![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 27 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2020 UK GCSE and A-Level grading controversy to 2020 United Kingdom school exam grading controversy. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Propose to merge Ofqual exam results algorithm here. Much overlap between the two articles. -- Wire723 ( talk) 11:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
It is probably good that the articles didn't get merged (yet). It is sad that the discussion in both articles is written as if by competing interest groups. Issues are discussed like on average would the algorithm have penalized state school students. Yet, the important technical fact which was discussed at the time in a few articles and well-understood wasn't about whether particular *groups* were treated unfairly. The issue was that the algorithm produced an exact copy of previous years' grade distribution for each classroom. On the level of grade distributions (averages etc etc) this is pretty unassailable, but the issue is what it does for *each individual student.* If in previous years the distribution in such-and-such school for Maths is A*, A, B, D, D, D then the fourth-best student in that class *will* get a D by the algorithm. Even if the poor kid worked his/her heart out to deserve an A*.
It would be like having a criminal justice system where the same number of people are convicted to life imprisonment in each town as had been the year before. The judges just rank the population by criminality and the twelfth worst criminal gets life in prison this year, if the twelfth-worst criminal got life in prison last year. No matter that *this* year in this small village, the twelfth worst criminal only committed littering.
Please someone try to deal with this, the notion that a system which was built to be politically unassailable from the statistics, would have been horribly unfair for individual students. That point is totally missed here, where all the discussion is on the things the algorithm would have done well, and the actual algorithm article misses the point of what was wrong now! Createangelos ( talk) 22:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Almost the same algorithm and controversy played out earlier in the month in Scotland and many sources discuss them together. [1] [2]. 2020 United Kingdom school examinations grading controversies would cover it. Fences& Windows 23:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have petered out without conclusion last year. It still strikes me as strange that the article title only refers to GCSE and A-levels when the devolved nations, particularly Scotland, had the same issue with Highers and so on. The article also now contains an improvement tag suggesting that we increase coverage of the controversy as it applies in the devolved nations, but improving the article to cover the situation in Scotland (say) then further draws the article content away from the title. From the discussion above, clearly "controversy" and "uproar" are far too far, but looking back now, it still was and is controversial, and it still is an illustrative lesson of the perils of the use of algorithms by government, so I'd suggest we steer away from just classifying it as just a sub-story of the educational response to COVID in the UK. As such, I'd be keen on moving the article to "2020 United Kingdom examination grading controversy", omitting 'school' because A-levels are not taken exclusively by students in school, but can be taken independently, in colleges, and other educational institutions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
BTECs seem to have passed under the radar! BTECs Students wishing to follow a vocational route take BTEC courses, Level 1 & 2 lead to GCSEs, and Level 3 lead to A levels. The Level 3 grade was issued, withdrawn and reissued- level 2 weren't issued but were remarked. So what was the standardisation technique? How did Pearson get the contract?-- ClemRutter ( talk) 17:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is more than a Start. I have upped Schools to C- I don't think I can justify a B, as there are issues not addressed. Needs to be discussed-any opinions?-- ClemRutter ( talk) 07:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian raises the issue of examination fee rebates "Headteachers call for 75% examination fee rebate in England". the Guardian. 2021-06-15.. This give some tantalising details of the costs to school of an A level entry- and the cost to teachers time of continual assessment- both in 2020 and 2021. 2021 is out of scope for this article. Quo vadis magister? -- ClemRutter ( talk) 08:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. For increasing clarity and also being more inclusive in scope. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 22:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
2020 UK GCSE and A-Level grading controversy → 2020 United Kingdom school exam grading controversy – Fewer acronyms and more clear to international readers as per WP:NAME. Arcahaeoindris ( talk) 21:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 27 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2020 UK GCSE and A-Level grading controversy to 2020 United Kingdom school exam grading controversy. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Propose to merge Ofqual exam results algorithm here. Much overlap between the two articles. -- Wire723 ( talk) 11:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
It is probably good that the articles didn't get merged (yet). It is sad that the discussion in both articles is written as if by competing interest groups. Issues are discussed like on average would the algorithm have penalized state school students. Yet, the important technical fact which was discussed at the time in a few articles and well-understood wasn't about whether particular *groups* were treated unfairly. The issue was that the algorithm produced an exact copy of previous years' grade distribution for each classroom. On the level of grade distributions (averages etc etc) this is pretty unassailable, but the issue is what it does for *each individual student.* If in previous years the distribution in such-and-such school for Maths is A*, A, B, D, D, D then the fourth-best student in that class *will* get a D by the algorithm. Even if the poor kid worked his/her heart out to deserve an A*.
It would be like having a criminal justice system where the same number of people are convicted to life imprisonment in each town as had been the year before. The judges just rank the population by criminality and the twelfth worst criminal gets life in prison this year, if the twelfth-worst criminal got life in prison last year. No matter that *this* year in this small village, the twelfth worst criminal only committed littering.
Please someone try to deal with this, the notion that a system which was built to be politically unassailable from the statistics, would have been horribly unfair for individual students. That point is totally missed here, where all the discussion is on the things the algorithm would have done well, and the actual algorithm article misses the point of what was wrong now! Createangelos ( talk) 22:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Almost the same algorithm and controversy played out earlier in the month in Scotland and many sources discuss them together. [1] [2]. 2020 United Kingdom school examinations grading controversies would cover it. Fences& Windows 23:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have petered out without conclusion last year. It still strikes me as strange that the article title only refers to GCSE and A-levels when the devolved nations, particularly Scotland, had the same issue with Highers and so on. The article also now contains an improvement tag suggesting that we increase coverage of the controversy as it applies in the devolved nations, but improving the article to cover the situation in Scotland (say) then further draws the article content away from the title. From the discussion above, clearly "controversy" and "uproar" are far too far, but looking back now, it still was and is controversial, and it still is an illustrative lesson of the perils of the use of algorithms by government, so I'd suggest we steer away from just classifying it as just a sub-story of the educational response to COVID in the UK. As such, I'd be keen on moving the article to "2020 United Kingdom examination grading controversy", omitting 'school' because A-levels are not taken exclusively by students in school, but can be taken independently, in colleges, and other educational institutions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
BTECs seem to have passed under the radar! BTECs Students wishing to follow a vocational route take BTEC courses, Level 1 & 2 lead to GCSEs, and Level 3 lead to A levels. The Level 3 grade was issued, withdrawn and reissued- level 2 weren't issued but were remarked. So what was the standardisation technique? How did Pearson get the contract?-- ClemRutter ( talk) 17:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is more than a Start. I have upped Schools to C- I don't think I can justify a B, as there are issues not addressed. Needs to be discussed-any opinions?-- ClemRutter ( talk) 07:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian raises the issue of examination fee rebates "Headteachers call for 75% examination fee rebate in England". the Guardian. 2021-06-15.. This give some tantalising details of the costs to school of an A level entry- and the cost to teachers time of continual assessment- both in 2020 and 2021. 2021 is out of scope for this article. Quo vadis magister? -- ClemRutter ( talk) 08:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. For increasing clarity and also being more inclusive in scope. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 22:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
2020 UK GCSE and A-Level grading controversy → 2020 United Kingdom school exam grading controversy – Fewer acronyms and more clear to international readers as per WP:NAME. Arcahaeoindris ( talk) 21:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)