There have been some very interesting articles this summer on the desirability of judging schools by their statistical performance, particularly in their examination results.
Perhaps the most obvious reason for questioning the value of these “quantitative” and “objective” results is that when the examination process is placed under scrutiny - as it has been increasingly this year and last year - the foundations are not as solid as they need to be.
Teachers know this year will be different in a “mixed economy” of A level and GCSE results. The problem lies in finding equivalents between legacy and “strengthened” new specifications. For students this will mean having to explain these differences to future employers and university departments. At best, this is an inconvenience.
For schools and subject leaders the questions are more immediately fraught.
Ofqual had promised that results in subjects such as English would be held at the same levels as last year in terms of grades in order not to disadvantage students in the first year. At this point, it ought to be borne in mind that Ofqual has been working to curb “grade inflation” since the regulator came into being in 2010.
2016 was the first year in which the percentage of top A level grades fell and “grade inflation” was checked - downward in the percentage of top grades. What will happen in subsequent years will be interesting, to say the least.
If we expect more conservative awarding at the higher grades in order to curb “grade inflation”, the consequences for many teachers’ pay and wellbeing will be significant.
There will be casualties
With the prospect of a shrinking economy in terms of top grades available, there will be casualties, especially where senior leadership teams, local authorities and trusts have very blinkered expectations of “year on year improvement” and believe that the raw exam results are directly equivalent.
And how might the phased changes affect the standing of different subjects in relation to each other? Will there be an advantage in studying/teaching the still unreformed A levels?
Results day’s statistics offer hope to boys’ schools and mixed classes, as boys suddenly overtake girls in the top grade allocations of the reformed A levels. The explanation that larger proportions of coursework favoured girls and that more external examination favours boys needs to be looked at in terms of gender discrimination. What would be the fairest balance to ensure equality?
It has been noted that this year the proportion of highest grades rose overall, but fell in the reformed specifications. There are two explanations for this. The first, not wholly convincing, one is that the cohort taking subjects like English now contains fewer clever pupils, hence the drop.
But it should be possible for students to exceed expectations - as, indeed, they often do. Teachers constantly push their students to achievements beyond the expectations of perceived intelligence levels measured by the baseline assessment MidYiS, Alis, etc.
Predictive statistics create an artificial bar on the recognition of teachers and students’ work. Is it any wonder that teachers question the validity of the whole examination system?
If the expected outcome is that the cohort as a whole achieves results that reflect the normal distribution curve in the same shape and in the same dimensions each time it is examined, then what changes? And what is achieved?
Examinations should not be a reiteration of intelligence tests, but an indication underwritten by the state regulator and examination boards of what students know and can do.
The advantage of retakes
The second explanation for the differences between the old and the new is that they are taken under very different circumstances.
The legacy specifications offer the advantage of retakes. This is no insignificant consideration, especially as in 2012: “The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance - Britain’s biggest exam board - has already revealed how the number of A grades achieved by students last year was boosted by a quarter after retakes were added.”
Since Michael Gove’s intention in reforming qualifications was to do away with second chances in the form of resits, can trusts and schools directly compare results between subjects during the transitionary years?
This causes some difficulty for leadership teams in making fair and appropriate comparisons for the purposes of the accountability framework. How can they contextualise the results statistically?
What form of numerical wizardry can be brought to bear on the subjects to make the comparisons fair?
The writer is a head of English in the south of England. The views expressed in this article are her own
Keep up to date with all the latest GCSE news, views and analysis on our GCSE hub
Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and like Tes on Facebook
