Greater grade clarity

One of the bright spots in Tory policy is education: introducing more choice and greater rigour is bearing fruit in A-level results. The number of top grades is at a six-year high and it’s particularly encouraging to see a rise in the popularity of science, technology, engineering and maths. Students have every right to be proud of their endeavours and we wish them luck in whatever they choose to do next.

They deserve sympathy, however, when it comes to the enduring lack of clarity over how grades are calculated. How is the notion of a gold standard compatible with Ofqual’s practice of ensuring that the proportion of children awarded pass marks is roughly the same in each year? And the head of the Joint Council for Qualifications, which represents exam boards, referred to the “stability” of the results, which is an odd way to view exams. Should it not be possible for the proportion of people receiving certain grades to fluctuate annually depending on talent? Especially given that this year the exams are reportedly harder.

There’s also an irony that just as grades are going up, universities are making it easier to get in: about a fifth of all offers are now unconditional. Universities can operate a pull factor on pupils’ aspirations and thus ought to be offering fewer, more high-quality places with a greater range of choice in fees and time commitment. If secondary schools really are getting better, then students deserve universities that also raise their game.

Hard work driven by higher standards can pay off, and success must be measured by transparent exam data. Students and employers must be able to trust completely the qualifications being awarded.