If the Scottish Government decides to recalculate and replace the exam results (as seems likely), will this mean for decades to come any exam grades from 2020 will be regarded as unreliable with job applicants potentially excluded by employers from consideration? Will new anti-discrimination law be introduced?
As an aside (on the basis that data protection law is UK wide), could pupils make a subject access request to see comments made by teachers and by the SQA?
If all results were downgraded by an equal amount, to normalise them so they compared with other years, it would at least be fair. But if they are going to apply esoteric rules like which postcode zone you live in (pupils in "poorer" areas are downgraded more) then that is discriminatory.
I think the best thing Scotland can do is abandon the examination boards' downgrading scheme as unworkable (even Nicola Sturgeon has apologised for it) and revert to the grades that the teachers actually gave the students - or else let the pupils re-take the exams when Covid permits *with the original assessment declared null and void, as if it never happened, so it doesn't prejudice pupils who need to take all their exams at one sitting - eg for medical school*.
I wonder what England's, Wales's and Northern Ireland's exam boards will do, and whether they will revise any downgrading that they were planning, in the light of Scotland's condemnation of the policy.
These days A levels and presumably the Scottish highers are mainly the tick et to tertiary education with few jobs requiring that level of qualificatio n. The fairest solution is to let that cohort of students to go into tertia ry education based on their teachers assessments. Those that cannot hack it , and it will probably be a few will soon drop out. Yes, there is a cost el ement but it will be insignificant compared to furloughing millions of work ers whose jobs probably no longer exist.
Richard
I thought about that after I made my posting. Certainly, as a graduate any pre-University qualifications are over-ridden.
The trouble with your suggestion would be if numbers are limited in a course - I don't know if they are any more - but could letting one sub-cohort into (say) a medical course not have the effect of excluding other applicants?
They aren't completely. In Scotland, you can't teach some subjects unless y ou have a Higher in that subject (or maybe you need Higher English to teach anything?). When I tried Higher English at evening classes there were Engl ish (subject) graduates in the class because they needed the Higher to be a ble to teach. That may be the case in England too in some circumstances. Ce rtainly these days potential employers can't assume an arts graduate will b e able to write a piece of prose.
I can understand some teachers being optimistic with prelims (mocks) markin g if they believe it won't be corrected later, but in my experience teacher s usually marked the mocks strictly, to encourage pupils not to be complace nt for the final, and so the final grade doesn't come as a great disappoint ment.
Any remarking of papers will be done by teachers paid as SQA markers - the same teachers whose assessment is being moderated by the SQA in the first p lace.
The SQA makes fuckup after fuckup with grading, expenses scandals, data man agement, etc. If an English board was so useless schools would choose anoth er board, but SQA has a monopoly in the Scottish state sector.
Owain
I thought Higher English was required for university entry?
I thought the argument was not about the prelims (or 'mocks' as you put it) but over the teachers' assessment of the pupils' performance away from the exams.
I thought the argument was over the moderation process, not re-marking of papers, given the problem arose because pupils were unable to sit the main exams.
Are there no controversies in England and Wales?
There don't seem to be so many, so often.
Owain
But it wasn't done like that
They compared the grades that the schools had gained in previous years with this year's predictions and concluded that a certain set of school teachers had over estimated by more than the remaining set of schools.
Which seems perfectly reasonably to me. School's exam results do not jump up the league table by a couple of 100 places in a single year. The odd individual stellar student may out perform the school's historic results, but the whole school does not improve substantially.
So it just happens that, quite by chance, these overestimates were more prevalent in "poorer" areas.
But why am I not surprised by that?
No, not because there's any deliberate cheating going on. But because teachers will be using a prediction for a pupil's grades to encourage them. And students from worse performing schools need more encouragement than those in good schools.
Unfortunately, ISTM these teachers then forgot to moderate their encouragement when they were asked for a "genuine " prediction.
HTH
tim
May depend on the university or the subject.
I certainly didn't have any Highers or A Levels; got in with a National Diploma.
Owain
for a science/engineering subject
why?
In England - O Level in English (and Maths) will usually be required, but A level - only if applicable to the choice of degree
The Cabinet Secretary is now saying he was wrong and has apologised.
After a few years of work experience exam grades mean very little for an employer.
If employers distrust 2020 grades then the obvious answer is for them to impose their own exams/tests on prospective employees.
Or add a filter to the selection to exclude all applicants holding
2020 grades? A far cheaper and simpler solution I would suggest.
Desired courses at the good/top universities are over subscribed by a ratio of up to 1:20.
Medical schools are a different story alltogether as they all require sitting the UCAT exam (some schools give it equal weight to A-level/Highers COMBINED average - i.e. 50% of the entry score. Many (most?) also conduct interviews with prospective candidates.
so the bullies won then
I think it is very magnanimous of the Cabinet Secretary to take the blame - unless he directed the examination board to downgrade in such an insensitive way. It should be the head of the exam board, not the Cabinet Secretary, who has to fall on his sword.
Looking at past results at each school is a good idea, but it should not be applied inflexibly and it should allow for the fact that you *will* get anomalies in each school year - children who perform better than the school's normal range. Maybe if they hadn't said that the amount of downgrading would be different in "richer" and "poorer" areas - but having let that cat out of the bag, is it any wonder that children in "poorer" areas complain?
I imagine that English, Welsh and NI exam boards have been told a few home truths today by the English/Welsh/NI education ministers - along the lines of "if you don't downgrade the results, you won't then have to face the ignominy of having to reverse that decision later on". After all, the Scottish situation has set a precedent now: there would be uproar if the Scottish children were treated differently from the English/Welsh/NI ones.
This year has been a bizarre one. The fact that no children have been able to take O/A level exams (or the Scottish equivalent) and be judged by their performance in those exams, should not discriminate against students' chances of doing the university course and career that they have chosen.
Many children could re-take the exams next summer if they felt hard-done-by, but medical students don't get that luxury because med schools will only look at the first (not the best) result, and expect all exams of a given type (eg all O level, or all A level) to be take at the same time.
But this would be the first examination result and all the exams would in practice be taken at the same time given that no exams were taken in 2020 due to Covid. All that would be needed would be to declare the estimated grade to be declared null and void (which I assume would be the consequence of any successful appeal).
Rule Scotland via social media!
Corrent
There was nothing wrong with the way marks were awarded. He was wrong to believe that people will accept it, hence the apology.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.