On Monday, 17 August 2020, the British government abruptly changed direction and made a “U-turn”. On that day, England chose to follow its fellow member nations within the UK, abandoning the hitherto preferred new way of grading school leavers’ exam results. The negative consequences of a UK-wide decision to assign school leavers grades that had been calculated by a computer algorithm had already led to much unhappiness among students, and had provoked widespread condemnation from political figures and media outlets of all persuasions, even those usually supportive of the ruling Conservative Party. Large groups of angry and anxious students had started gathering at demonstrations in central London and other English cities as protests against the new A-level grading system rapidly gained momentum.
The Covid-19 pandemic has badly affected education at all levels. Those at the bottom of the educational chain have been particularly badly hit. Schools have closed during the lockdown, and the loss of direct contact between teachers and their classrooms has been particularly disruptive to pupils. Inevitably, exams have had to be postponed or even cancelled altogether. Accordingly, in the UK, on 18 March , all A-level, Scottish Higher, GCSE and BTec exams were thus called off for the rest of the year, necessitating alternative means for grading pupils to be set up at short notice.
In England, the Department for Education delegated this task to Ofqual, the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, a quango that is often referred to as the “exams watchdog”. For Ofqual, which was founded in April 2010, this was to become the biggest challenge it had ever faced in its relatively short existence. It came up with the idea of standardised grades, that were to be calculated using an algorithm, a step-wise set of rules, replacing grades predicted on the basis of teachers’ assessments. Computerised grades may have seemed better in the eyes of Ofqual’s experts than supposedly over-inflated, and more subjective, teacher-assigned grades.
For some time, many people have been concerned about so-called “grade inflation”, whereby the proportion of students receiving A* and A grades at A-levels and Highers has steadily risen over the years. There are, of course, two rather different ways of interpreting these findings. Either standards of teaching at school have continued to improve, or, alternatively, standards of marking have continued to fall. Many right-wing commentators and politicians, including Education Secretary Gavin Williamson himself, appear to share the latter view, namely that exams are being steadily “dumbed down”. In their particular opinion, “grade inflation” is actually much less acceptable than any possible “grade deflation”.
The sudden cancellation of exams appears to have provided a testing ground for alternative ways of marking, in the absence of written exams. In the words of Ofqual chair Roger Taylor, the quango was asked to come up with a system of calculating grades “which maintained standards and ensured that grades were awarded roughly in line with previous years”. The Ofqual algorithm was based upon both teachers’ estimated grades and ranking of each individual pupil and on the performance of the school in each separate subject over the previous three years. Ofqual aimed to moderate a perceived generosity of teachers when it came to marking their pupils by considering the actual performance of the school at previous A-level exams.
It soon became clear that the algorithm was producing results that were felt to be unfair. Scotland was the first to abandon algorithm-derived scores, once the SQA (Scottish Qualifications Authority), the exam regulator in Scotland, recognised that pupils from deprived backgrounds were being systematically discriminated against. Northern Ireland, and Wales soon followed the Scottish lead, and so did England in the end. By this time, nearly 40 per cent of teacher-assigned grades, around 280,000, in England had been downgraded by the algorithm, with around 24,000 results being lowered by more than one grade.
The problem with using any algorithm for decision-making is that it over-simplifies matters and does not account for all eventualities. Algorithmic scores appear to favour pupils from better-performing, and frequently selective, independent and top-of-the-league state schools, while disadvantaging so-called “outliers”-bright children from underperforming schools. It is also not possible to identify and make adjustments for pupils from low-income families and black and minority ethnic backgrounds, as well as “looked after” children, and those with special educational needs.
Despite these limitations, UCAS, the University and Colleges Admissions Service, confirmed that more than two-thirds of school-leavers received their first choice of university placement even before the government’s U-turn on 17 August. Around three-quarters of 18-year-olds in England accepted places at either their first or second choice of university. But most downgraded pupils lost their university places, which then went to others previously lower in the pecking order.
Once the government finally woke up to the unfolding tragedy, it back-tracked on its previously firmly held belief in the just and robust nature of its chosen algorithm. Teacher-assessed grades were then reinstated, thereby allowing 15,000 pupils originally rejected by their first choice of university to meet the A-level grades they required for entry. Moderated and calculated grades were retained where these were the same as, or higher than, teacher-assessed grades. But the damage had already been done, with many pupils no longer able to regain their lost places.
The government has had to step in to help those pupils who were deprived of their rightful university places. Extra funding has been provided to English universities to enable them to honour as many placement offers as possible. Caps on numbers of students taking medical, dental and veterinary degrees have been lifted. Additional teaching grants have been promised to increase the numbers of students being taken on by a variety of other courses. Many universities have also offered deferred places to those unfairly denied a place this year.
What about those responsible for the chaos in the exam grading and university admissions processes? First of all, Ofqual’s processes and procedures will now be reviewed by the House of Commons Education Select Committee and by the Office for Statistics Regulation. Higher up the chain, the Education Secretary has faced calls to resign, which he has refused to do so, largely on the grounds that he was only following expert advice. Instead, he has apologised for any “distress” caused to pupils. The Prime Minister has also rejected calls to dismiss Mr Williamson, professing full confidence in his loyal colleague.
Irrespective of any future changes in leadership and within the educational system, it is most important that any injustices directly caused by the revised grading system are dealt with rapidly, as equitably as possible . While every exam system has its winners and losers, the numbers disadvantaged by this particular fiasco should be minimised as far as possible. In any case, it appears clear that when it comes to grading pupils, the personal knowledge of teachers far surpasses any assessments that can be made by impersonal computers on the basis of incomplete knowledge. For the time being, “human” seems preferable to “machine”.
Ashis Banerjee