Today has been an SQA results day unlike any other. Every year I go into school to review results, celebrate success and handle disappointment. Reviewing component marks and grade boundaries, we can see who is unfortunate and misses by a mark. A few marks either way can sometimes make results look great or bad.
Today, results were emailed. I was looking forward to a strong set of results at National 5, reflecting students’ good performance throughout the year in tests and in their prelim. Opening the email, my anticipation quickly changed to incredulity: 65 per cent A-B was now 65 per cent C-D. Bar the top (A1) and bottom (no award), every student had a reduced grade. Many of them had decreased by two grades.
Literature states that it is common for teachers to overpredict and Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) data confirms this. What surprised me was the extent of the change. Since almost all the grades have been changed, does the SQA think that I and my colleagues are dishonest? Unprofessional? Unqualified? (I am an experienced N5 marker.)
Background: Poorest far more likely to have Higher pass downgraded
News: 25% of teacher estimates ‘adjusted’
SQA results day 2020: Live blog
SQA results: By the numbers
I expected adjustments and, reading Professor Guy Nason on the statistical process, it seems my students may have suffered from the “waterfall effect”.
Is it fair to adjust based upon other classmates’ results rather than nationally? No.
Is it fair to adjust based upon the school subject result history? No.
Is it fair to adjust on overall school attainment or SIMD (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation) profiles? No.
Is it fair that smaller cohorts are adjusted in a similar way to larger cohorts? No.
I have received many emails from upset and perplexed students and parents saying it isn’t fair and wanting an explanation. I am unable to provide one.
Will I be appealing almost all the awards? Yes.
I took what I felt was a conservative approach in my estimates and can back up the data with a range of robust supporting material. I accept some awards get adjusted across the grade boundaries, but I don’t understand and can’t explain why a student with an over 80 per cent average from prelim multiple class topic tests is a B student, or why others averaging 72 per cent should get a C6 award. B3 or B4 might be understandable, but a C6?
Questions remain about the statistical adjustment process. There are other questions, too. Is there capacity within the appeals system to cope with thousands of appeals in each subject? Will there be time for those reviewing the evidence to fully consider it all?
The irony is the SQA appointees reviewing the evidence are teachers. I can confirm I will never be an appointee again.
The writer is a secondary teacher in Scotland
