A-level Results 2020

[alex397]

This government really is just an embarrassment. Obviously they have had a lot to deal with, and any government would have made mistakes. But I don’t know how anyone can continue to defend the huge mistakes they keep making, especially if they don’t resign or apologise. I don’t care too much if they don’t resign, but it’s the fact they refuse to acknowledge any mistakes or apologise.

Repeated U-turns in various areas are really not good for confidence in government, which leads to increased frustration and division. But that doesn’t seem to matter too much anymore.

 

[kje7812]

A report in 2016 produced for the UCU says teacher predictions were correct 16% of the time, 9% underestimate, and 75% overestimate - https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/8409/P...ec-16/pdf/Predicted_grades_report_Dec2016.pdf

Table 1 in that report is very interesting as overestimation by 1 grade was 22.65% and by 2 was 22.5%. Which could be someone predicted AAB and getting ABB/AAC (for 1 grade difference) or BBB/ABC/etc (for 2 grades difference). Thus over half of that overestimation value isn't actually by that much really.

 

[thejuggler]

This U turn might have taken the heat off Williamson, but it's going to create massive problems for universities.

I read they're legally obliged to take any student who met the conditions of an offer, and everyone they've accepted through clearing. So the more prestigious universities, which offer far more places than they actually have, will be massively oversubscribed, without the teaching space or accommodation for all their students. Universities relying on insurance choices and clearing on the other hand have just lost a substantial part of their income - some are already struggling, this decision could send quite a few to the wall.

From what I have read from a number of friends with children who are in the middle of all this a lot of Universities have already filled spaces using last week's results.

One had a conditional offer from Durham, but his grades were too low so no go. His grades are now better than he needed, but his place is allocated. Similarly another who was going to Manchester. Not any more.

Both of them are taking a year out.

 

[kje7812]

From what I have read from a number of friends with children who are in the middle of all this a lot of Universities have already filled spaces using last week's results.

One had a conditional offer from Durham, but his grades were too low so no go. His grades are now better than he needed, but his place is allocated. Similarly another who was going to Manchester. Not any more.

Both of them are taking a year out.

Might be wise with COVID restrictions still going to around for a while. 'Hand on' subjects like chemistry have struggled to work out a fair plan to cover for the changes.

 

[Bayum]

From what I have read from a number of friends with children who are in the middle of all this a lot of Universities have already filled spaces using last week's results.

One had a conditional offer from Durham, but his grades were too low so no go. His grades are now better than he needed, but his place is allocated. Similarly another who was going to Manchester. Not any more.

Both of them are taking a year out.

Be interesting to see what the legal view is with this... I know a few people are saying it’s a legal contract, and if the decisions have been made and their grades now meet the ‘contract’, it should be taken on. Time will tell.

 

[farleigh]

Be interesting to see what the legal view is with this... I know a few people are saying it’s a legal contract, and if the decisions have been made and their grades now meet the ‘contract’, it should be taken on. Time will tell.

It is not a legally binding contract.

 

[JamesT]

It is not a legally binding contract.

https://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/admissions/terms-conditions looks very much like a contract to me.

 

[158756]

It is not a legally binding contract.

It looks like universities generally reserve the right to alter or cancel courses for various reasons, including oversubscription (and probably a pandemic if that counts as an act of God or similar).

If trimming numbers at this stage is indeed legal though, there's then the question of how universities selected students to refuse admission to - they will soon have the updated results, and certainly in some cases will have refused to admit students with higher grades than those they have admitted; it also seems there are biases against lower income and FE college students in this selection - does that result in bias against any protected characteristic under the Equality Act?

The biggest problem though for any university refusing to accept the new grades will be PR. If they'd all said it wasn't possible maybe the pressure would have turned on the government to fix it, but various universities have already committed to doing so, and I'd be surprised if more don't join them in the next few days.

 

[DelayRepay]

The other problem is that if they admit more students this year, or if a lot of students accept an enforced gap year to take up their preferred place in 2021, what happens to next year's admissions? Is it possible that there will be fewer places for next year's students resulting in them not being able to go to their preferred universities, despite achieving grades that historically would have been good enough?

We are going to have more problems next year - the students have missed four months of their courses and there may be problems sitting exams again. I wonder how much thought is being given to this? It seems to me like they will need to reduce the syllabus and start assessing students ASAP so there is an agreed and standard way of awarding results if exams can't go ahead.

 

[najaB]

Is it possible that there will be fewer places for next year's students resulting in them not being able to go to their preferred universities, despite achieving grades that historically would have been good enough?

In an ideal world there would be funding made available to increase the number of places.

 

[eoff]

Have any Universities said what sort of teaching experience they are offering when the term starts? I suspect they will have a struggle to get lecturers involved in any face to face teaching.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Have any Universities said what sort of teaching experience they are offering when the term starts? I suspect they will have a struggle to get lecturers involved in any face to face teaching.

My university have confirmed all lectures are to be online for the first semester with face-to-face contact for seminars, practicals, and tutorials. I don't envy the timetable planners who have to find suitable rooms for everyone.

 

[kje7812]

The uni I've just first my PhD at has confirmed that the final year undergrads won't be doing 'wet' chemistry projects due to lack of space in the research labs. No indication of easement post christmas.
Lectures etc are being done online.

 

[Belperpete]

More or Less on Radio 4 yesterday explained in some detail exactly how the algorithm worked. I strongly recommend anyone who didn't, to listen to it. My jaw hit the floor. Apparently the students results weren't moderated at all - their mock results and teacher predictions were totally ignored. Instead, it was the schools that were graded, based on past performance. Each school was given a range of results based on past performance, and these were handed out to the students based on teacher ranking of the pupils - the top-ranked pupil got the highest result allocated to that school, and the bottom-ranked pupil got the lowest grade allocated to that school. So if you were an absolutely brilliant pupil in a particular subject, but your school hadn't had a good result in that subject recently, you stood no chance of getting a good grade, no matter how well you had done in your mocks or what your teacher predicted.

Schools with small class sizes were excluded from the algorithm, and pupils given their teacher-predicted grades instead. So pupils at private schools, who usually have small class sizes, got higher results than pupils at state schools with large class sizes. You couldn't make it up!

The Times is reporting this morning that Williamson was warned back in July of the problem, but ignored it as he was more concerned about grade inflation. Even if he wasn't warned, I would have expected him to have asked some detailed questions. Either Williamson was misled, in which case he should sack those who misled him, or he knew, in which case he should fall on his own sword.

 

[Typhoon]

More or Less on Radio 4 yesterday explained in some detail exactly how the algorithm worked. I strongly recommend anyone who didn't, to listen to it. My jaw hit the floor. Apparently the students results weren't moderated at all - their mock results and teacher predictions were totally ignored. Instead, it was the schools that were graded, based on past performance. Each school was given a range of results based on past performance, and these were handed out to the students based on teacher ranking of the pupils - the top-ranked pupil got the highest result allocated to that school, and the bottom-ranked pupil got the lowest grade allocated to that school. So if you were an absolutely brilliant pupil in a particular subject, but your school hadn't had a good result in that subject recently, you stood no chance of getting a good grade, no matter how well you had done in your mocks or what your teacher predicted.

Schools with small class sizes were excluded from the algorithm, and pupils given their teacher-predicted grades instead. So pupils at private schools, who usually have small class sizes, got higher results than pupils at state schools with large class sizes. You couldn't make it up!

The Times is reporting this morning that Williamson was warned back in July of the problem, but ignored it as he was more concerned about grade inflation. Even if he wasn't warned, I would have expected him to have asked some detailed questions. Either Williamson was misled, in which case he should sack those who misled him, or he knew, in which case he should fall on his own sword.

Yes, 'More or Less', always a good listen. Episode can be heard at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08nznp9 - first item. Example given was that under the algorithm a private school that usually had one-in-five getting A or A* to almost half.

I haven't read The Times article but surely some people at the DfE had the algorithm explained to them. Did they not notice the obvious problems? The House of Commons select committee was assured (by 2 reps from Ofqual) that everything was alright at the start of June. I imagine that the allocated results would start to be known in July, did no-one notice then? (Maybe that is what The Times is alluding to?)

Williamson is not the sort to resign (he had to be sacked at the Ministry of Defence). I would have thought these are vulnerable:- Sally Collier (Chief Regulator at Ofqual) and other senior staff at Ofqual, Nick Gibb (Schools Minister), Jonathan Spicer (Permanent Secretary, DfE). The blaming of civil servants seems to fit in with the government's strategy of civil service 'reform'.

 

[najaB]

I haven't read The Times article but surely some people at the DfE had the algorithm explained to them. Did they not notice the obvious problems?

Allegedly, Ofqual applied the algorithm without informing the DfE of what it was. "Allegedly" because that sounds awfully like politicos dodging blame.

 

[Belperpete]

Allegedly, Ofqual applied the algorithm without informing the DfE of what it was. "Allegedly" because that sounds awfully like politicos dodging blame.

According to the front page of today's Times (currently available on BBC news website as below), Sir John Coles wrote directly to Gavin Williamson warning him of the potential problems, but Williamson decided to push ahead anyway because of worries about grade inflation and potential delays in issuing results. If Williamson does try to slopey-shoulder the blame by sacking others when he was aware of the problem all along, there is surely going to be one hell of a political storm. On the other hand, if he doesn't sack someone, he will be tacitly admitting he was complicit.

Newspaper Headlines

 

[Senex]

According to the front page of today's Times (currently available on BBC news website as below), Sir John Coles wrote directly to Gavin Williamson warning him of the potential problems, but Williamson decided to push ahead anyway because of worries about grade inflation and potential delays in issuing results. If Williamson does try to slopey-shoulder the blame by sacking others when he was aware of the problem all along, there is surely going to be one hell of a political storm. On the other hand, if he doesn't sack someone, he will be tacitly admitting he was complicit.

Newspaper Headlines

If that does turn out to be correct, then it brings things directly to Williamson himself rather than to a permanenet secretary or junior minister or the like. In days past such a serious cock-up would have led to the SoS's resignation even if not directly implicated. But with the total lack of honour of Johnson and his cabinet colleagues, although we should expect immediate resignation or dismissal, isn't it more likely that Williamson will be defended by the Tory faithful MPs and kept in place by Johnson, just as Cummings (not a minister, I know, though more powerful than any of them) and Janrick were?

 

[Typhoon]

According to the front page of today's Times (currently available on BBC news website as below), Sir John Coles wrote directly to Gavin Williamson warning him of the potential problems, but Williamson decided to push ahead anyway because of worries about grade inflation and potential delays in issuing results. If Williamson does try to slopey-shoulder the blame by sacking others when he was aware of the problem all along, there is surely going to be one hell of a political storm. On the other hand, if he doesn't sack someone, he will be tacitly admitting he was complicit.

Newspaper Headlines

Sir Jon Coles has an impressive CV. A qualified teacher, he appears to have spent most if not all of his civil service career at the DfS, becoming Director General firstly for Schools, then for Education Standards. He became director of the organisation credited with piloting the improvement in London schools (London Challenge) and is now Chief Executive for a group of over 70 private and state schools. He has presumably picked up a fair degree of knowledge and experience along the way.

He wrote an interesting article in Schools Week on 17th July (https://schoolsweek.co.uk/results-day-ofqual-must-shift-or-ministers-must-intervene/). The url summarises the content. Minor editing to reduce length:

It goes without saying that Ofqual have a tough job this year. An exam system with no exams. But they are in danger of getting it badly wrong.
Schools were told to disregard all work from lockdown onwards in assessing grades. So the question schools faced at that point was: what grade would those young people have got if they had sat exams in 2 months’ time?
And what exactly would have been their rank order had that happened?

With the best will in the world, nobody can know for sure the answer to those questions. Nobody can know what would have happened in those two months. Had there been no Covid, which students would have worked harder and more effectively than their teachers would have guessed, which less hard? Who would have had a good and who a bad exam day? We cannot know.

And yet the grades young people get next month will count the same and determine their future just as much as if their own exam answers had determined the results.

So the only thing that would be fair to young people is to recognise the uncertainty and accept that there must be some leniency. The system must do better than guess who would have made it and who would not. Better to have a year of grade inflation than a year where thousands of young people miss university offers through no fault of their own.

If you do your best and come up short, then you can own your failure and learn from it. If you are prevented from reaching the college, university or apprenticeship of your choice by arbitrary decisions over which you have no influence, what can you possibly take from that? And yet Ofqual offer no leniency.

Ofqual’s consultation says that they will use a statistical model to determine how many of each grade to award to each school. Past history will determine how many grade 9s, 8s and 7s and how many grade A*s, As and Bs each school will receive. Yet they know – we all know – that past history is at best a partial guide to the future. Ofqual’s own data show that every year in every subject, the results of hundreds of schools go up and hundreds go down in ways that a statistical model cannot predict. Or to put it another way – thousands of young people get results which a statistical model cannot predict in advance – even in the largest schools.

And yet Ofqual’s consultation proposes not to take account of the centre assessment grades – except in the smallest cohorts where they really have no choice.

Of course, they must discard outlandish grades from any schools and colleges which have over-claimed absurdly. But we all know that a model that relies solely on historic data will not be more than 80% accurate in grading students.

Yet Ofqual offer no leniency. And Ofqual propose to discard centre assessment grades for most students.

Justice cries out for them to change their position. But Ofqual is silent. Its Board is silent. As they progress in a slow-motion car crash towards the least just results season in history.

Even now, it isn’t too late for Ofqual to make some change to this year’s system. But I fear that only an unprecedented and exceptionally bold ministerial intervention can save us from an August exam season row which will dwarf anything we have seen before.

Emphasis mine, the warning was pubic not just private!

 

[thejuggler]

If grade inflation was such a huge issue the priority should have been a proven system to prevent it.

As grade inflation is now reality and accepted it can’t have been the huge issue it was made out to be.

 

[Typhoon]

Williamson is not the sort to resign (he had to be sacked at the Ministry of Defence). I would have thought these are vulnerable:- Sally Collier (Chief Regulator at Ofqual) and other senior staff at Ofqual, Nick Gibb (Schools Minister), Jonathan Spicer (Permanent Secretary, DfE). The blaming of civil servants seems to fit in with the government's strategy of civil service 'reform'.

Two down!(sorry, got his name wrong). https://www.itv.com/news/2020-08-26...s-fiasco-but-gavin-williamson-remains-in-role

Rather surprised it was before the schools went back!

 

[najaB]

From the linked article:

The Prime Minister has concluded that there is a need for fresh official leadership at the Department for Education.

“Jonathan Slater has therefore agreed that he will stand down on September 1, in advance of the end of his tenure in spring 2021."

In typical Whitehall fashion: "The ship's hit a rock and we need new leadership, so keep the captain and fire the cook."

 

[Typhoon]

From the linked article:In typical Whitehall fashion: "The ship's hit a rock and we need new leadership, so keep the captain and fire the cook."

"And if that doesn't work, the engineer, the boatswain, the electrician, ..."

They are so predictable. There are a number of ministers who over the years have taken responsibility for failures in their departments (Peter Carrington, Edwina Currie, Norman Lamont, Estelle Morris come to mind). Not this shower.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Aug 2020 ==

Unintelligent people always look for a scapegoat.

(Ernest Bevin)