These pupils are not statistics to teachers: they are youngsters they have worked with for years

Kay Mountfield takes Ofqual to task over a grading system she says is manifestly unfair

When the announcement was made in March that the summer exams were to be cancelled, we and our students went through a form of grieving. So much had been invested in terms of time and hard work by all those young people when suddenly everything came to an abrupt halt. Without doubt, our students wanted to sit their examinations; they wanted to have the opportunity to show the work they had done.

They moved through the gamut of emotions but trusted that the Government and Ofqual would be fair in awarding them the grades they deserved.

Head teachers and their teams approached the decisions about centre-assessed grades with enormous care and professionalism; these students are not statistics to teachers; they are young people who they have worked with for many years. The consultation documents and guidance provided by Ofqual and JCQ were very thorough and senior leaders followed daily webinars and videos; ASCL’S support for senior leaders was outstanding in guiding us how to put forward our grades. Equally the explanations about how the model would ensure that schools would achieve grades in line with their last few years’ attainment were clear, as was the information about prior attainment and how this would be applied. Therefore we have trusted the system and I appeal to Ofqual and the boards to look closely at and respond quickly to us and the schools affected by the model not working for them. Young people’s futures are at stake.

We are clearly one of the schools for whom the statistical model has not worked. We submitted data which was almost identical to our results last year; our trends of historic achievement and student prior attainment are very stable. In fact, if anything, this year’s cohort had a slightly higher level of prior attainment than recent years. We therefore felt confident in submitting centre assessed grades differing by just 1 per cent from the average of the four previous years.

Given this, we cannot be anything other than bitterly disappointed by the results that we have received. Last year, 50 per cent of grades awarded to our students were A* or A. The four year average for A*-A grades is 47.5 per cent. This year the total is 40.6 per cent. At A* to B over the last four years the average has been 77.6 per cent. This year it was 70.5 per cent. Just over 45 per cent of our centre assessed grades were downgraded and out of a cohort of 220 students, just 38 were unaffected by grade reductions. These results fit no trend line of historic data. They are significantly lower than any grades the school has achieved. The

result is that it has put many, many young people in a situation where they are unable to take up places for which they should have easily qualified.

Many of the universities have been incredibly supportive and sensitive. Not all have been able to be flexible, however, and the result is still that we, and many schools, have young people who have already been through a gruelling five months and are still faced with uncertainty. Time is of the essence here.

They need answers in days not weeks and the students absolutely deserve a response that meets the clearly stated aim of the process that no student would be disadvantaged by not having the opportunity to sit the exams.