Any thoughts on the A Level Exam results fiasco?

[Digby232]

Give them all straight A’s and let them go to oxbridge. They are all brilliant from the reports😬. You’ve got to have these old polytechnics as university’s doing ridiculous coarses as most people are basically not upto Russell group standards.

[Doc Holliday]

Apparently Universities in a 'normal' year tend to overprescribe course places on the basis that large numbers of students do not achieve their predicted grades and it balances out.

If this year everyone was given their predicted grades this would pose a problem with allocating places, but fortunately the number of overseas students, especially China, is greatly diminished so this will balance it out.

As others have said ... utter shambles.

[winkywanky]

Given that everyone has been suffering because of the lockdowns and older others living under greater stress and risk I would rather the kids showed some character and just dealt with it. None of them are likely people with substantial responsibilities, debts and careers that have been made worse or ended because of the furloughs, lost business and layoffs.  Missing out on a year at the start of an unproven path when many if not most have no inclination to be anything worthy or worthwhile is hardly a life crisis. Some were likely to be taking a gap anyway, others would have been those who would've had to be taking retakes anyway. 

Appeals where gross errors of markdown have been committed were always available and understood so the media tossing up the edge cases like the whole cohort have been undone is a disgusting exaggeration.

I think there's an element of that.

In current times (and it seems to have been exponential over the last 10yrs or so) there is more and more a feeling of hard-done-by, especially with youngsters. Be it global warming, BLM, this week's latest conspiracy theory, whatever, all driven by the self-perpetuating fever pitch of social media which leads to absolute (and groundless) hysteria.

Perhaps it was never really the millenium bug which was going to bring society down, rather the millenial bug, and nothing to do with computers at all?

The mental strife is real though, however much of it might be effectively self-inflicted. High profile suicides from internet-twats and Influencers and the like, who are elevated on ridiculously high pedestals by directionless, whingeing teens, and are then found out to be little more than that themselves. Clay feet springs to mind.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there really is a bigger mental health problem amongst teenagers these days, than when I was that age, but I'm pretty sure there were plenty of sufferers then too, and I was one of them. I didn't know what it was called, why it was happening, and no-one else was talking about it. There was no social media. A tentative and nervous visit to a seemingly uncaring family GP (who incidentally had needlessly fondled my bollocks when presenting with asthma when I was 13) concluded with him telling me that it was quite normal to be worried about my forthcoming A Levels. But yes, in the vast majority of cases one just dealt with it, for better or worse.

[winkywanky]

A few of the TV interviews I've seen (presenter in studio, with two or three contributors down the line via Skype) seem to suggest that other vagaries of the chosen algorithm aside, schools and pupils from the other side of the tracks do seem to be disproportionately impacted.

That would suggest unfairness. Although there's not much detail on this (are these all projected results on 'proper' subjects, rather than bullshit ones for example?) and none of the contributors seem to be even broadly in support of Ofqual's reasoning and methodology.

This means either that everyone is in agreement that the govt have fucked up badly, or that there are those who believe the sytem is mainly fair (with allowance of appeals etc), but that for whatever reason, we're not seeing them on our TV screens giving the other side of the argument.

I guess this is either because no-one's prepared to commit political/social media suicide, or perhaps they aren't being contacted to give the other side (if it exists).

I do notice that in the interviews I've seen, they don't seem to be saying 'we asked Ofqual/a govt minister to comment, but no-one was available'. That's what you normally hear in those instances  .

[lostandfound]

Fairly damning reports on the R4 Today programme this morning. A Grammar school head saying that their results were the lowest ever in the school's history and 10% lower than their worst results on record, making a mockery of consistency claims for the modelling. Also a report compiled the association of 6th form colleges found that across all their colleges their results were below the average for the last three years - again making a mockery of claims for consistency and fairness..

A former head of Ofsted pointed out that Ofqual have known they would be predicting grades since March, and have no excuse for not having validated the model / algorithm, which clearly does not work, in the intervening months, and also that the buck stops with Gavin Williamson as political oversight is a keystone of the process. Today prog have repeatedly asked Ofqual to respond or come on the programme, but they have refused every time, as they did for this morning's programme.

[winkywanky]

Fairly damning reports on the R4 Today programme this morning. A Grammar school head saying that their results were the lowest ever in the school's history and 10% lower than their worst results on record, making a mockery of consistency claims for the modelling. Also a report compiled the association of 6th form colleges found that across all their colleges their results were below the average for the last three years - again making a mockery of claims for consistency and fairness..

A former head of Ofsted pointed out that Ofqual have known they would be predicting grades since March, and have no excuse for not having validated the model / algorithm, which clearly does not work, in the intervening months, and also that the buck stops with Gavin Williamson as political oversight is a keystone of the process. Today prog have repeatedly asked Ofqual to respond or come on the programme, but they have refused every time, as they did for this morning's programme.

As someone who hasn't been a teenager for over 40yrs (and therefore not the best qualified to have an opinion as such), if a Grammar school Head says his pupils' results have been fucked up, that would go against the argument that only kids from poorer/deprived backgrounds have been negatively impacted.

An algorithm is always going to be imperfect. Probably very imperfect. There's too many variables to consider, too much detail, you obviously can't construct an algorithm which works for every school, let alone every pupil. It's always going to be effectively a guess (be that an educated or an uneductaed one, if you'll pardon the pun).

So, was the algorithm iteslf shit, and badly conceived/designed, or was actually using an algorithm a bad idea?

At the moment we cannot know or even form an opinion, because we're only hearing one side.

Good to hear that Today have approached Ofqual, but very sad that no-one appears to be willing to put their head over the parapet and talk about it openly and frankly. Is that basically cowardice I wonder, or have they been told to keep their gobs shut? 

[lostandfound]

As someone who hasn't been a teenager for over 40yrs (and therefore not the best qualified to have an opinion as such), if a Grammar school Head says his pupils' results have been fucked up, that would go against the argument that only kids from poorer/deprived backgrounds have been negatively impacted.

An algorithm is always going to be imperfect. Probably very imperfect. There's too many variables to consider, too much detail, you obviously can't construct an algorithm which works for every school, let alone every pupil. It's always going to be effectively a guess (be that an educated or an uneductaed one, if you'll pardon the pun).

So, was the algorithm iteslf shit, and badly conceived/designed, or was actually using an algorithm a bad idea?

At the moment we cannot know or even form an opinion, because we're only hearing one side.

Good to hear that Today have approached Ofqual, but very sad that no-one appears to be willing to put their head over the parapet and talk about it openly and frankly. Is that basically cowardice I wonder, or have they been told to keep their gobs shut? 

The guy representing the 6th Forms (Bill Watkin of SFCA) wants the algorithm to be fixed and re-run, and teacher assessments used if it cannot be made fair. The Grammar school head wanted teacher assessments to be used because time is now short before the Uni year starts. As Doc reported the Unis have space as overseas students not coming this year, so there are calls for the 5% margin cap on university places to be lifted.

BBC features Bill Watkin's comments in its main report.

An analysis by the Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA) looked at 65,000 exam entries in 41 subjects from its members and found that grades were 20% lower than historic performances for similar students in those colleges.

The SFCA said it had not found a single one where the results were above the three-year average.

Ofqual states that its objective for A-level results this year was to ensure "national results are broadly similar to previous years".

The research showed that Ofqual "not only failed to produce broadly similar results, but has in fact produced worse results in every single subject", the SFCA said.

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the SFCA, said Ofqual should "immediately recalibrate and rerun the model to provide all students with an accurate grade".

He said if this fails to give results similar to previous years, students should receive the grades predicted by their teachers.

External Link/Members Only

[edited to add url]

Ofsted former head said that Ofqual refused offers of help in running the process. Seems bad for them / their credibility IMO.

[winkywanky]

Thanks for that info.

With all that's happened it does look bad if Ofqual didn't allow any input from Ofsted.

I suspect also, that there might be some political influence/interference in all this too. Of course we'll never get to hear about that.

It is of course self-evident that if Teachers' estimations were used to determine grades, then there'd be a large uplift in grades as a result. That's no good for anyone either, it devalues the grades. It's very tricky.

[lostandfound]

Thanks for that info.

With all that's happened it does look bad if Ofqual didn't allow any input from Ofsted.

I suspect also, that there might be some political influence/interference in all this too. Of course we'll never get to hear about that.

It is of course self-evident that if Teachers' estimations were used to determine grades, then there'd be a large uplift in grades as a result. That's no good for anyone either, it devalues the grades. It's very tricky.

Yes - that was kind of a recurring theme in this morning's reports on R4 (subject pretty much dominated what I heard of the programme as I was out for my morning run) - mainly that the assessments would be inconsistent as some teachers are more optimistic than others, though there were counter arguments put forward, for example there are worse things in these exceptional times than giving these young people the benefit of the doubt. The Grammar school head said she was against using the teacher assessments in principle, but has changed her mind in the last week because Ofqual have been sat on their hands and time is running out.

[LLPunting]

As someone who hasn't been a teenager for over 40yrs (and therefore not the best qualified to have an opinion as such), if a Grammar school Head says his pupils' results have been fucked up, that would go against the argument that only kids from poorer/deprived backgrounds have been negatively impacted.

An algorithm is always going to be imperfect. Probably very imperfect. There's too many variables to consider, too much detail, you obviously can't construct an algorithm which works for every school, let alone every pupil. It's always going to be effectively a guess (be that an educated or an uneductaed one, if you'll pardon the pun).

So, was the algorithm iteslf shit, and badly conceived/designed, or was actually using an algorithm a bad idea?

At the moment we cannot know or even form an opinion, because we're only hearing one side.

Good to hear that Today have approached Ofqual, but very sad that no-one appears to be willing to put their head over the parapet and talk about it openly and frankly. Is that basically cowardice I wonder, or have they been told to keep their gobs shut? 

Forgot to post this link in my earlier collation External Link/Members Only
An explanation of how this year's adjustments could go so horribly wrong for the unlucky ones.
It wouldn't surprise me if some incompetent programmer used a "rounddown" command rather than "nearest" and some idiot decision maker (stakeholder) insisted that grade distributions were immutable boundaries when they were deliberating this function, rather than allowing a handful of percentage points of leeway to account for a possible genuine increase in the capabilities of this year's cohort.

[Squire Haggard]

Predicted grades to be used..... Future employers will know that the 2020 results might be a bit inflated. I think that they have done the best thing, as in north of the border. It might mean less flak for Michael Crawford, and the rest. 

External Link/Members Only

[LLPunting]

Apparently Universities in a 'normal' year tend to overprescribe course places on the basis that large numbers of students do not achieve their predicted grades and it balances out.

If this year everyone was given their predicted grades this would pose a problem with allocating places, but fortunately the number of overseas students, especially China, is greatly diminished so this will balance it out.

As others have said ... utter shambles.

Whilst the places may be available the shortfall in funding won't be plugged by more domestics attending.  It will be interesting to see if the degree results are better or worse than projections for this inflated domestic class, given that overseas students have more invested and I thought I read somewhere in previous years they usually do better, will try to find stats.
Just means that 20/21 class will be larger when it emerges into the recession with even more graduates disappointed with their prospects.  Let's see how vocal they are about that "injustice".

[winkywanky]

Predicted grades to be used..... Future employers will know that the 2020 results might be a bit inflated. I think that they have done the best thing, as in north of the border. It might mean less flak for Michael Crawford, and the rest. 

External Link/Members Only

As soon as Scotland and N. Ireland decided to go down that route there'd be little choice really.

[winkywanky]

In the long run I doubt whether this will do most kids any favours (inflated grades) but at least they'll be happier than they were before.

[Squire Haggard]

As soon as Scotland and N. Ireland decided to go down that route there'd be little choice really.

Yes, it would cause plenty of protests otherwise.

[LLPunting]

Predicted grades to be used..... Future employers will know that the 2020 results might be a bit inflated. I think that they have done the best thing, as in north of the border. It might mean less flak for Michael Crawford, and the rest. 

External Link/Members Only

Students could choose up to 5 different courses (at same or different establishments).  So if OfQual's stats are to be believed some 35.6% of the 41.3% (i.e. almost 86.2%) of grade adjustments were by a single grade, including A* to A.  So whilst students may have missed out on their first choice they still had 4 other supposedly desirable choices within their grasp (if they'd properly chosen for contingency).
As indicated by earlier references:
"Ucas figures showed that more students were accepted on to UK degree courses this year – 415,600 from the UK and overseas, up 1.6% on the same point last year.

Among UK applicants, 358,860 have been accepted, a 2.9% rise compared with 2019, and 316,730 of these have been accepted by their first choice, up 2.7%."
I would love to see the actual numbers of students who have had such catastophic results they got none of their top 3 choices.  This of course being prior to their individually justifiable appeals.

All this U-turn has achieved is pandering to a load of whining that simply sets the expectations of these children.
So what about the 2.2% of grades that were better than predicted?  All those students just lost grade points?  It doesn't seem fair that an algorithm should be tossed out for marking down some and not be for marking up a few others

[Adoniron]

The inevitable u turn. All of this could have been avoided with some common sense and fairness earlier.

[lostandfound]

Well it seems clear there was already grade inflation in the results given out last week. If as claimed by Ofqual the overall results were in line with previous years, the many genuine stories of whole schools and cohorts being marked down compared to previous years means that there was already significant grade inflation elsewhere within the results.

It seems scarcely credible that Ofqual did not have testing and verification to pick up inconsistencies within the model. Clinging to the line that overall the results were consistent with previous years suggests childish incompetence and ignorance in an era when we have very effective narrow AI / machine learning - which are nothing but statistical models. Any company that did not stratify model testing and verification to identify bias within a machine learning algorithm would be pilloried.

[LLPunting]

Well it seems clear there was already grade inflation in the results given out last week. If as claimed by Ofqual the overall results were in line with previous years, the many genuine stories of whole schools and cohorts being marked down compared to previous years means that there was already significant grade inflation elsewhere within the results.

It seems scarcely credible that Ofqual did not have testing and verification to pick up inconsistencies within the model. Clinging to the line that overall the results were consistent with previous years suggests childish incompetence and ignorance in an era when we have very effective narrow AI / machine learning - which are nothing but statistical models. Any company that did not stratify model testing and verification to identify bias within a machine learning algorithm would be pilloried.

Wonder where the mathematicians and "data scientists" who created these flawed models came from?  UK graduates perhaps?  There is something more rotten than a single year's fuck up in grade adjustments.

[lostandfound]

Students could choose up to 5 different courses (at same or different establishments).  So if OfQual's stats are to be believed some 35.6% of the 41.3% (i.e. almost 86.2%) of grade adjustments were by a single grade, including A* to A.  So whilst students may have missed out on their first choice they still had 4 other supposedly desirable choices within their grasp (if they'd properly chosen for contingency).
As indicated by earlier references:
"Ucas figures showed that more students were accepted on to UK degree courses this year – 415,600 from the UK and overseas, up 1.6% on the same point last year.

Among UK applicants, 358,860 have been accepted, a 2.9% rise compared with 2019, and 316,730 of these have been accepted by their first choice, up 2.7%."
I would love to see the actual numbers of students who have had such catastophic results they got none of their top 3 choices.  This of course being prior to their individually justifiable appeals.

All this U-turn has achieved is pandering to a load of whining that simply sets the expectations of these children.
So what about the 2.2% of grades that were better than predicted?  All those students just lost grade points?  It doesn't seem fair that an algorithm should be tossed out for marking down some and not be for marking up a few others

I heard suggestions on the radio this morning that no student should be marked down if their teacher assessment was less than the grade they received last week. Wouldn't be surprised if that rule is adopted.

[lostandfound]

Wonder where the mathematicians and "data scientists" who created these flawed models came from?  UK graduates perhaps?  There is something more rotten than a single year's fuck up in grade adjustments.

Lots of passive aggression in Ofqual refusing to discuss the results in the media and their line that overall results were in line. Suggests to me a limited closed shop who were out of their depth. I heard claims this morning that Ofqual had refused offers of outside help.

[LLPunting]

All this talk of grades, I used to be marked by percentages.  So any algo that's shifting percentage points irrespective of grade boundaries should've been fairly sound if it wasn't incompetently prejudiced to move predicted values by unlikely large amounts. (Set your grade estimations to be middle of grade percentile range if the teachers weren't asked to estimate percentages.)

Still no mention of the teachers ranking their kids.

[threechilliman]

here's a radical suggestion

We know that some teachers are more generous on estimated grades so rather than randomly grading down why not use last years estimated grades for each school and the actual grades to work out a factor to apply to this years estimated grades ?

and make every school publish their estimated grades and actual grades every year

Or just compare this years estimate with last years actual grade for each school as a sense check before submitting them. If the estimates are not in line with the previous years actual result each school could have 'had another go'. A relatively simple method that I use in my line of work to ensure we don't get any silly numbers......

[mh]

The accuracy of the algorithm used is the problem.

There's no "accurate" algorithm for this situation, there are unacceptable algorithms and then varying lessening degrees of that depending on your viewpoint. The issue is that the performance of past students at a particular school is fucking up the maximum possible grade for this year's students at that school. And the limitation doesn't apply to smaller (i.e. mostly private) schools because it needs a large enough cohort to work out the "curve".

There's no simple solution this year, there's no "fair" automatic algorithm possible. They had 5 months to come up with something usable and came up with something that specifically fucked over high performing students from larger schools where the brilliant students were outliers.

Now they are using teacher grades and if they had done that last week the mess would have been lessened. Because they refused to consider using teacher grades last week, places at universities have been given out, the disruption considerable and the cost massive.

[mh]

Or just compare this years estimate with last years actual grade for each school as a sense check before submitting them. If the estimates are not in line with the previous years actual result each school could have 'had another go'. A relatively simple method that I use in my line of work to ensure we don't get any silly numbers......

But that suffers from the same major problem that this year's students are limited in what they are "allowed" to achieve by the performance of a previous year's students.

[Chorley]

It looks like another government U-turn. Gavin Williamson's announced scrapping the algorithm based results and instead using previous methods.

[LLPunting]

There's no "accurate" algorithm for this situation, there are unacceptable algorithms and then varying lessening degrees of that depending on your viewpoint. The issue is that the performance of past students at a particular school is fucking up the maximum possible grade for this year's students at that school. And the limitation doesn't apply to smaller (i.e. mostly private) schools because it needs a large enough cohort to work out the "curve".

There's no simple solution this year, there's no "fair" automatic algorithm possible. They had 5 months to come up with something usable and came up with something that specifically fucked over high performing students from larger schools where the brilliant students were outliers.

Now they are using teacher grades and if they had done that last week the mess would have been lessened. Because they refused to consider using teacher grades last week, places at universities have been given out, the disruption considerable and the cost massive.

Why are private schools more likely to be smaller?  I take it you're talking subject set size for the less popular subjects.

Outlier students, whatever the reason for their underperformance, always have had recourse to appeals.  The process was in place to serve justice, albeit it would've been swamped with appeals.

This is worth a read, particularly the final comments.
External Link/Members Only

I know that if I'm recruiting grads in the future and see a member of this cohort in the mix I will be extra sure that A level achievement is not a factor in choosing them above others.  To my mind this isn't a valid filter anyway.
I feel really sorry for those who didn't/don't pursue Higher Education and end up competing for employment against this cohort based on their A levels. 

[Doc Holliday]

So what about the 2.2% of grades that were better than predicted?  All those students just lost grade points?  It doesn't seem fair that an algorithm should be tossed out for marking down some and not be for marking up a few others

Yes I understand that if the algorithm gave you a higher result than the teacher predicted grades you can choose either?

[Adoniron]

Why are private schools more likely to be smaller?  I take it you're talking subject set size for the less popular subjects.

Outlier students, whatever the reason for their underperformance, always have had recourse to appeals.  The process was in place to serve justice, albeit it would've been swamped with appeals.

This is worth a read, particularly the final comments.
External Link/Members Only

I know that if I'm recruiting grads in the future and see a member of this cohort in the mix I will be extra sure that A level achievement is not a factor in choosing them above others.  To my mind this isn't a valid filter anyway.
I feel really sorry for those who didn't/don't pursue Higher Education and end up competing for employment against this cohort based on their A levels.

When I have recruited graduates  I have paid no regard to their A Level grades. A Levels are a passport to university. Once you've graduated they are irrelevant.

[LLPunting]

Ok, had a look at some of the underlying results reports:

External Link/Members Only

Higher grade combinations all increased from previous years so I'm finding it hard to square that with the "information" from media and education (lobbying) bodies that they've been hard done by.

Grade attainment by ethnicity was almost entirely up on last year, as it was for those with English as first or other language.

It will be very interesting to see how the hard done by Sixth Form colleges as discrete centres and as a whole have arrived at the conclusion that their students were disadvantaged.  Their statement to press suggests previous year figures were somehow adjusted for comparison to this year by their saying "similar" students.

Also looked at the "analysis" done here (referenced by BBC) : External Link/Members Only
And it seems a tad shaky based on its broad assumptions.  If private schools typically have smaller class sizes then many of us have been led to believe by studies and PR that lower student:teacher ratios generally lead to higher achievement assuming equally competent teaching (let alone superior teaching).    Previously it was found that smaller class sizes led to disadvantage to student achievement so there seems to be conflict there.  Haven't yet found the details as to why it was worse for students.

[lostandfound]

Well the argument has been won and teacher assessments it is. The so called algorithm sounds like a dog's breakfast the more I hear about it. The notion that it was just and fair is laughable and is in danger of giving algorithms a bad name.

Tbh I also think there is a Calvinistic schadenfreude about running down these young people and their aspirations to higher A Level grades - like it was somehow better and fairer in our day - which was long long ago.

[LLPunting]

Well the argument has been won and teacher assessments it is. The so called algorithm sounds like a dog's breakfast the more I hear about it. The notion that it was just and fair is laughable and is in danger of giving algorithms a bad name.

Tbh I also think there is a Calvinistic schadenfreude about running down these young people and their aspirations to higher A Level grades - like it was somehow better and fairer in our day - which was long long ago.

Apparently teacher predictions last year were overinflated in up to 40% of cases in some subjects, general impression across the spectrum of subjects is that teachers got it wrong in 10s of % of cases.
The teacher's blog and the various linked writings of other teachers seems pretty telling.
External Link/Members Only

Also the teachers were involved in this process up to their necks so it's very much a case of crap in crap out (albeit the algo made it really putrid and smelly).

Various studies have shown that grade inflation since the passing of Os and As means a whole grade difference in favour of Os and As, i.e. us old farts would have scored higher now.

[sub_marine]

Worthy components in women's studies or American studies? Come on. Everyone knows they  are there to massage unemployment statistics for those studying them.

Since I have a sister who studied gender/womens studies and other closely related stuff, I can tell you that she will never be out of a job, and a highly paid job at that.  Since most laws and policy in this country has been created by posh twats that went to single sex boarding schools, they have very little clue outside of there posh male macho bubble so there is so much injustice in British society.  There is a very high demand for the top people who can point this out and mould the next policies to correct this.  Its going to be a long job

As a former pupil of a secondary which was 2nd or 3rd bottom of the league table, and only because the bottom school had any pupils with promise moved to the neighbouring school, I worked my tits off to get to Uni.  My dad was a factory worker and we were always encouraged to study hard.  At one point my dad was supporting 3 uni students as we all lived at home as we didnt have the funds to study anywhere except the local uni, just lucky the local is Aberdeen Uni as its pretty good.  If I got shafted in my final year because of some posh twat down grading me due to my crappy school i'd be going mental.  Although in the long run I would still have applied myself at whatever career I ended up in and moved up.

And anyway, at a time when very few courses will actually involve students attenting the lecture theatre, why not just let as many students as possible do the online learning and the cull the dross after 1st year.  When I was at uni, the biggest clown in the class was a posh twat who have no real life experience, spent his whole time boozing and never went to lectures, consequently failed everything.  He had no sense of self purpose, too used to having somebody at boarding school keeping tabs on him and helping him study. 

[threechilliman]

But that suffers from the same major problem that this year's students are limited in what they are "allowed" to achieve by the performance of a previous year's students.

How much more do you or anyone else think they'll achieve? Results cannot change much from one year to the next.

[hullad]

They have had months to sort this out and chose not to.

Now they look stupid because they have backed down again, this lot simply have not got a clue on anything. No doubt Gav Williamson will feel the heat as will the rest of the teaching hierarchy.

One thing for certain Boris won't take the blame.

[Adoniron]

They have had months to sort this out and chose not to.

Now they look stupid because they have backed down again, this lot simply have not got a clue on anything. No doubt Gav Williamson will feel the heat as will the rest of the teaching hierarchy.

One thing for certain Boris won't take the blame.

Nor will Dom.

[justalad]

Common sense has now prevailed.

[Squire Haggard]

Frank Spencer is a useful lightning conductor and will take the blame.



Hidden Image/Members Only

[Ali Katt]

How much more do you or anyone else think they'll achieve? Results cannot change much from one year to the next.

Someone could have spent all Summer "cramming" and working hard as they don't want the D grade they were predicted, but for the most part no.

[Xtro]

The government only did a U-turn because this fiasco was starting to affect them.

Apparently, Dominic Raab was downgraded to Dominic Rbbb!     

[king tarzan]

Another true example of this incompetent buffoon lead government... I know it is easier said than done, but they hold the keys, and they did not lockdown earlier enough hence all this living hell!!!!

[sparkus]

Can't imagine how a bloke whose main job before becoming an MP was a fireplace sales manager, who had no previous ministerial experience before becoming Chief Whip in the Cabinet then rewarded by May for loyalty to become Defence Secretary then managed to get fired for leaking before crawling back in by managing Boris' spreadsheets during the Tory leadership contest could be responsible for a cock up of this magnitude!

Even managed to cock up a workplace romance!

[winkywanky]

Can't imagine how a bloke whose main job before becoming an MP was a fireplace sales manager, who had no previous ministerial experience before becoming Chief Whip in the Cabinet then rewarded by May for loyalty to become Defence Secretary then managed to get fired for leaking before crawling back in by managing Boris' spreadsheets during the Tory leadership contest could be responsible for a cock up of this magnitude!

Even managed to cock up a workplace romance!

Perhaps they looked on him as someone who could take the heat? 

[Xtro]

Perhaps they looked on him as someone who could take the heat? 

    

He certainly seems to have flue up the ranks!   

[winkywanky]

 

I have to say though, his hearth seems to be in the right place  .

[hullad]

Nor will Dom.

Dom is off

From a very good source inside Westminster going in the Autumn 

[mh]

Dom is off

From a very good source inside Westminster going in the Autumn 

The source is himself, don't believe a word.

[hermanmunster]

the only thing we have learnt is NOT to trust teachers

Nearly 40% over estimation - is that dishonesty  or incompetence ?

The fact is that the exam boards fiddle with the grade boundaries every year so this year is no different
Scrap these guys and just have a simple system so that the top 10% get an A next 10% get a B etc

Local to me there are 3 independent schools, 1 is high achieving academically and the other 2 fare considerably worse historically.  From what I understand, the high achieving school was awarded pretty much exactly what was assessed/predicted, yet the 2 poor neighbours had to have their results downgraded significantly.  This would seem to support the theory that the 2 underachieving schools were trying to boost their results (to compete with the higher achieving school) and the higher achieving school was more accurate with their predictions as they had no need to exaggerate them.  So now pupils of the 2 under achieving schools have inflated results.  I am not offering an answer to this problem as I don't have one.

[hermanmunster]

I have to say though, his hearth seems to be in the right place  .

..... and someone needs to "heap fiery coals upon his head"!

[Gordon Bennett]

Talking to a teacher yesterday and she was baffled why they didn't sit the exams. They've had all summer to sit them and empty schools to use. In normal times they sit them sat well apart to prevent cheating (ie socially distanced) so it wouldn't have actually been much different.
Saw this fairly simple and straightforward FT news clip about how the algorithm worked.....

External Link/Members Only