Exclusive: How Ofqual's grading system can produce inaccurate results

3rd June 2016 at 01:01
Comparable outcomes
Exam board research reveals system cannot always cope with the extremes of today's volatile entry patterns

Ofqual’s GCSE and A-level grade-inflation clampdown produces inaccurate results when faced with the extremes of today’s volatile entry patterns, exam-board research reveals.

Recent years have seen dramatic switches between qualifications, and targeting of particular pupils, by large numbers of schools seeking to maximise their grades and meet official targets. Now, two exam-board reports, seen by TES, have led to serious concerns about whether Ofqual’s statistical approach to grading – known as comparable outcomes – can cope with these sudden changes.

One of the reports, compiled by Cambridge Assessment, was commissioned by Ofqual. It finds that the watchdog’s approach to predicting where grades should be set underestimates “the true extent” of differences in cohorts taking qualifications from different boards.

The research finds that exams with “generally high-attaining candidates end up with predicted outcomes that are too low while those with generally low attaining candidates will end up with predicted outcomes that are too high”.

The findings suggest that, as more schools change exam-entry patterns to give themselves the best chance of meeting ever-tougher accountability measures, it will become increasingly difficult for comparable outcomes to produce accurate and fair exam grades.

One exams industry insider told TES that Ofqual’s approach “makes assumptions about things being the same from year to year, and in a system which is constantly reconfiguring itself, it’s just not true”.

Ofqual says that, overall, comparable outcomes can cope with changing cohorts. But the watchdog accepts that the system allowed grades for an English language IGCSE to be too “lenient” in 2014.

Cath Jadhav, Ofqual’s associate director for standards and comparability, said: “All exam boards are aware of the many technical issues they face in awarding and look to manage them appropriately. We monitor this aspect of their work very closely.”

This is an edited article from the 3 June edition of TES. Subscribers can read the full article here. This week's TES magazine is available in all good newsagents. To download the digital edition, Android users can click here and iOS users can click here

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES on Twitter and like TES on Facebook



Related Content

Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar, Buyagift.com, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today