I won’t scrap grades, says Weir as MLA accuses him of failing A-level students
SOLELY using teacher estimates to award A-level grades would lack credibility, the Education Minister has insisted.
Giving evidence to the Stormont education committee, Peter Weir resisted calls to scrap the results allocated to pupils using a standardisation calculation model and replace them with the grades predicted by their teachers.
More than a third of A-level grades issued on Thursday were lower than teacher estimates.
In 37% of cases teachers were over-optimistic in their prediction, while in around 5% of entries they under-estimated the result.
Overall, the percentage of top grades allocated this year was up on previous years.
However, many students were left shocked and disappointed after receiving grades that were significantly lower than both their performance in previous exams and their teachers’ predictions.
Committee chairman Chris Lyttle urged the minister to intervene and ensure pupils were awarded grades based on either their As-level results or the estimated grade given by their teacher. “These are unprecedented times,” he said.
Mr Lyttle said he was aware of a school that had seen its A*-C attainment rate fall from 90% last year to 60% under the calculation model.
He said the minister was “increasingly isolated” in refusing to use the teacher assessments to allocate the grades.
Mr Weir responded by insisting that if teacher predictions were used without standardisation, the results would not have “any level of credibility” because the results would be so much higher than those achieved in previous years.
He said that approach would also be unfair on pupils because some teachers would have been “generous” in estimating grades while others would have been “tough” on their students. “There would be no equality whatsoever,” said Mr Weir.
The minister acknowledged that the system for calculating A-level results “did not work for everyone”.
He said there was no way of creating a perfect replacement for sitting the exams, which were cancelled as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
“We were looking to create what was a least worst solution,” the minister added.
Mr Weir highlighted that a fast-track appeals process had been established for those students who believe they were treated unfairly.
The standardisation model was developed by the exams body the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). CCEA asked teachers to give a predicted grade for their pupils and then rank them in order within their class. The exams body then used other data to standardise the results.
SDLP committee member Daniel Mccrossan branded the situation a “debacle”.
He expressed concern about the mental health impact on children, revealing that a GP had contacted him to alert him that three pupils who had missed out on university places had presented with suicidal thoughts.
“This model failed. It failed our children and it failed our young people,” he said.
“As the result of this pandemic, they should not pay the price.”
Mr Mccrossan demanded more transparency around the algorithm used to calculate the grades. He said there was a need to “mark the minister’s homework”.
Mr Weir said he would make information on the formula public, though he stressed some of it would be technical data.
He also rejected calls for an independent review of CCEA’S actions.
“I think CCEA processes were sound,” Mr Weir said. “I don’t intend at this stage to have an independent review.”
CCEA chief executive Justin Edwards also defended the model used, insisting a range of academics and other experts were involved in its development.
He stressed the limited time CCEA had to deliver on the minister’s key objectives — to produce a set of results for the 2020 cohort and to ensure that standards were in line with previous years.
He claimed no better solution had been presented, adding: “If there was a viable alternative to this situation, then let it be brought forward.”