teachers that care and know how yo play the game ate likely to be recruited there).
It's absurd to think a central exam gives a more accurate picture of... What? Aptitude? Effort? ...? Than the teachers can have from working with students often for several years, seeing their work ethics, involvement in class, personal situations, etc.
In short: the system was broken and biased to begin with (at least in England, Scotland is doing much better). Now this bias and favour of 'better' schools is explicitly enforced through this weighting algorithm.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#108This was so foreseeable when they anounced the plans. One possible solution could have been if they do the same statistical estimation game and then offer a choice to each student: you can take your estimated grades or go for an exam. If you take the exam you get what you het there. It might go lower or higher than the estimate. This would have incentivised that only those who are certain of themselves and their esti…
The whole point is that it hasn’t been possible to sit exams.
Why not? Is it truly so impossible to spread students out a little more? Maybe don't do oral exams, but anything written shouldn't be an issue.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#109This was so foreseeable when they anounced the plans. One possible solution could have been if they do the same statistical estimation game and then offer a choice to each student: you can take your estimated grades or go for an exam. If you take the exam you get what you het there. It might go lower or higher than the estimate. This would have incentivised that only those who are certain of themselves and their esti…
The whole point is that it hasn’t been possible to sit exams.
If you take that as an axiom then sure.
My point is that there are solutions other than “everyone sit exams as usual” and “everyone gets an estimated grade”.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#110There's no good answer here, the unfairness is an inevitable side effect of lockdown, along with people dying due to stopped cancer treatments and a host of other issues. Using teacher's predicted grades is stupid: teachers use predictions in whatever way they think will best motivate their students. If the student is lazy, they'll under-predict to shock them into revising more. If the student is not very confident,…
You are under the mistaken assumption that somehow exams are more fair or get a better view of what students can do. It's well established that exams measure a few limited congnitive constructs and its not the smartest or most hard working students that perform best, but rather those who are prepared by teachers for those exact constructs and the precise way of answering them. A brilliant student at a public school m…
Exams, being far, far from perfect /ARE/ more fair. Why? because it is the same exam for everyone. The person marking the exam has no information about the person who wrote the paper, not their name, not what they look like, not how rich they are, not how pretty they are, not what school they attend.
Whether or not you can achieve better outcomes or get a better indication of capability with other means, that total anonymity and an absolutely common hurdle is a kind of fair that is tough to match in assessment. It shouldn't be under-vauled. We should be sure that any alternative really is better.
Let's not pretend that teachers' aren't subject to unconscious bias. I've also met a few who were just horrible human beings who had no business being in teaching.