Talk:2020 United Kingdom school exam grading controversy

Merger proposal: algorithm article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: not merged. Although there was early consensus, the tide turned against it later. Wire723 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Propose to merge Ofqual exam results algorithm here. Much overlap between the two articles. --Wire723 (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - as that would make a good sub-topic for this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've changed my mind now, seeing the direction that Ofqual exam results algorithm has gone in, -- DeFacto (talk). 15:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Too soon Thanks to DeFacto for his excellent copy edit. I was penning the article last night, as new aspects kept emerging- the subject is still so unstable. The full nature of the algorithm is no released (I think) and it has not yet been described in Hansard. I would prefer to keep thethis article just describing the politics, and leave the technical aspects of the algorithm over there at arms length. Call me pessimistic but this article is likely to expand greatly over the next three or so years. Just today we have had This sleaze and have have hints of universities going bankrupt. There is an article waiting to be written on Moderation techniques used in A level examining pre 2019. My role was to get some facts onto WP -quickly when thousands could be searching-and will happily watch as the text is re-positioned but my advice is to wait. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge. This is essentially the same topic - the controversy was caused by the use of the algorithm. Fences&Windows 23:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support as what is known about the algorithm should be explained in enough detail in this page for the controversy to fully make sense. Andysmith248 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Comment above is slightly WP:CRYSTAL, but they're probably right long term. imo one article for now. Split again if need be in a few years. Way too much overlap for now. We're just ending up with two underdeveloped articles, and anything we add to one there's a good chance has to be added to the other too... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose That article has developed independently and focused more on the technical nature. Given the changes, it is no longer suitable for merge imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Well I am not biased in this regard. Probably many people will type exam controversy rather than Ofqual exam results algorithm to get the information. I appreciate DeFacto, Fences and windows, Tom Morris and Wire723 for the fine work in expanding this article. Abishe (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I proposed the move, now that the algorithm article has become more detailed and technical it will no longer fit well as a section here. --Wire723 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is probably good that the articles didn't get merged (yet). It is sad that the discussion in both articles is written as if by competing interest groups. Issues are discussed like on average would the algorithm have penalized state school students. Yet, the important technical fact which was discussed at the time in a few articles and well-understood wasn't about whether particular *groups* were treated unfairly. The issue was that the algorithm produced an exact copy of previous years' grade distribution for each classroom. On the level of grade distributions (averages etc etc) this is pretty unassailable, but the issue is what it does for *each individual student.* If in previous years the distribution in such-and-such school for Maths is A*, A, B, D, D, D then the fourth-best student in that class *will* get a D by the algorithm. Even if the poor kid worked his/her heart out to deserve an A*.

It would be like having a criminal justice system where the same number of people are convicted to life imprisonment in each town as had been the year before. The judges just rank the population by criminality and the twelfth worst criminal gets life in prison this year, if the twelfth-worst criminal got life in prison last year. No matter that *this* year in this small village, the twelfth worst criminal only committed littering.

Please someone try to deal with this, the notion that a system which was built to be politically unassailable from the statistics, would have been horribly unfair for individual students. That point is totally missed here, where all the discussion is on the things the algorithm would have done well, and the actual algorithm article misses the point of what was wrong now! Createangelos (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Widen to include Scottish Highers?

Almost the same algorithm and controversy played out earlier in the month in Scotland and many sources discuss them together.[1] [2]. 2020 United Kingdom school examinations grading controversies would cover it. Fences&Windows 23:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Support: I was going to suggest 2020 United Kingdom school examination grading controversy. And BTECS should be included too. [3]. TSventon (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Support the singular if anything. Pretty much all the same issue, commonly known as a single fiasco, even though it has multiple components. I don't think calling it a 'controversy' is accurate, and it's not really what any RS use. Fiasco is definitely the most common term amongst sources. Hence, per these reasons and the article title policy, I think the best title is 2020 United Kingdom exams fiasco. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose for now: I'm not sure at the moment as the article doesn't really cover Wales or Northern Ireland either. The nations are all different jurisdictions, have their own qualification regulators and policies. I'd say keep them separate for now, but do cover all secondary education qualifications in England, including BTECS, too.

And as the article covers more aspects of the problem of deciding qualifications during the Covid lock-down than just the controversy that resulted after the A level results were announced, I think we should rename it to something like: Effect of the Covid-19 lockdown on qualification grading in England. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Not even close to a common/recognisable name. 2020 United Kingdom education shutdown already exists for stuff outside this article's scope in that regard. The title is also a political opinion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: that's why I said "something like". Please feel free suggest an alternative, snappier and recognisable name, that will neutrally capture the essence of this article, which about how the grades were decided as well as how they were received and the aftermath. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, 2020 United Kingdom exams fiasco, it is the common name reported by media sources and most recognisable, it is accurate, and it is neutral. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Except that the article isn't just about the event that some media outlets editorialised as a 'fiasco'. That's just a small part of the content, so that title becomes even more inappropriate. What we need is a title that encapsulates all of the content, which is now about how the UK dealt with the processing of secondary school qualifications in 2020, due to all exams being cancelled because of Covid-19. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It's better to structure it around the fiasco, otherwise this topic likely wouldn't even be notable enough outside of 2020 United Kingdom education shutdown. Most RS only reported on it due to it turning into a mess. How I imagine the article looking, once developed, is (roughly): Background (what the exams are, who takes them, when, and the government cancelling them due to pandemic), what happened (the fiasco, the criticism, reporting, legal cases, hardline stance, u-turns), aftermath as it happens/is currently being discussed (Select Committee review, which will possibly result in a complete restructuring of Ofqual, effect on universities admissions numbers and intakes, effect on 2021 cohort, social ladder discussions being raised, etc...), obviously broken down into further sections/sub-sections. Hence I don't think my proposed title is bad. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that this story wouldn't be notable if it wasn't for the way the algorithm turned out. This story started when the reliable sources reported that exams were cancelled in March. And exam results always make the news, even when uneventful. That these results led to massive grade inflation wouldn't have gone unreported. This story would have run for days even if the algorithm had worked as intended. The algorithm failure shouldn't be used as an excuse to hijack the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto, perhaps you may wish to reconsider your approach to engaging in articles. In other words, perhaps start... writing, instead of just reverting and stonewalling, especially given history? Frankly, I can't be bothered to edit war with you, but since this is the 3rd article I've encountered you on and each time all you seem to do is revert and disappear, I figure it's a good idea to suggest that if you indiscriminately disagree with everything someone else writes, and mass-revert, you might either (a) want to incrementally improve instead or (b) start writing yourself. Frankly, it just makes others not want to participate on articles you insert yourself into, and I'm personally past that point. The only result is that articles will remain undeveloped. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, as I didn't recognise the picture you painted, I went to the trouble of making a tally of our respective edits to this article. By my count, 74% of my edits made net increases to the article content, yet only 50% of yours did. I'd suggest that if you are going to throw allegations about another editor, that you: a) check your facts first, b) do it on their talkpage and not that of the article.

And perhaps, rather than whinging if someone doesn't fully agree with content you've added, you could open a section on it in the talkpage, and not make unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations about the behaviour of another editor. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

On the note of them being different, yes, technically each devolved government took their own decision, since education is a devolved matter. In practice, they all followed exactly the same plan/decisions as the UK government did for England, and ended up with the same mess. Only Scotland has different examinations, the rest have the same qualifications and exam bodies (and probably used the same algorithm). It's silly to have 4 separate articles for this, and copy+paste the content in here word-for-word into each, replacing simply the country names. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Replace the word "controversy" with "uproar" seems good. I have no idea how to change it myself though. 61.68.254.45 (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Reboot

This discussion seems to have petered out without conclusion last year. It still strikes me as strange that the article title only refers to GCSE and A-levels when the devolved nations, particularly Scotland, had the same issue with Highers and so on. The article also now contains an improvement tag suggesting that we increase coverage of the controversy as it applies in the devolved nations, but improving the article to cover the situation in Scotland (say) then further draws the article content away from the title. From the discussion above, clearly "controversy" and "uproar" are far too far, but looking back now, it still was and is controversial, and it still is an illustrative lesson of the perils of the use of algorithms by government, so I'd suggest we steer away from just classifying it as just a sub-story of the educational response to COVID in the UK. As such, I'd be keen on moving the article to "2020 United Kingdom examination grading controversy", omitting 'school' because A-levels are not taken exclusively by students in school, but can be taken independently, in colleges, and other educational institutions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

BTEC results

BTECs seem to have passed under the radar! BTECs Students wishing to follow a vocational route take BTEC courses, Level 1 & 2 lead to GCSEs, and Level 3 lead to A levels. The Level 3 grade was issued, withdrawn and reissued- level 2 weren't issued but were remarked. So what was the standardisation technique? How did Pearson get the contract?--ClemRutter (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The 'Vocational qualifications' subsection at Ofqual exam results algorithm could be moved here. The history re Pearson is outlined at General Certificate of Secondary Education#Examination boards. --Wire723 (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

This is more than a Start. I have upped Schools to C- I don't think I can justify a B, as there are issues not addressed. Needs to be discussed-any opinions?--ClemRutter (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Financial implications

The Guardian raises the issue of examination fee rebates "Headteachers call for 75% examination fee rebate in England". the Guardian. 2021-06-15.. This give some tantalising details of the costs to school of an A level entry- and the cost to teachers time of continual assessment- both in 2020 and 2021. 2021 is out of scope for this article. Quo vadis magister? --ClemRutter (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. For increasing clarity and also being more inclusive in scope. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

---

2020 UK GCSE and A-Level grading controversy → 2020 United Kingdom school exam grading controversy – Fewer acronyms and more clear to international readers as per WP:NAME. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• {{{1}}} Sounds sensible to me, especially since it also includes BTECs. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.