A level marking
I have had my concerns about whether the A level and other exams are "Fit for purpose" in terms of admission to Universities.
I have always accepted that those who get good grades have worked hard for them and should be congratulated, and I stand by that.
Nevertheless it is strange that there should have been an increase in the proportion of good grades which seems to exceed and reasonable view of the rate at which standards may have increased. It is particulaly interesting that the same substantial increase in grades does not appear to have occurred in the USA.
As the United States has had many of the same social trends including attempts to increase educational performance that we have, one has to ask, is it really possible that that standards could have risen greatly on this side of the Atlantic and not on the other ?
If the different trends in grades reflect a real difference in educational performance, what has caused it and what can we learn from it ? If they do not, there is something wrong with measurement on one side of the Atlantic or the other.
There has been a torrent of press stories in the past couple of days about exam marking errors, including cases of pupils who have successfully secured massive increases in their grades on appeal, and other cases where pupils who believed that their papers had been marked at an unfairly low grade had sent them to the University to which they were seeking admission, and gained entry because the University concerned agreed.
I don't know how many of the tens of thousands of appeals against grades are really justified. But I note that former Ofsted Chief instector Chris Woodhead was one of the people expressing concern about the quality of marking in today's papers. Certainly, since any system is fallible, anyone who believes that their grades are too low would be well advised to appeal. But it sounds like a more rigorous system of checking may be needed both when students gain significantly lower grades than was expected, and when they are significantly higher.
I have always accepted that those who get good grades have worked hard for them and should be congratulated, and I stand by that.
Nevertheless it is strange that there should have been an increase in the proportion of good grades which seems to exceed and reasonable view of the rate at which standards may have increased. It is particulaly interesting that the same substantial increase in grades does not appear to have occurred in the USA.
As the United States has had many of the same social trends including attempts to increase educational performance that we have, one has to ask, is it really possible that that standards could have risen greatly on this side of the Atlantic and not on the other ?
If the different trends in grades reflect a real difference in educational performance, what has caused it and what can we learn from it ? If they do not, there is something wrong with measurement on one side of the Atlantic or the other.
There has been a torrent of press stories in the past couple of days about exam marking errors, including cases of pupils who have successfully secured massive increases in their grades on appeal, and other cases where pupils who believed that their papers had been marked at an unfairly low grade had sent them to the University to which they were seeking admission, and gained entry because the University concerned agreed.
I don't know how many of the tens of thousands of appeals against grades are really justified. But I note that former Ofsted Chief instector Chris Woodhead was one of the people expressing concern about the quality of marking in today's papers. Certainly, since any system is fallible, anyone who believes that their grades are too low would be well advised to appeal. But it sounds like a more rigorous system of checking may be needed both when students gain significantly lower grades than was expected, and when they are significantly higher.
Comments