As the evidence-gathering phase of teacher-assessed grades grinds to a conclusion, the psychological pressure on teachers is becoming well-nigh unbearable. 

Even the most seasoned professionals are in danger of buckling under the expectations of Ofqual, the exam boards, government ministers, the media, parents and students. And now come the new kids on the block - the lawyers.

It’s not surprising. With every passing week, there’s more doubt and criticism about the objectivity of TAGs in every possible media outlet. Perhaps the best advice for those at the centre of this maelstrom is to do as actors do: don’t look at your reviews. 

The distorted (and deeply unfair) view of teachers’ ability to be objective arises from partial knowledge about how exams really work in normal years, and from the subjectivity of those who have most to win or lose from the outcomes - namely the students and parents. With the stakes higher than ever, the backlash could be even more vicious than last year. 

GCSE and A level 2021: Teachers in the firing line over grades

No one can blame young people for wanting the results that will enable them to pass on to the next phase of their lives. There’s a shortage of places in the self-styled elite universities, which were overstretched after last year’s grades fiasco. 

But we can and should expect the outsiders in the media to exercise better judgement. Their contribution to the TAGs debate is generating and exacerbating the extreme stress that teachers are under. Speculation about bias, unconscious bias and inaccuracy only serves to undermine confidence in the process and does nothing to make it any fairer - possibly the reverse.

In normal years, examiners are able to mark papers away from the spotlight; for schools that they aren’t connected to. Even if they are overworked, external examiners can be objective. 

Ofqual is cautioning parents and students that any pressure on in-school markers will result in malpractice sanctions. But what will happen when the temporary cordon around schools’ TAG procedures is lifted on results day? Schools will struggle to be fair when law firms are eyeing up the appeals market. 

There will be no shortage of external “experts” and “critics” to tell schools how they could have done better. Who can doubt that this most stressful year will end on a bitter note? 

What we, as a profession, are not good at is ensuring that the public is sufficiently well-informed about the limitations of the service. So, as forewarned is forearmed, here are five mitigations that teachers should cite to counter the critics.

Teacher-assessed grades: How to defend yourself against challenges

1. The system is flawed

Schools inherit longstanding problems with the whole terminal assessment system. In spite of endless research and investigation, Ofqual has still not managed to ensure that marking of external assessments is accurate every time in normal years. 

The regulator’s language when describing the quality of marking had softened from “accuracy” pre-2010 to “consistency” by 2019. And consistency is more deliverable in maths than in humanities subjects. 

The average probability of receiving the “definitive grade” (“the same grade as that which would have been given by the principal examiner”) is around 0.96 in chemistry, as opposed to 0.55 to 0.6 in history, English language and English literature. The humanities subjects are always under the most pressure, so it might actually be possible for teachers to improve on previous marking accuracy.

Most importantly, there have always been challenges to published grades. These reached such high volume that the system had to be changed in 2017 to limit the number of reviews requested, in order to avoid overloading the system. 

In 2019, 223,245 GCSE grades were challenged, but unchanged. By contrast, 56,680 were challenged and changed. At A level, 56,910 grades were challenged but unchanged, while 13,070 grades were challenged and changed.

Teachers inherit a system that has never fully commanded the confidence of parents, teachers and students, so any comments or criticisms of this year’s results must take into consideration the historic context of appeals and reviews. 

2. There is no principal examiner to set the standard

Schools will not have the benefit of one principal examiner setting the standard - they will have many. Grainne Hallahan’s Tes article on how to make sure you get moderation right shows that some departments will take their lead from an experienced team leader. Others will operate by consensus. That is not their fault. And neither is necessarily the best way forward. 

My own experience shows that even an assistant principal examiner can make mistakes in marking, resulting in a grade that then has to be overturned. And in subjective subjects, there has always been disagreement with the standard and the ways in which the standard has been maintained during the usual marking session. You only have to read the HMC report from as far back as 2012 to see the level of dissatisfaction in “normal” years. 

3. Teachers have no control over the broader context

Schools have worked hard to ensure a level playing field in a constantly shifting environment over which they have had little or no control. 

When the 2019 Ofqual blog was written, the idea that “reliability is the idea that a student would get the same result in different (hypothetical) circumstances” was indeed hypothetical. Today it is a reality. 

Schools and colleges have had to cobble together assessments from existing exam sources. Teachers have had to adapt the questions to what they have managed to cover during a year that has been more disrupted for some than for others. 

So it is a given that TAGs are adaptable to circumstances rather than the other way round, where schools usually adapt to the exam boards’ requirements.

4. The grade descriptors are comically pitiful

The assessment tools offered by the external experts have fallen woefully short of what was needed. 

A lot of research has gone into the significance of mark schemes in ensuring that marking is consistent and accurate. These are considered to be absolutely central. As pointed out by former Ofqual chief regulator Glenys Stacey as far back as 2014: “We have research in hand looking at how best to design mark schemes, as one proven way to improve the quality of marking itself.”

Consider then the poor quality of the mark schemes made available to teachers this year, where the most hilarious descriptor to differentiate between Grade 8 and 9 was “do everything for grade 8 but ‘a bit better’”.

5. External quality assurance is spread too thin

Schools and colleges will not have the support they need when it comes to defending their marking. 

Quite rightly, Ofqual has stated that: “The external quality assurance arrangements will be focused on making sure that the process and evidence used by centres to determine a grade is reasonable; it will not involve second-guessing teachers’ judgements.” 

But not all centres will be sampled. “The sample of schools and colleges will take into account centre type and other characteristics of the centre and cohort.” 

Arguably, this means that there will be some errors undetected, because the external quality assurance is spread too thin. Centres that pass exam board quality assurance will be in a stronger position in the face of legal challenge than those that have not. The only good news is that “appeals are not likely to lead to adjustments in grades where the original grade is a reasonable exercise of academic judgement supported by the evidence.”

Teachers have been left in the lurch by government, regulator and exam boards yet again this year. On results day, it will be all too easy for the press and politicians to blame schools and colleges for any flawed outcomes. 

Would it be too much to hope for more nuanced reporting, which reflects the fact that teachers have operated pretty much unsupported in a woefully inadequate system, and that yet again they have been resourceful and resilient? Or, indeed, to hope that contingency planning for 2022 will start now, and not at crisis point next year?

Yvonne Williams has spent nearly 34 years in the classroom and 22 years as a head of English. She has contributed chapters on workload and wellbeing to Mentoring English Teachers in the Secondary School, edited by Debbie Hickman (Routledge)