The real education scandal – Issue XXII
In the world of Covid hysteria, we did everything we could to ensure pupils reached their target grade, even to the point of telling kids their work wasn't "an accurate reflection" of their ability and having them do the test again.
Cartoon by Crid.
This is an excerpt of an article that features in our 22nd print issue.
Were the recently released A-level and GCSE exam results ‘inflated’, as many have claimed, amid record numbers of top marks? I don't think so. I think, rather, that the exams, even in normal circumstances, are not terribly difficult, and that large numbers of pupils are bright enough to be coached to maximum success. Although what the pupils did to earn their final marks was a lot less demanding than usual, in most cases the marks are an accurate reflection of their ability.
Here's how it went in my subject, English. In normal times, GCSE pupils sit four English papers – two in literature, two in language – which are marked by paid external examiners. This year – that is to say, last May – our year 11s did one section of one literature paper, and one section of one language paper, which were then marked by us teachers and 'moderated' (a fancy word for checked) within the department. When the mark was finalised, we checked it against all their previous marks. Is this pupil really a seven, for instance? Or did he just do well on these two papers? A quick look at previous marks, and our own knowledge of his ability, shows that he is, indeed, not quite a seven, but a six (GCSE marks now go from nine, the best, to one, with a four being a pass). I think one could argue this mix of objectivity and subjectivity is as fair as the official system it temporarily replaced, and that is due to return next year.
…
