"A" level schadenfreude

 I'm happy to admit to a huge level of enjoyment at seeing the government on the rack for the past few days as they struggle to justify the "A" level results debacle.  

Some will argue that it is unfeeling to to take pleasure in a farce that has caused so much upset to so many young people, not to mention their teachers and university admissions tutors.  But, unlike other government failures,  nobody has died, the young are pretty resilient and will get over it very soon.

If they'd had such things as grades, youngsters in 1348 (the Black Death) or 1665 (the Great Plague) would have been happy to trade a minor educational setback for another thirty or so years of life.  

 It is alarming that so many people fail to realise the seriousness of the situation the world is in as a result of this pandemic and, from international travel through education to going to the pub or having a party on the beach,  think they're entitled as of God given right to carry on with life as normal.

The Black Death probably carried off  60% of the population of Europe, the Great Plague a quarter of London's population.  Despite the wonders of modern science there is as yet no guarantee that the present pandemic will not have equally catastrophic results. 

We need more of the sprit of the Derbyshire villagers of Eyam.

Back to the "A" level results. I think it was right to make the attempt to moderate this year's results, based on teachers' expectations since the actually examinations were not held, so that they conformed roughly to those of previous yeas in order to curb grade inflation.  Unfortunately , the method of doing it, the now infamous algorithm, was flawed.  

Statisticians warned repeatedly whoever was supposed to be responsible that the chosen method would result in downgrading 39% of the results with a disproportionate effect on students from larger classes at state schools compared with  those in the smaller classes of the private sector.

With hubris the responsible authorities (and who they are is being vigorously muddied) ignored the warnings, resulting in five days of confusion which is sure to continue for  quite a while yet as the universities are forced to revise their offers.

The Scottish government saw the problem the moment their results were announced and took the immediate decision to revert to teacher predictions.  That demonstrates "the smack of firm government."  

An even firmer reaction from our own government would have been to heed the warnings, accept teacher  recommendations as the least worst option well before the imperfectly moderated results were announced, and simply regard any grade inflation as a "one off" in difficult circumstances.

 Our European neighbours suffered, of course, from the same problem but appear to have coped successfully and without the drama.  In Germany the exams went ahead as normal, but with smaller groups of students sitting 1.5 metres apart.  In France the famous Baccalauréat was cancelled for the first time since its establishment in 1808 and teachers' recommendations moderated by local juries were used.

GCSE results for the 16 year-olds should be announced later this week.  

 

Here the real question here is why we bother with an an external examination at all at this stage.  Its origins lie in the "School Certificate," then "Ordinary Level General Certificate of Education" (GCE) when the normal school leaving age was still 14, then 15, and the "élite"did an extra year, when the bulk either left to join businesses and  professions such as local government, accountancy, law,  and the even more élite studied for a further two years for entry to the universities. 

Now that the minimum school leaving age is 18 (until when all young people are expected to continue in some form of education, apprenticeship or other training)  there seems to be no point in an external assessment of a pupils' abilities or potential. Internal assessment would be perfectly adequate  for giving the guidance that young people need.  I believe that is what most other developed countries do.

Provided that grade inflation for examinations at 16 (if we must continue to have them) and 18 is consistent between regions, types of school and subjects there is nothing really worth worrying about.  It is an internal mater.

Much more serious is grade inflation in university results.  

 A degree from a British university is an international qualification which, for the moment at any rate, is highly regarded world-wide.  Witness the large number of foreign students who come here to obtain one.  If we allow this qualification to become devalued  by unjustifiable inflation  (some universities are awarding 80% of their finalists a First or 2:1, the top two grades of degree) then there is a danger that both our academic prestige and a useful foreign currency earner will be seriously undermined.