Mixed Grades

By the time you read this, thousands of 16 and 18-yearolds will have received their GCSE and A-level results for this year.

These grades are unique in the history of school qualifications in that they were not awarded through examinations, but through a mix of teacher predictions (“centre assessed grades”) and statistical moderation carried out by exam boards.

As I write, I am keenly anticipating the outcome of both sets of results this year. Media interest is high, not least because Scottish Highers were awarded on the same basis earlier in the summer and caused huge controversy when almost one quarter of the CAGs were revised downwards. This was felt particularly keenly by schools with a significant number of disadvantaged pupils, whose grades were altered most frequently. There have been protests by pupils and widespread condemnation. Will the same have been repeated in England by the time you read this?

In evaluating the fairness of the process, we need to go back to the beginning when the decision to scrap the exams was made. The die was cast when Ofqual, the body that regulates exam boards, stated that grades awarded this year had to be of equal value to those awarded in normal circumstances; if the grades awarded this year, they argued, were to have any credibility they needed to be awarded in roughly the same proportions as normal to avoid the dreaded grade inflation. A reasonable view, but one which immediately sets up a problem.

Teachers are only human; we want the best for our pupils and tend to overpredict the results for our pupils. This means some moderation of the grades is needed to avoid soaring numbers of top grades and pass rates. In many ways this is understandable and indeed fair; every year there are youngsters who underperform for a variety of reasons – exam nerves, lack of preparation, misreading questions and so on. They are often hard to identify in advance and no teacher will roll the dice to decide which of their pupils this year would have fallen into that category. The problem comes with the method used to adjust which is based on each school’s results in each subject over the past three years. So, in a very real sense, the grades are awarded to this year’s candidates are framed by the results gained by previous pupils at that school in the past three years. How can this be fair?

Well, in many ways it can be. For large schools with similar intakes year-on-year, then broadly speaking the pupils will generally get what they would have got and the impact should be fairly minimal. The problem will be for the outliers; exceptional pupils or an exceptionally gifted group of pupils will be moderated down because of less successful cohorts in previous years. Schools that have worked hard to improve exam results will be less likely to see the fruits of those labours but will be moderated so they are in line with previous performances. On an individual basis, hardworking pupils who tend to go to pieces in exams will benefit; last-minute crammers who have exemplified indolence over most of the last two years will not.

So, not so controversial after all? Maybe, maybe not. The system works well across the board and will lead to results patterns that are in line with previous years. However, this year’s candidates will not be too interested in year on year patterns and statistical consistency; they will be interested in their grades and what they mean for their futures. Many will feel cheated by the system and suitably outraged. Yet more casualties of this horrible pandemic.