The Guardian view on A-level algorithms: failing the test of fairness
From the moment in mid-March when schools closed indefinitely to curb the spread of Covid-19, it was obvious that 2020 would be an anomalous and stressful year in the education of millions of young people. For pupils scheduled to take GCSEs and A-levels, the situation has been particularly disorienting and strange. As it became clear that end-of-school exams would not take place, pupils’ future prospects were taken out of their hands and placed at the mercy of an assessment system to be devised by exam regulators. They have been badly failed.
Instead of coming up with a system that focused on individual students, taking into account the wholly exceptional circumstances that jeopardised their life chances, regulators made it the priority to achieve a “normal” statistical spread of results and avoid grade inflation. England’s exam regulator, Ofqual, has done this by combining teacher assessments of likely grades with the pupil’s previous performance and the past record of the school as a whole. On the basis of a similar contextualisation, the Scottish Qualifications Authority last week downgraded 124,000 pupils’ awards, which were based on teacher estimates of what they would have achieved. Pupils in the poorest areas were marked down the most. This Thursday, when 250,000 English pupils will receive their A-level results, almost 40% of grade assessments by teachers may be revised downwards, according to research seen by the Guardian.
The socioeconomic dimension to the inequalities in our education system is well-established. The higher property prices near “good” schools reflect a sociological sorting process which entrenches class divides in the state system. With varying success, governments have attempted to address the problem. The pupil premium, a sum of money given to schools each year which is proportionate to the number of disadvantaged pupils, is one example. The government’s championing of “improving” schools shows a recognition of the work being done in challenging areas to shift the dial. But by building in a criterion of past school performance to this year’s A-level and GCSE results, Ofqual has tied the fortunes of individual students to preexisting inequalities of outcome. To try in this way to impose a standard spread of results, which pupils are powerless to affect, is unjust. Nicola Sturgeon has rightly apologised on behalf of the Scottish government to pupils and on Tuesday, in an extraordinary U-turn, all downgrades in National and Higher exams were reversed.
What a shambles. On Tuesday, the former Conservative education secretary Justine Greening described the government’s approach in England as “levelling down in action”. Failing a preemptive U-turn in England, mitigating action must be urgently undertaken following Thursday’s publication of results. The appeals process, only introduced last week under pressure from schools, must be made easy, broadranging and cheap to access. Schools should ensure the voices of families who might normally lack the self-confidence to challenge the system are heard. Too often, post-exam appeals are the province of middle-class parents who are not afraid to assert themselves. In what promises to be a torrid clearing process on Thursday, universities should show flexibility, particularly to pupils from poorer backgrounds. Finally, the government must make sure that all pupils who wish to take autumn “resits” are given support and assistance ahead of them. Vouchers to pay for extra tuition for the less welloff would help. The government bears responsibility for what is beginning to look like an almighty mess. It must act swiftly to help those affected extricate themselves.