Michael Gove, a former secretary of state for education, is well known for his dislike of “experts”. People like me, a former teacher, now teacher trainer and academic, were part of what he called ”the blob”. He went so far as to proclaim that everybody is fed up of experts. 

But when it comes to deflecting criticism, taking the blame or just being dumped on, it appears that experts still have a role to play at the Department for Education.

This year’s examination-results period has been unlike any I have seen in my 35 years in education. I’m struggling to find the right words to describe it. Chaotic? Shambolic? A pantomime? A farce, a tragedy, perhaps even cataclysmic. We’ve had confusion, contradictions and broken promises.

Yet after all this, not a single person in charge has done the honourable thing and resigned, or even offered to resign. Indeed, Nick Gibb, minister for schools, has indicated he wouldn’t resign, as there is bound to be an inquiry and he’d have to give evidence. How resigning would prevent him giving evidence is beyond me. Perhaps he’s more worried about what a successor may find out from his files and notes about what really went on.  It’s almost as if ministers are actively trying to deflect the blame.

I think they are, and this is my hypothesis.

A-level and GCSE results: Blame the experts (again)

Ministers need someone to take the fall for this fiasco, and who better than for them to blame the experts (again)? 

But, given that the DfE asked for the algorithm in the first place, how can the blame be laid fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the experts, rather than the politicians?

This is how I think they might do it. On GCSE results day, Nick Gibb still maintained that the model used to calculate this year’s A-level and GCSE results was “fair, robust and popular”. I listened to him say this on two or three occasions, in various interviews. 

When I listened again, very carefully, I suddenly understood what he was doing. Nick Gibb was referring to the “model”, not the algorithm, as fair, robust and popular. I think he’s building a defence for the inevitable inquiries to follow.

The logic I think he is laying down to avoid taking the blame is as follows. The DfE model was fine: people liked it and it stated quite clearly that disadvantaged children should not be further disadvantaged. 

But, when the “experts” created the algorithm to support the model they messed up, they got it wrong. When the algorithm was applied, it didn’t do what it was supposed to do - to the shock of the ministers. 

Ministerial heroes

Ministers then, like heroes, intervened and reversed what the bad experts had done. They saved the day and the places of all the students. 

How else can we account for his contradictory statements - that it was fair and robust - when clearly the algorithm was biased against disadvantaged children, schools and colleges with a less than stellar A-level and GCSE record?

By grading, then ranking students and finally comparing the outcomes to previous cohorts’, the very bright student who deserved an A* didn’t get one because nobody got an A* in the past few years. Someone had to get a U, because students have previously got a U so, the bottom-ranked student pulled the short straw and failed an exam they couldn’t even take.

There is a computing term, GIGO, which means “garbage in, garbage out”. Algorithms are created by humans who make choices and will have biases - conscious or subconscious. The algorithm created for grading this year was based on a model, but if that model was deficient, lacked detail or made assumptions, then the programmer can only deliver what they’ve been told to deliver. It may well be that many mistakes were made in creating the “maths” for this algorithm. But the mistakes did not occur all on one side.

All the right grades

Listening to the various interviews, I was reminded of the classic Morecambe and Wise sketch, in which the pianist André Previn accuses Eric Morecambe of not playing the right notes on the piano. “Listen, sunshine,” says Eric, “I’m playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.” 

Well, this model and algorithm has probably given all the right grades, but not necessarily to the right students.

Experts make great fall guys. The work they do is complex, so not easily understood by the general public (nor, it seems, ministers). They are often anonymous and subject to confidentiality agreements. Unless an expert decides to become a whistleblower, you’ll never find out exactly what went on. And, for some years now, we’ve been softened up to distrust experts.

What I see happening is a massive case of backside covering, and the careful laying down of a narrative to enable ministers to wriggle out of any responsibility for this Pythonesque exam fiasco.

Ministers must accept responsibility. They must be held accountable and, if they refuse to resign, they should be sacked - and not just shifted to another department, job or place where they could potentially inflict yet more damage.

James Williams is a senior lecturer in education at the School of Education and Social Work, University of Sussex. He tweets @edujdw