We have all learned a lot about adaptation, communication and versatility over the past year. Teachers, leaders and support staff have moved curricula online, organised testing at the drop of a hat, dealt with closures and supported the wellbeing of students and colleagues alike. 

It is a crying shame that Ofqual hasn’t learned a thing. 

The latest clanger was dropped on Thursday. Those of us who work in schools will be growing rather used to seemingly randomly timed announcements, appearing in the strangest of places. So it was no surprise to find the latest update about the summer exams posted on the Ofqual blog. 

The method of delivery was no surprise, but the content was an absolute insult. It is loaded with a lethal cocktail of semantic ambiguity and imperative command. In summary (those of you who have read the pieces will see the irony there), the quality-assurance process is futile and massively increases workload for no tangible gain. 

GCSEs and A levels 2021: Extra workload for teacher-assessed grades

Ofqual has broken the process into three stages, the first of which is a review of schools’ centre policies. The exam boards “will be phoning every centre to ask about key aspects of the centre policy”. 

So, on top of the submission of the centre policy, schools are also required to submit a summary - which is the part that is going to be reviewed. The hours and hours and hours of time that have gone into detailed policy-writing will be vetted by reading...yes, the summary on the first page. 

If you have been involved with policy writing, you will know the difficulties of writing such documents under time pressure and in the current circumstances. If you know anybody writing the documents, you will have seen the pressure they are under. If you don’t know who has been doing it in your school, look for the greying leaders, rocking in the corner. 

The level of responsibility to get these things right is incredible, and it isn’t something that you get two goes at - but don’t worry. “Where there are concerns or questions arising from the summary or from the phone call, exam boards will review the full policy.” Talk about hanging over a barrel. 

It gets better. Schools will be informed if their policy has been accepted. Or you might hear that you are being visited (virtually). But you don’t need to wait for approval before continuing with your approach. 

So, in short, on top of hoping that we have got it right and starting the incredibly intricate assessment, marking and moderating process, we need to keep in the back of our minds the idea that we might be told we are doing it all wrong. And we need to look over our shoulders, just in case we hear the (virtual) footsteps behind us. Seriously? Come on. 

The justification is: “The aim of these visits is to make sure centres have appropriate arrangements in place for internal standardisation, but the focus could be on any aspect of the centre’s policy.” 

They have had the whole policy submitted to them. What is the point in a visit midway through an assessment phase? Could this not have been considered before schools had started assessing? 

We have fewer than eight weeks until we are required to submit data. This is ill-considered, last-minute pressure that simply adds to the workload of teachers - those who are in the classrooms, trying to get these students their grades.

Exhausted teachers feel undervalued

The icing on the cake is stage three - the killer blow for teachers of all levels: “Once the grades are received, every centre will be asked to provide samples of student work.” 

And then Ofqual says, in effect: you’d better be organised, because we want it 48 hours after we ask for it - or else. 

The language used here is patronising and threatening. It makes me feel like Big Brother is going to mess with me if any of my marks are wrong. And yet it’s OK for them to say that a grade 9 is a grade 8, but a bit better? 

To put this all into perspective, I have six assessments that are making up our portfolios for English. We have 165 students in each year group. That is 990 pieces that need marking. Twenty per cent of these will need moderation, meaning that the total number of scripts really sits at 1,188. That is between four teachers, all of whom are teaching a full timetable. 

Not only this but, to ensure fairness and consistency, we are working by candidate number only. We are doing what we have been told to do, and we are doing it fairly, but still we are not trusted. Still, we send a futile sample to be checked. 

And what will they be comparing? There is no constant between centres, because we have been told essentially that we can use any type of assessment we like to justify grades. So will this just be another farcical algorithm exercise? 

Those of us who work in challenging schools that have been on a rapid path of improvement have one final hurdle to jump before our students are given their grades and we are trusted as professionals. 

Luckily for us, “Exam boards will prioritise for quality-assurance checks those centres where results are more out of line with their historical results than other centres.” Rough translation: we are going to put pressure on those who are disadvantaged and continue to advantage those who have advantage in life. 

It is infuriating, it is unfair and, worst of all, it is an insult to those of us who have worked tirelessly throughout this whole mess to ensure that those who are most disadvantaged get something out of school after such disruption.

In a profession where so many people are leaving because of sheer exhaustion and fatigue, I am completely at a loss as to why the professional body overseeing exams is so detached from the reality of the classroom. 

I’m disappointed, and I feel completely let down. The blog is ill-timed and ill-toned, and has left a huge proportion of teachers feeling undervalued and not trusted. 

Adam Riches is an assistant principal and senior leader for teaching and learning, specialist leader in education and head of English. He tweets @TeachMrRiches