Sally Coates

Chris Cook

On Thursday afternoon, journalists were taken into the basement of a Westminster building, fed chicken satay and walked through Ofqual’s report on the recent English GCSE. During the summer, a late shift in grade boundaries shocked schools, leaving many high-flying schools with significantly worse results than they had been expecting.

The most striking outcome of the Ofqual research is that it seems to find evidence of cheating. It is incidental to the main purpose of the review, which was to ask whether the shift in the grade boundaries was correct. But it’s a stunning – and quite clear – finding.

Here is the issue: English GCSE can be taken in such a way that the pupil has done everything except for teacher-marked “controlled assessments” in the final months. If they do that, the teachers know what marks each pupil needs. And teachers give those marks.

In the graph below, Ofqual have worked out how many marks candidates needed from their teachers to get a C. If they got a mark to the right of the red vertical line, the teacher gave them a high enough grade to get the C. The shape of that distribution is, frankly, a sign of something horribly wrong. Teachers are massaging marks.

 

Chris Cook

The Ofqual decision that is all is well on the English GCSE has not been received well by schools. I thought, further to my last post, that it would help understand school leaders’ feelings about this if we took a case study of an excellent school.

I have asked Sally Coates, head of Burlington Danes Church of England Academy – one of the Ark Schools – to explain what she went through last week.  Before you read her account, I thought I would explain why this particular school matters.

Like other Ark Schools, BDA uses “progression” to gauge its success. It benchmarks itself on improving and stretching each child, regardless of the level of their education when they enter. It does not simply attempt to hit the government’s targets.

As a result, BDA expends effort on people who already know enough to get Cs in English, maths and three other subjects – the basket of achievement used by the government to measure school success. This school does not – unlike others – fixate on the C/D line.

This is easy to spot: Ark’s performance rises dramatically when you use a measure that gives schools credit for getting children to higher grades than C. BDA stacked up 24 children last year who managed straight As in English, maths and three other subjects.

Let me be clear,  the school does keep an eye on that grade boundary. Here, indeed, is a photo of the Venn diagram Ms Coates describes below, enhanced with some light photoshopping to make sure it is entirely anonymous.

Children are in a circle showing where they are weak. Each child in each circle gets appropriate tutoring to help drive them up to the line.

But this intervention is only one of a chain of monitoring lines. Children in the “safehouse” are being monitored against higher grades elsewhere. I will return to this, but BDA’s results show a great deal more As and Bs than is normal.

That is why Ms Coates’s anger is so important: despite being focused on progression, not the narrow “C will do” measures used by the government, the school was caught out by the shift in the C/D boundary. Now, over to Ms Coates: