Read on Twitter
I think A-level algorithm by design makes it impossible for any individual student to get A* grade if attend institution where predecessor students 2017-19 did not score A*. Being best student in subject for 4 years ruled out by design.Just get average grade of top 2017-19 pupils
Teachers get to say this student is the top performer in his class. But it is impossible for Ofqual's model to accept that he might be a stronger performer than the *average* of the 2017-19 top student in his subject in his college. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1294031847719088128
- If top grades were A* (2017), A (2018), A (2019), he gets an A.
- If top grades A* (2017), A* (2018), A (2019), he gets an A*
- If B, B, B, he gets a B
Ofqual marked ghosts of past students, not this student. Impossible for his own attainment to surpass the average ghost
- If top grades A* (2017), A* (2018), A (2019), he gets an A*
- If B, B, B, he gets a B
Ofqual marked ghosts of past students, not this student. Impossible for his own attainment to surpass the average ghost
Real example.
Any student being first Oxbridge offer from school for 4 years becomes quite unlikely to get the grades for the place (They depend on past students). If school had many historic Oxbridge offers, the top student will always get in. https://twitter.com/kIopptimistic/status/1293880274523217924
Any student being first Oxbridge offer from school for 4 years becomes quite unlikely to get the grades for the place (They depend on past students). If school had many historic Oxbridge offers, the top student will always get in. https://twitter.com/kIopptimistic/status/1293880274523217924
Even if using this model [a statistical projection, based on historic students, not current pupils], this deliberate feature of the model (you just can't be best student for 4 years, nor even better than last 3 year average top student) fixable if pre-result appeals from schools
The model has prioritised giving out *the right number* of grades - in aggregate. It is a model whose priority giving out the right number of grades [='credibility'], but not necessarily to the right individual students
Ofqual's model suggests it will get a third of grades wrong
Ofqual's model suggests it will get a third of grades wrong
The Ofqual model - by design - does exactly the opposite of what all of the Oxbridge "access" work is supposed to be trying to do. It will *always* - by design - prefer the top private school student to an applicant from the school that doesn't have a history of Oxbridge entry
I hope there will be urgent pressure - from within & outside - to address how the system is deliberately biased against widening access, by systematically marking down [rejecting] students who would widened access. Would like to hear how @arusbridger & his peers will respond
Ofqual have built a model to give what they think are the right average numbers nationally - but their model suggests they get one-third of grades wrong in process, in both directions, as focusing is matching aggregate curve for subjects & institutions https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1294040117762564097
While it is impossible for the top student to out-perform the ghosts, this affects results across the ability range
A school which made year-on-year improvements 2017, 2018, 2019 will now get worse 2020 than 2019 results https://twitter.com/RichardT63/status/1294181867906834433
A school which made year-on-year improvements 2017, 2018, 2019 will now get worse 2020 than 2019 results https://twitter.com/RichardT63/status/1294181867906834433
It is sometimes argued that "access" approaches to meritocracy can focus too strongly on the exceptional student from poor backgrounds
Ofqual and the govt (through inattention?) have designed a 2020 model that appears designed to systematically disadvantage such students
Ofqual and the govt (through inattention?) have designed a 2020 model that appears designed to systematically disadvantage such students
How the ghosts (the 2017-19 student exam performance) determines what 2020 grades are possible and impossible for any student from that school/college in that subject
The policy choice was
* Hand out roughly right number of grades
* build a 2020 model to v.precisely replicate average 2017-19 attainment gaps between institutions
* Give individuals grades that reflect past exam performance of student "ghosts" & prefer that to any 2020 evidence
* Hand out roughly right number of grades
* build a 2020 model to v.precisely replicate average 2017-19 attainment gaps between institutions
* Give individuals grades that reflect past exam performance of student "ghosts" & prefer that to any 2020 evidence
This explainer notes a further adjustment mechanism which seems to generate deep arbitrary unfairness at the bottom mirroring the arbitrary ceilings to prevent "over-achievement" (better than the ghosts) at the top. + arbitrary outcoms in between https://twitter.com/alexhern/status/1294200553661227008?s=19
There should be a review of why the system also insists on distributing U grades arbitrarily https://twitter.com/A_Weatherall/status/1294012623776817158?s=19
