EPI Proposals for Awarding Grades in Summer 2021

This report says that given that learning loss has been large and unequal, and that grading cannot now take place with public examinations, there is a serious issue about whether the usual grades can be safely awarded in 2021.

This Education Policy Institute consultation follows the announcement in January from the government that exams will not go ahead as usual this year, and grades will be based on teacher assessment. EPI concludes that while the government is proposing the “least bad” option for grading students without the usual public examinations, there are still significant risks associated with its approach.

Create an account to read this article

£7.00+ VAT

One-off purchase

Purchase and Download today

Register for free

No Credit Card required

Register for free
Access to 3 free articles
Free TeachingTimes Report every month

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#37762"
  ["title"]=>
  string(46) "Report On The June 2009 GCSE And A Level Exams"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(57) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/june09-exam-appeals_060410/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1270050504)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-37762-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(360) "... report provides details of the number of enquiries about results and appeals, and the number of these that resulted in changes to candidates' overall subject grades. The report also summarises the awarding organisations' performance in relation to providing notification of the result of enquiries and appeals within the deadlines set ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(364) "... report provides details of the number of enquiries about results and appeals, and the number of these that resulted in changes to candidates’ overall subject grades. The report also summarises the awarding organisations’ performance in relation to providing notification of the result of enquiries and appeals within the deadlines set ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(46) "Report On The June 2009 GCSE And A Level Exams"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(638) "This is an Ofqual report on enquiries about results and appeals made to awarding organisations for the June 2009 GCSE and A level examinations series in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The report provides details of the number of enquiries about results and appeals, and the number of these that resulted in changes to candidates' overall subject grades. The report also summarises the awarding organisations' performance in relation to providing notification of the result of enquiries and appeals within the deadlines set out in the GCSE, GCE and AEA Code of Practice.
Leadership Briefing Issue 4.12 (48)"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(2) {
        [0]=>
        string(8) "awarding"
        [1]=>
        string(6) "grades"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(3265) "ResourceRESULTS AND APPEALS – JUNE 2009 GCSE AND A LEVEL EXAMSOriginal DocumentReport On The June 2009 GCSE And A Level Examinations Series. This is an Ofqual report on enquiries about results and appeals made to awarding organisations for the June 2009 GCSE and A level examinations series in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The report provides details of the number of enquiries about results and appeals, and the number of these that resulted in changes to candidates’ overall subject grades. The report also summarises the awarding organisations’ performance in relation to providing notification of the result of enquiries and appeals within the deadlines set out in the GCSE, GCE and AEA Code of Practice.KeywordsOfqual, GCSE, A level examinations, enquiries, appeals, subject gradesSummaryThis is a report on enquiries about results and appeals made to awarding organisations for the June 2009 GCSE and A level examinations series in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The report provides details of the number of enquiries about results and appeals, and the number of these that resulted in changes to candidates’ overall subject grades. The report also summarises the awarding organisations’ performance in relation to providing notification of the result of enquiries and appeals within the deadlines set out in the GCSE, GCE and AEA Code of Practice.The report: · Explains the processes and 2009 reporting arrangements for enquiries about results and appeals.· Provides information about the three common services provided by the awarding organisations for enquiries about results and the two stages for appeals.· Provides data on the number of enquiries and appeals received, the number of resulting subject grade changes and the performance of each awarding organisation in meeting relevant deadlines.Main Points:· Over 15,000 GCSE grades were changed last year as the number of queries from schools rose, new figures show.· After last summer’s exams, secondary schools in England, Wales and Northern Ireland submitted 94,817 GCSE grades for remarking – up from 85,981 in 2008.· Of these inquiries, around one in six GCSE grades – 15,009 in total (15.8%) – were altered. In 2008, 15,825 grades were changed.· The statistics also reveal that 53,524 A-level grades were sent back last year, resulting in around one in eight – 6,160 in total (11.5%) – being changed.· The year before, 5,705 grades were altered. All of the grades could have been marked down as well as up.· The statistics also show that 14,157 A-level grades were submitted as a “high priority” to be re-marked, because teenagers were waiting on the results to confirm places at college or university.· This was an increase from 12,998 submissions in 2008.· Of those submitted as a high priority following the 2009 exams, one in 10, 1,449 grades (10%) were changed. This is compared to 1,202 that were changed in 2008. ActionNotesAuthorRaspal Chima, Imaginative MindsDate CreatedApril 2010Enquiries to:raspal.chima@yahoo.co.uk (Authoring Unit)Month / YearPage 1 of 1©Birmingham City Council"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(2) {
        [0]=>
        string(8) "awarding"
        [1]=>
        string(6) "grades"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Report On The June 2009 GCSE And A Level Exams

31 Mar 2010

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#90848"
  ["title"]=>
  string(54) "Student-Level Equalities Analyses for GCSE and A Level"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(2) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
    [1]=>
    string(20) "Leadership Briefings"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(85) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/student-level-equalities-analyses-for-gcse-and-a-level/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1606830035)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-90848-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(149) "6,300 GCSE entries, most of them from private schools, may have received “disproportionately overestimated grades”, according to Ofqual."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(364) "This Ofqual analysis shows that there is no evidence that the system for awarding GCSEs and A-levels this year systematically disadvantaged poorer pupils or those with protected characteristics.But 6,300 GCSE entries, most of them from private schools, may have received “disproportionately overestimated grades”, the exams regulator said ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(6) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(54) "Student-Level Equalities Analyses for GCSE and A Level"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["author"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(12) "Raspal Singh"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(149) "6,300 GCSE entries, most of them from private schools, may have received “disproportionately overestimated grades”, according to Ofqual."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(1) {
        [0]=>
        string(6) "grades"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(4822) "This Ofqual analysis shows that there is no evidence that the system for awarding GCSEs and A-levels this year systematically disadvantaged poorer pupils or those with protected characteristics.But 6,300 GCSE entries, most of them from private schools, may have received “disproportionately overestimated grades”, the exams regulator said.The analyses aimed to examine “concerns” that the system used this year could have introduced new inequalities, or affected pre-existing ones.It concluded that there was “no evidence that either the calculated grades or the final grades awarded this year were systematically biased against candidates with protected characteristics or from disadvantaged backgrounds”.Exams were cancelled this year after schools closed to all but the most vulnerable pupils and the children of key workers in March.Instead, schools were asked to provide centre-assessment grades and a rank order of pupils within each grade, which were then standardised by exam boards using a computer algorithm.he new report looked at the centre-assessment grades, calculated grades and final grades issued to pupilsIt found that had calculated grades been issued, the results “would have been more closely in line” with the established relationships between student characteristics and outcomes seen in previous results.However, the changes seen by using final grades were “small”.There was “some evidence” that around 6,300 GCSE entries by pupils with low prior attainment and unknown socioeconomic status “may have received disproportionately overestimated grades”.Most of these pupils are at independent schools, Ofqual said, and the effect was “equally noticeable in grades using CAGs, calculated grades, and final grades”. 6,300 entries represents around 2.4 per cent of all GCSE entries from private schools this year.In the report, Ofqual said its analyses were “clear” that the “most consistent and significant effect” of CAGs and final grades was “an uplift in outcomes”, which was not seen in calculated grades.Key Findings:For GCSEs and A levels, there is no evidence that the arrangements put in place to award candidates grades this year, including the final grades themselves, systematically disadvantaged candidates with protected characteristics or from less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds. By comparing attainment gaps in 2020 with those from exam results in 2018 and 2019, Ofqual demonstrated that the calculated grades originally issued to candidates on A level results day – their standardised CAGs – neither introduced new, nor exacerbated any existing, attainment gaps based on protected characteristics or socio-economic status. Analyses for both GCSEs and A levels showed that the calculated grades more closely maintained the established relationships between candidate characteristics and outcomes than do either centre assessment grades (CAGs) or final grades. However, the changes seen by using final grades are small and do not suggest that any groups of candidates who share a protected characteristic or socio-economic status have been systematically disadvantaged. There was some evidence that some 6,300 GCSE entries by low prior attainers with unknown socio-economic status (most of whom are at independent schools) may have received disproportionately over-estimated grades. This effect was equally noticeable in grades using CAGs, calculated grades, and final grades. The effect was not seen for A level. The analyses are clear that, at both GCSE and A level, the most consistent and significant effect is an uplift in outcomes overall using CAGs and final grades; but not using calculated grades. At A level, there was further narrowing of the attainment gap that had previously seen males out-perform females (when prior attainment, protected characteristics, and socio-economic status are accounted for), such that there was no real effect of gender this year. This was true for CAGs, calculated grades, and final grades. That an equivalent change was absent from the GCSE data is some assurance that, at A level, it genuinely reflects attainment and is not the result of systematic bias in favour of female candidates. In conclusion, for GCSEs and A Levels, there is no evidence that either the calculated grades or the final grades awarded this year were systematically biased against candidates with protected characteristics or from disadvantaged backgrounds.Link: Student-Level Equalities Analyses for GCSE and A Level"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(2) {
        [0]=>
        string(8) "awarding"
        [1]=>
        string(6) "grades"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(2) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [1]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(20) "Leadership Briefings"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["tags"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(5) "Exams"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Student-Level Equalities Analyses for GCSE and A Level

1 Dec 2020

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#89662"
  ["title"]=>
  string(53) "National Qualifications Experience 2020: Rapid Review"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(2) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
    [1]=>
    string(20) "Leadership Briefings"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(83) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/national-qualifications-experience-2020-rapid-review/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1603197307)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-89662-1"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(268) "This review considers the evidence and provides recommendations around those issues which are most pertinent to consideration of awarding methodology in 2021 if there is further significant disruption to learning and teaching and/or the cancellation of exams."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(369) "... independent research into the development and application of the 2020 ACM, involving full access to anonymised attainment data and the statistical algorithms used to moderate grades.The development by SQA and partners of digital materials and systems for producing, assessing and moderating assessment evidence, to ensure that operational processes for ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(6) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(53) "National Qualifications Experience 2020: Rapid Review"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["author"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(12) "Raspal Singh"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(268) "This review considers the evidence and provides recommendations around those issues which are most pertinent to consideration of awarding methodology in 2021 if there is further significant disruption to learning and teaching and/or the cancellation of exams."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(1) {
        [0]=>
        string(8) "awarding"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(695) "review of qualification appeals systems, including consideration of the rights and roles of young people, in the context of the incorporation of the UNCRC into Scottish law.The commissioning of independent research into the development and application of the 2020 ACM, involving full access to anonymised attainment data and the statistical algorithms used to moderate grades.The development by SQA and partners of digital materials and systems for producing, assessing and moderating assessment evidence, to ensure that operational processes for gathering candidate evidence for appeals is less reliant on paper-based systems.Link: National Qualifications Experience 2020: Rapid Review"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(1) {
        [0]=>
        string(6) "grades"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(2) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [1]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(20) "Leadership Briefings"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["tags"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(23) "National Qualifications"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

National Qualifications Experience 2020: Rapid Review

20 Oct 2020

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#44532"
  ["title"]=>
  string(76) "Analysis Of Degree Classifications Over Time: Changes In Graduate Attainment"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(60) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/degree-classifications_070119/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1546426499)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-44532-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(349) "Universities in England are giving too many students top degree grades, according to this report by the Office for Students (OfS). The report shows starkly that there has been significant and unexplained grade inflation since 2010-11. Even accounting for prior attainment and student demographics, it still finds significant unexplained ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(314) "... in first and upper second class degrees awarded are unexplained by changes in the graduate population. Graduates who entered higher education with the equivalent of grades CCD or below at A-level were almost three times more likely to graduate with first class honours in 2016-17 than in 2010 ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(76) "Analysis Of Degree Classifications Over Time: Changes In Graduate Attainment"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(362) "Universities in England are giving too many students top degree grades, according to this report by the Office for Students (OfS). The report shows starkly that there has been significant and unexplained grade inflation since 2010-11. Even accounting for prior attainment and student demographics, it still finds significant unexplained grade inflation."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(1) {
        [0]=>
        string(6) "grades"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(3499) "The report shows the number of graduates being awarded first and upper-second class degrees rose from 67% in 2010-11 to 78% in 2016-17. The OfS report is based on 1,638,490 students who graduated from 148 universities in England between 2010-11 and 2016-17. The analysis found that: the percentage of graduates awarded first and upper-second class degrees rose from 67% in 2010-11 to 78% in 2016-17 the percentage of first-class degrees rose from 16% to 27% in the same time frame It says that in 2016-17, a total of 77 universities in England showed a statistically significant unexplained increase in first-class degree awards – this was in relation to both other universities and to their own level of firsts given in 2010-11. The OfS report found that 14 institutions had an unexplained rise of above 20% in firsts and upper-seconds. At the University of Surrey the proportion of firsts has more than doubled, from 23% in 2010/11 to 50% in 2016/17, while at Bradford University it has almost tripled, from 10.6% to 30.9%. Coventry University has seen a rise of 24.4%. The OfS also says 13 universities had an unexplained rise in firsts of over 20%, with the University of Surrey seeing the highest rise, at 27.3%. According to the OfS regulatory framework, one of the conditions of functioning as a university is that “qualifications awarded to students hold their value at the point of qualification and over time”. If a university is found to be in breach of the condition, it may be fined, suspended from the register or deregistered altogether. The Office for Students has threatened institutions with sanctions, including fines or even de-registration, if they fail to take action over the issue. Main Findings: Across the sector as a whole, 11.6 percentage points of the increase in first and upper second class degrees awarded are unexplained by changes in the graduate population. Graduates who entered higher education with the equivalent of grades CCD or below at A-level were almost three times more likely to graduate with first class honours in 2016-17 than in 2010- 11. In respect of first class degree attainment the analysis shows that in 2016-17: 52 per cent of providers (77) show a statistically significant unexplained increase relative to both the sector and their own level in 2010-11. A further 19 per cent of providers (28) show a statistically significant unexplained level of attainment above that of the sector in 2010-11, but no significant change relative to their own level in 2010-11. Another 13 per cent of providers (19) show a statistically significant unexplained increase relative to their own level in 2010-11, but attainment not significantly above the sector level in 2010-11. It is clear there is a significant and growing issue around unexplained inflation in graduate attainment, or ‘grade inflation’, which needs to be addressed. The analysis corroborates concerns about grade inflation across the higher education sector and reinforces our view that it is essential that all providers take steps to curb inappropriate increases in the awarding of first class and upper second class degrees. WEB LINK Analysis Of Degree Classifications Over Time: Changes In Graduate AttainmentKeywords Degree classifications, graduate attainment, first-class degree awards, grade inflation, universities, graduate population "
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(2) {
        [0]=>
        string(8) "awarding"
        [1]=>
        string(6) "grades"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Analysis Of Degree Classifications Over Time: Changes In Graduate Attainment

2 Jan 2019