Yesterday evening, the nation’s TV screens flickered with story after story of young people whose dreams had been shattered.

A-level results day, which should have been a day of celebrating success at the end of seven years of secondary education, turned into one of despair and fury. 

We heard of George, a high-flyer. His centre-assessment grades (CAGs) had been A*AB, and he had been destined to study computer science at King’s College London. The algorithm had converted these stunning grades to BBD and, just like that, his dreams were quashed.

Nick, unsurprisingly, attended a local state sixth-form college in an area of socioeconomic deprivation, not far from where I taught last year. 

Was he one of the young people whom education secretary Gavin Williamson was referring to when he expressed his concern that a reliance on CAGs could see young people “losing out twice over, both with their education and their future prospects”?

A-level results: Another vote of no-confidence in teachers

The sixth-form college George attended is one where many of my former students have gone. It is a high-performing college, but this year its grades were the lowest they have been in 10 years. The principal stated that over half of this year’s A-level grades had been downgraded, despite the college’s strong trajectory of success over the previous three years. 

His view on this year’s exam grading process was that it was “outrageous” and “deeply unfair”. He, like many other school leaders and politicians, called on the government to revert to CAGs.

Against the backdrop of existing inequality, which has only worsened during the pandemic, it is hard to comprehend how Ofqual can justify dealing young people in poverty yet another blow. And yet Ofqual has insisted that CAGs for the poorest students were “implausibly high”, and that it had no choice but to downgrade nearly 40 per cent of results. 

This is yet another vote of no-confidence in the professionals who have worked tirelessly to educate and support our young people. Is it really too much to suggest that the judgements of those who have worked with students, day in, day out, for between two and seven years may be more accurate than an algorithm? 

Not to mention that the CAGs were not arrived at simply by individual teachers plucking grades out of thin air. The process was fully transparent, with teachers, heads of departments and senior leaders reviewing, ranking, re-ranking and evaluating evidence, fully aware of the external scrutiny the results would receive throughout the entire process. 

What if exams are misleading?

Instead of implying that teachers have been unprofessional or unethical in their assessment of their students’ capabilities, how about we consider that CAGs provided an accurate, complete picture of students’ abilities, rather than the outcome of a few high-stakes exams, which can produce misleading results?

Ask any teacher, and they’ll be able to tell you about a handful of students each year whose results were not what anyone expected and did not reflect their potential. I remember the year when torrential rain mid-exam led to a leak in the roof of the sports hall, and students had to continue writing while staff hurriedly placed buckets around the room. 

I also remember Ahmed, the student whose family had been evicted the day before one of his exams, and who had to go into the hall in borrowed uniform, knowing he had no home to return to once the exam was over.

Yes, there are mechanisms in place to support students in “exceptional circumstances”. But often these appeals are rejected and, even when they are taken into account, the adjustments made are so minimal that they still do not reflect the young person’s ability, had they been working under optimal conditions.

Reinforcing the power of the elite

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Ofqual is encouraging parents, carers and students to lodge a complaint with schools in the first instance if they feel that they have been downgraded as a result of prejudice or bias. School staff are almost as devastated as the students themselves, and Ofqual’s guidance feels both divisive and unhelpful. 

Of course, families should turn to schools at this time, but it must be recognised that it is not teachers who have put students in this awful predicament. 

The issue is further compounded by the fact that schools could face a bill of £111.75 per student, per subject if they launch unsuccessful appeals. George’s college could, therefore, have to pay £335.25 if his grades are reconsidered but not changed. 

Furious school leaders have taken to social media to call for appeal fees to be waived for schools in areas of high economic deprivation, in recognition of the fact that their already stretched budgets will not go far enough to challenge all of their students’ results. 

If this doesn’t happen, schools such as Wales High School in Rotherham, where 84 per cent of students had at least one grade moderated down, are faced with three options: pay thousands of pounds for appeals, pass on the cost to impoverished families or accept grades lower than those they know their students could have achieved. This simply isn’t an issue at schools such as Eton or Harrow.

This year - a year of hardship, the like of which most of us have never seen - teachers actually had the opportunity to ensure that no student was hampered by exceptional circumstances. The CAGs were holistic, carefully considered, professional judgements, which best represented students’ abilities. 

Little did we realise that this year’s exceptional circumstance would be an algorithm, which has simply reinforced the power of the elite, and left the country’s most economically deprived young people even more disadvantaged. 

Gerry Robinson is a headteacher, leader in inclusive education and activist. Gerry tweets as @gerryrobin5on